Talk:Brussels

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 14 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Siarra360, Resolute Bewilderment. Peer reviewers: Siarra360.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 September 2018 and 6 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sabrina smith98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox picture

I was thinking of putting one of these pictures I found in the commons up as the infobox picture, since the old image was deleted. They would help people looking at the article an idea about how part of Brussels looks, but didn't want to make the change if no one agreed with me. The Panorama looks good when put at the right size in the infobox. Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the modern buildings in it are still under "copyright", so these are no better than the panorama. However, I think this is a good policy gone excessively paranoid, so I'll put up the second. We could also make a collage with only old buildings if we wanted... Oreo Priest ^talk 16:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Brussels Capital Region vs. Greater London as capital of respective countries

What is the difference really? The City of Brussels, not Brussels itself, is listed as the capital of Belgium, while Greater London, not the City of Westminster, a city within the English region of Greater London, is listed as the capital of the UK. If we are going to list only the City of Brussels as the capital of Belgium, should Westminster be only listed for the capital of the UK instead of Greater London? If this has been discussed before I apologize, but I am not finding such discussion on this page.Bjoh249 (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't say how the situation in the UK works, but in Belgium it's pretty simple: the capital is explicitly identified in the Belgian constitution, and it's the City of Brussels - article 194 of the Constitution. So, for Belgium that's the end of the discussion - the capital is the city, not the Brussels Capital Region. AFAIK the UK has no written constitution, so for them there may be some wiggle room; but not for Belgium. We have a very clear and definitive authoritative source. 85.28.110.57 (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Brussels REGION is the de facto capital CITY of the EU?

Do we have any reason to believe (i.e. references) that it is the REGION Brussels that is the de facto capital of the EU, as opposed to the CITY of Brussels? If no such references exist, I propose that we change the article so that the CITY of Brussels is the de facto capital. I'm proposing this because OH MY GOD IT IS SO CONFUSING TO SEE BRUSSELS AS THE CAPITAL CITY OF THE EU, BUT NOT OF BELGIUM, BECAUSE THE ARTICLE IS ACTUALLY ABOUT THE REGION, AND HOW CAN THE REGION BE A CAPITAL CITY? IT CAN'T! BUT IT CAN OF THE EU! OMG IT TOOK ME LIKE HALF HOUR TO FIGURE ALL OF THIS OUT!!! </rant> (hope there's not Wikipedia rules against capitalized rants) Gabiteodoru (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Region" is just the legal status of the entity. It's really just a big city that everyone calls "Brussels". The City of Brussels is a municipality within the city. It's probably easiest to think of it as a capital city that technically has the same powers as a Region, somewhat in the same way that Washinton DC is an autonomous region. Oreo Priest ^talk 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. People were very careful about not calling the region the capital of Belgium, but calling the city the capital of Belgium (I understand that here it doesn't actually have to do with its region/city status, but with the Belgian constitution). However, shouldn't we be equally careful about whether to call the city or the region the de facto capital of the EU? I feel that currently we are not, and think we should fix that. Gabiteodoru (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

They don't have to be different. A region/district/state can be a capital city. See Berlin. What's for sure is that it's not the City of Brussels municipality that's the de facto capital, most of the institutions aren't even in it. Oreo Priest ^talk 11:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Are they not? (Well, I do see that you are (interested in things?) Belgian, so I am taking that into account). But when I stare at this map, it seems that the most important ones (Justus Lipsius, Espace Leopold), are actually within the City of Brussels. Is that incorrect?

Also, do any of Belgium's official institutions fall outside the City of Brussels? If yes, then one can argue that although the City of Brussels is the official capital of Belgium, the Region Brussels if the de facto capital of Belgium. Gabiteodoru (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the Berlaymont is also within the City of Brussels. Some of the offices (various DGs and so on) are based in other municipalities, however.

While it doesn't explicitly say it, the article already basically implies that the region is the de facto capital of Belgium in the second paragraph of the "In Belgian politics" section, I think. --David Edgar (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. And David Edgar is correct on all counts. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've edited the page saying that the region is the de facto capital, the city is the de jure capital. I think it reads better and is less confusing when writing it like this. Take a look and see if you're happy with the changes. Thanks! Gabiteodoru (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the constitution bit as it's too much detail for the lead, and it's explained later on. Otherwise, your changes look good. FYI there is a rule against capitalized rants on WP, it's considered yelling and uncivil. No harm done though. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. The constitution part was already there before my edit, it said "constitutional capital". Let's pat ourselves on the back for another successful edit! :) And I'll try to stay off the capitalized rants :) Gabiteodoru (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Many of the European buildings are located in Etterbeek. So, yes the region is the de facto capital, not solely the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.117.249.20 (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.247.240.184 (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Some WP:ORy assertion based on three sources: 1. a primary source which fails verification (do not OR interpret primaries) 2. Demey, Thierry (can't access) 3. footnote pretending to be a reference) claims "Brussels is the de facto capital of the European Union", but that nonsense claim is not repeated in the more specific Brussels and the European Union "The EU has no official capital, and no plans to declare one, but Brussels hosts the..." or Capital city#Intergovernmental organizations "...they do not use the term "capital" for any city." Changed lede to remove claim not supported by the same source used in the other more specific article, and definitively ruled out as having no capital city. Widefox; talk 02:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have reverted as these changes would not be consistent with outher pages such as Institutional seats of the European Union and Brussels and the European Union. I'm not sure we should put more sources into the lead but here's some good ones for the issue.

1. Hein, Carola (2004), The Capital of Europe: Architecture and Urban Planning for the European Union, Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 9780275978747, ISSN 1538-9626
2. Cybriwsky, Roman (2013), Capital Cities Around the World: An Encyclopedia of Geography, History, and Culture, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 9781610692489

Andrew D. (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Andrew D.

1. Cybriwsky, Roman claims there's three EU capitals. The WP:LEDE should just summarise the body, not simplify a nuanced issue down to a new claim ignoring that it is not the de jure capital. Some sources may call it a de facto but as it's not the de jure so we should explain that, else most folk would just read that "it's the capital" - which it isn't per WP:BALANCE / WP:WEIGHT. It may also be standard practice not to have the "considered" in WP's voice - i.e. attribute per {{whom}}. I much preferred the previous version wording in Brussels and the European Union that the EU has no capital de jure, and then explain the nuances. I see the wording of this is not stable, and has been changing - it's easy - this sort of complexity probably shouldn't be in the lede.
2. The other issue is that this article is about the Brussels-Capital Region, and not the city (per nuances above). Something is required to explain/disambiguate the actual Brussels (seemingly a second de facto / de jure issue).
3. Institutional seats of the European Union is much better "The seven institutions of the European Union (EU) are seated in four different cities, i.e. Brussels, Frankfurt, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, rather than being concentrated in a single capital city" Widefox; talk 09:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Andrew D. the argument to make consistent with the other articles is somewhat moot - they are also not stable and changed between our edits. I repeat - due to the complexity, and that it is not per WP:LEDE a "basic fact" - it is factually, legally not the capital of the EU - but merely some consider it so (or one of three!) - as correctly referenced, it should come out of the lede as it gives undue WEIGHT to that counterfactual (it is not the de jure capital, and there is explicitly none per the primary source in the previous version). I would welcome your reply as per source above the current text is a mess, and should be fixed per consensus (or in the absence of one, simply removed from the lede). Widefox; talk 20:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes ! All of the prominent politicians come to us. Welcome .

Missing Twin City

There may be a city missing from the sister/twinning cities list. The Wikipedia entry for Manneken Pis states:

"There is also a statue of Manneken Pis in Tokushima, Japan, which was a present from the Belgian embassy (Tokushima being twinned with Brussels)."

I don't know how to verify this nor do I know how to edit the sister cities listings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk • contribs) 00:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

First Solvay conference was not in 1927

If you follow the link supplied with the picture of the 1927 Solvay conference, you come to the wikipedia page which unambiguously states that the first conference was in 1911. The subtext on the picture on the 'Brussels' page states the first conference was in 1927. Please fix this. 129.241.172.204 (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Image

I made this image last may and I'm wondering if it can be added somewhere in this article. Image link --Viscontino (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added it to the article Grand Place, but I don't think it really belongs in the article on Brussels as a whole. -Oreo Priest ^talk 15:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. --Viscontino (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Huge problem in the introduction

In the second sentence of the introduction, the sentence cannot be found when editing but is still within the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuitblanchisseur (talk • contribs) 23:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think we're dealing with a server lag here. The edit was reverted--it's in memory somewhere but needs to be refreshed. Considering donating to Wikipedia for better hardware... Drmies (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Done. Thanks for letting us know. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

German version of the name

Seeing as Belgium is trilingual (I know Brussels isn't), shouldn't German be added to the Dutch and French translations of the city's name? After all, it's the capital of trilingual Belgium. --Cymru123 (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Most people don't seem to think it should. Or so has been my observation from watching this page anyways. I can see your point, but it isn't really a local language, so I am ever so slightly against including it. To be honest though I don't really think it makes a big difference one way or the other. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Welsh is an official language in Wales. Should the London article show the Welsh name for London, Llundain? It surely does not, and neither shall Brussels show its name in German. "Belgium" is no more, in fact in a way rather less, trilingual than the UK heptalingual: Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Scots, Ulster Scots, Welsh, Cornish - "recognised regional languages" according to the infobox - which six are much like all three languages of Belgium, a country that does not have any "official language" in the sense of English in the UK: to be officially accepted in all locations.

Exactly like in the UK however, there is no location anywhere that is supposed to accept all the country's languages.
​▲ SomeHuman 2012-10-31 21:30 - 2012-11-01 00:25 (UTC)

Although I agree with your conclusion, to be fair SomeHuman, all of the Federal Government's websites are available in German, and if you buy medication anywhere in the country it will have all three national languages on it. So German in Belgium is slightly more 'national' than Welsh in the UK, but only slightly. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad we agree, basically. I'm not quite sure though, whether the pharmacological practice is a legal requirement or simply the cheapest solution to distribute medicinal products (including the many marked A, B or C on the package as recognized for the health insurance system), which all must adhere to language regulations for being sold in the different areas, in a small market. The Belgian federal government does indeed have the obligation to follow the better practice, compared to the UK's in London, which 'profits' from one official language being valid in all its regions, as I had mentioned.
​▲ SomeHuman 2012-11-05 16:33-17:06 (UTC)

I take it that you were not suggesting a Directive Peeters bis: In Flemish municipalities with language facilities, a pharmacist must deliver medicinal products accompanied by documents only in the sole official language of the region, unless and only upon each separate request for documentation in the language of inhabitants enjoying these facilities.   ;-D
​▲ SomeHuman 2012-11-05 17:31 (UTC)

I think it is ok if you click on the de-language version to learn that the town is called Brüssel in German. --

2012 population figures

The official population figures have been updated, see http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/binaries/3_Wettelijke_bevolking_per_gemeente_2011_2012_G_NL_tcm325-194205.xls the official population of brussels 1.138.854 as of jan 1st 2012, however I'm not entirely sure how to change the infobox without screwing it up so I'm just mentioning it here, this is the figure of what people usually understand as "Brussel" (aka the region) the population of the "Brussels" minicipality is now 166.497, I'm sure the metro area has changed too but I don't know which municipalities are taken into account to calculate the metro population The population density of the region has risen to 1.138.854/161.38= 7057/km² --Lamadude (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata problem?

I notice that when I click on "edit links" under the interwiki list of this article I get to Q9005 in Wikidata, also called "Brussels", to which, however, this article does not belong (it is in Q240 = Brussels-Capital Region). Could we have a problem here? Is Wikidata assuming that names in Wikidata and the English Wikipedia are always the same? – Umbert' (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime the topic "Brussels" in Wikidata is marked as "City of Brussels (Belgium's capital) and Brussels-Capital Region, as a combined topic", and somehow "edit links" now links to "Brussels-Capital Region" (240) alright. Somebody seems to have juggled with "Brussels", "Brussels-Capital Region", and "City of Brussels" in the right way. – Umbert' (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I got a Wikidata problem too. I can't Thai wikilinks into this article through wikidata. It says something about this item already existed even I didn't see any link to Thai Wikipedia. I tried the classic way of adding the link manually too, but it seems adding through wikidata is the only way now. --Kelos omos1 (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC) I dont Qdfr (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Random letter strings

Is anyone else seeing random strings of characters (ex: egfdf;GFRTKYMLKJH) in the article that don't appear when you try to edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.172.185 (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

'Competences' of a government is not correct English

Please note that referring to 'competences' of a government is not correct English. See [1], for example. Oreo Priest ^talk 12:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

And that's not the only problem in that section. I slapped a {{copy edit}} on it. Mathglot (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Brussels

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Urban area vs. administrative division

This article is a mess. The lead suggests the topic is the Brussels-Capital Region, but the article itself is mostly about Brussels as an urban area. The history section starts in the year 580, although the Brussels-Capital Region as a political entity was only created in 1980. This creates unnecessary confusion. It would be more logical if a seperate article was created to deal with the Brussels-Capital Region as an administrative division. Similar examples are the seperate articles on London and Greater London, Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory or Brasília and the Brazilian Federal District. Tridek Sep (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I put some effort into it and rewrote parts of the article and placed other text in more appropriate sections. This article even had an entire topic that was split into two by a section that was later added!

The part about the instituational situation in Brussels should be less confusing now.

I, however, still think it would be better to have a seperate article on the Brussels-Capital Region. The French Wikipedia follows this logic, as they have separate articles titled Bruxelles (about the urban area) and Région de Bruxelles-Capital (about the region). Of course they also have an article about the city, called Ville de Bruxelles.

The Dutch version is maybe even better; their article Brussel is a disambiguation page from were you can access Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest or Brussel (stad).

The way the English Wikipedia includes information on the Brussels-Capital Region inside the article about Brussels as a ‘large city’ is definitely the worst solution. Tridek Sep (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree completely. We should have an article "Brussels-Capital Region" (stupid name but there you go, presumably they didn't consult an English-speaker before choosing it), and keep "Brussels" for the city. This would be much clearer. I am curious about the outlying municipalities though (places like Anderlecht and Jette) – were they part of some sort of "Brussels" before 1980? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

More examples: São Paulo and São Paulo (state); New York City and New York, Albany, New York and Capital District (a mistitled article imho); New Delhi and National Capital Territory of Delhi. For more, see Capital region or Capital districts and territories. Mathglot (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree, and this has already been done to death and the clear consensus was the current version. Almost always, when people say 'Brussels', they mean it in the larger sense: 19 communes. The use of just 'Brussels' to refer to the City of Brussels municipality, which has spidery projections ranging from ULB and avenue Louise up to the sleepy Laeken area, is very rare, and not what anyone means when they say 'Brussels'. Oreo Priest ^talk 07:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I did not suggest to delete or rename this article. Cheers. — 37 ^(talk) 01:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    • There seem to be multiple opinions floating around. To be clear, if what you're proposing is that content specific to the administrative status of the region gets forked, and that the "large city" stuff stays here (and the small municipality stays where it is), then I support it. Otherwise, things should be left as they are. Oreo Priest ^talk 22:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    • "content specific to the administrative status of the region gets forked, and that the "large city" stuff stays here (and the small municipality stays where it is)": that sounds like an excellent idea. When most people say "Brussels" they mean a city that has been the national capital since 1830; not a region that was called into existence in 1980. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

We should definitely split to the administrative district and the capital. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Disagree A single article should be maintained. - Ssolbergj (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • With respect, it would help discussion if you could indicate why you take that to be the case. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• FWIW, it used to be that way, see this version of "Bussels-Capital Region" before it was merged into "Brussels". I have since always been slightly annoyed by the anomaly that the city of Brussels, which is technically just like any other city (Antwerp, Namur, ...), is uniquely named City of Brussels, whereas the Brussels-Capital Region, on equal footing with the Flemish Region and Walloon Region, gets to be titled simply Brussels. @Andreas Philopater: as for prior to 1980: debate about the structure and which municipalities are part of it goes back to at least the 1920s. Ultimately Haren, Laken, and Heembeek were annexed to Brussels, and 15 municipalities were legally defined as the "Brussels agglomeration", mostly for the purposes of language laws. Evere, Ganshoren and Sint-Agatha-Berchem were added to the agglomeration in 1954. In 1971 the Brussels agglomeration got institutions, which were the precursors to the current Region and its institutions. SPQRobin (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the information. It does reinforce me in the view that city / agglomeration / region should be three separate articles. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Brussels

Missing information: Demonyn

Can someone please update as I don't know how to! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sworfiga (talk • contribs) 09:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Names of the 19 municipalities

I notice that the separate articles dealing with the 19 municipalities alternate inconsistently between the French and Dutch names (assuming they differ, which in most cases they do) - for instance, St. Gilles/Sint-Gillis has only the French name in the heading, whereas St.-Jean-Molenbeek/Sint-Jans-Molenbeek has only the Dutch one. Since in practice Brussels now has a French-speaking majority and French is the lingua franca in the city, it would seem more sensible to me to use the French names in the headings or - better still - to use both, but with the French name first. English-speakers are surely far more likely to use the French names, if only because they probably know how to pronounce them. I'm aware this is a sensitive issue in Belgium itself, but these are English-language articles for English-speakers and should surely reflect the most common English practice. I've put this comment on the talk page for Brussels, rather than on 19 different talk pages, which I'm afraid would simply be too much effort!213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Large period of early modern history missing

The Early Modern period in the History section skips from 1555 (Charles V abdication) to 1695 (nine years war). I know that there was a flourishing court in Brussels at the beginning of the C17, but there is no mention of it in the article. If anyone can add something of this (I am not a historian, regrettably), it would be appreciated and improve the article. Thank you. Nick Michael (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Small mistake in the introduction

‘’Brussels is also part of a large conurbation which extends between Brussels, Ghent, Antwerp, Leuven and Walloon Brabant and is home to over 5 million people.’’

This so called large conurbation is not called by it’s name; ‘The flemish diamond’ and it extends between the 4 city’s, not the province of Walloon Brabant wich is misplaced here. I’am sorry I opened a discution for this small mater but for some reason I’am unable to edit it. Falco iron (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not called by this as it does not only refer to the Flemish diamond, which is more used in Flanders. It would be a bigger mistake to omit Walloon Brabant, which factually is much more linked to the Brussels Capital-Region than Ghent or Antwerp, and entirely takes part, on the contrary of Flemish Brabant, in Brussels metropolitan area. (Can't find them right now but cf. studies & maps KU Leuven, 1991 and UCL, 2017). Thibaleine (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The only reason to say that Walloon Brabant is linked to the Brussels capital region is language; the fact that the majority in the Brussels capital region speaks French. In that case you might as wel say Île de France is more linked to the region than Ghent, Antwerp... Primarily the Brussels capital region is enirely located inside flemish Brabant, and therefor shares no borders with Walloon Brabant. Also the flemish diamond is an economic bases idea with the 4 city’s as it’s only defined borders, none of the metropoliantan areas in it streches even through Walloon Brabant. Therefor mentioning it is a mistake. Another exemple of such a mistake would be for exemple to include the Dutch province of Nothern Brabant as it is verry close to Antwerp and shares it’s language. Falco iron (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

90% French-speaking

We've seen this figure appearing several times over the years, consistently copied from either politically coloured websites or ready-made, cleary biased or naive press releases. The figure of 90% French-speakers reflects "the ability to speak French at a satisfying level", according to academic research, or alternatively the number of tax declarations filed or phone bills drafted in that language. It should not, however, be used to prove its relative weight in the language palet of the city, as the sum of all others would add up to well over 100%. Detailed academic research is provided in the language section of the article as well as in well-sourced related articles. "Sourcing" a claim with a brief, unelaborated press release gives it undue weight unworthy of Wikipedia. --Hooiwind (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article covers the urban area as a whole, not just the Brussels-Capital Region. It is therefore preferable to avoid specific percentages, as no official numbers exist, and stick to facts not subject to disputed interpretation. --Hooiwind (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a shame that almost a decade after having succeeded, after thorough screening, to get an article on the language issue in Brussels promoted to featured content status on both the Dutch and French wikipedias, some people still consider a manifestly neutral point of view biased as the inaccuracies in their claims and the flaws in their sources are pointed out. When translating almost word for word sections of those featured articles, armed up to the teeth by abundant, detailed and bipartisan academic research (instead of trivial press releases or frivolous manifestos), I think it is safe to say the quality of my edits is irreproachable and my good faith is not merely obvious, but demonstrated. I would therefore like to request the administrator to protect my edits against reverts by individuals trying to push their views, in flagrant denial of evidence and consensus on the other two Wikipedias most likely not to agree with each other on the issue. --Hooiwind (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the content - I just saw an edit war and put a stop to it - Jason Lagos please discuss your issues here, If you don't you'll be reverted once the protection expires and any future edit wars will see you blocked, Edit summaries don't count towards "a discussion". –Davey2010^Talk 11:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This also applies to anyone else who's been reverting here. –Davey2010^Talk 11:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hoowind, I will try to expose to you some of my concerns with your edits above: You make no reference (other than the map) to the original dialect of Brussels (‘Bruxellois’ or ‘Brusselaar’), which is not exactly Dutch, but has a “significant number of loanwords from French, and still survives among a minority of inhabitants” and the fact that “the ethnic and national self-identification of the inhabitants is/was quite different along some ethnic lines”, instead of some imagined historically monolithic Dutch-speaking city. In your sentence “The main cause of this transition was the rapid assimilation of the Flemish population”, the word ‘assimilation’ has a very negative connotation, i.e. the process whereby a minority group gradually adapts to the customs and attitudes of the dominant culture. The previous sentence: “(...) the language change over several generations from Dutch to French that was carried out by Flemish inhabitants themselves (...) partly based on the low social prestige of the Dutch language in Belgium at the time” is more nuanced and gives less of an impression of deculturalisation or forced integration, which is closer to reality. In your sentence “This process of assimilation weakened after the 1960s, as the language border was fixed, the status of Dutch as an official language was reenforced, and the economic centre of gravity shifted northward to Flanders.”, the word ‘reenforced’ is too strong. The previous sentence “only after the socio-economic development of Flanders was in full effect, could Dutch stem the tide of increasing French use” gives less of an idea of increase and more of a stabilisation (or decreased dwindling) of the Dutch language in Brussels, which again is closer to reality. Your edits minimise or even omit some important communautarian issues, e.g. the splitting of BHV and the fact that “the French-speaking population regards the language border as artificial and demands the extension of the bilingual region to at least all six municipalities with language facilities in the surroundings of Brussels” (and removed this map), which is an important issue of Brussels/Belgian politics. All these points, among others, thus amplify what seems to me, and to many other wiki users, as a clear (Dutch-speaking) bias from your part. --Jason Lagos (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jason, for all the bias you may think to detect, I always strive to be intellectually honest.

• 1. Multiple references are made to the dialectal situation (not only with the map, but also when the text reads "standardisation of Dutch was still very weak in Belgium" - implying dialects were very common - and "the original Brabantian dialect was no longer passed on to the next generation"). The fact that the Brussels' variant had relatively more loanwords from French than Brabantian elsewhere (which had plenty as well) does not make the Brussels dialect less Brabantian. In turn, the fact that the everyday language used was the Brabantian dialect, rather than the Dutch standard language, does not make Brussels less of a historically Dutch-speaking city, as Dutch was historically the common language of culture. This situation was shared with most of Europe at the time; pretending otherwise would render impossible to speak of, say, Italian, Dutch or German-speaking cities before the 19th century, understating and banalising the language shift that took place here. My edits stay true to the content and wording of the numerous qualitative references provided throughout.
• 2. As the previous references to self-identification in one way or another were completely orginal research and my edits stayed clear of such anachronistic political interpretation, I will comment no further.
• 3. "Assimilation" is the word used in academic literature when assessing the process of language shift, which in this case is a synonym; it is therefore a neutral term. Do check in the references (you can even find the page numbers in the code). Nowhere the text implies "forced integration", although the situation at the time left little choice for those wanting to get ahead in life (again, I did not invent this, please check the sources).
• 4. Reenforced when referring to the language laws of the 1960s, is not wrong, though confirmed could do the job as well. Indeed, in 1966 a specific law regarding the use of languages in Brussels was voted, entrenching, for the first time, the use of both languages on equal footing. The wording "only then [...] could Dutch stem the tide of increasing French use" makes abstraction of the fact that the relative position of Dutch continued to dwindle as the city diversified and immigrants adopted French in most cases. What was halted was the conversion of Dutch to French among Dutch-speakers, not the decline of Dutch at large.
• 5. BHV and other current political sensibilities have little to do with the historical and current language situation as such (there's a separate section on politics). That said, I had no intention of deliberately deleting the assertion that French-speakers regard the language border as artificial (as a matter of fact, that too is a sentence copied from other articles written by myself on the subject). It indeed deserves to be mentioned somewhere.
• 6. Finally, I must insist that my edits are not merely my edits, let alone my views, as they basically come down to a translation of the leads of the French and Dutch featured articles on the subject and over 40 academic papers are provided as reference works. --Hooiwind (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Multilingualism, multi-culture. Nevertheless .

Population of the city. A single associative virtual society.

(There are many common denominators... )91.183.159.198 (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Arms of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Air

I propose a restructuring of ideas on this category. I'm enlisted in International Studies 350 and my task is to enhance the Brussels, Travel, Air category. Siarra360 (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Brussels for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Brussels is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Brussels until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not have Authority control

The AC added quicklinks to eight different databases for viewers to quickly access. Why is its value considered "essentially zero"?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia rule about the first sentence of the lead

“The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. It should be in plain English. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information can be placed elsewhere.” --Lubiesque (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

"Languages" subsection

This section (and particularly the first paragraph) is bombarded with citations, to the point where it is annoying to read. One sentence does not need five references. 2600:1702:6D0:5160:ADCC:6A21:BC56:B8DB (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Grand-Place with or without hyphen

Ian Dalziel, the proper name is written with a hyphen.

• The city of Brussels says so: [2]
• UNESCO says so while assigning world heritage status: [3]
• Openstreetmap says so: [4] and Google [5]
• The city museum says so: Musée de la Ville de Bruxelles, Grand-Place, 1000 Bruxelles [6]
• The city hall says so: Hôtel de Ville – Grand-Place – 1000 Bruxelles [7]
• Scientific journals use Grand-Place [8]
• Here is a find from the Library of Congress: [9] The title is "Bruxelles. Les maisons de la Grande Place" using the correct French grammar for a female noun plus adjective in female form which was drafted by the photographer more than 100 years ago, but the LoC librarians categorized it as "Subject Headings: Grand-Place (Brussels, Belgium) .."
• There are tons of fr:Grand-Place in wallonais Belge et France du Nord, and in this region it is the common name for the largest market square of the town, which developed from la grande place via Grand'Place to Grand-Place. [10] explains with an example the concatenation with a hyphen: The granny la grand-mère came from la grande mère - a hyphen is needed. I assume that many English speaker are not accustomed to the rule and therefore use the qualifier Grand like in Grand Hotel.
• The list above is just a collection of examples, and I am quite sure that you may find examples which show the opposite. Where do we find a reliable source? Does the city of Brussels has a list of streetnames and name of parks and places?

--Gunnar (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I make no claim that use of the hyphen is wrong. I do take issue with dismissing the spelling used on the signs round the square - which I estimate have been there for about a century - as a typo. Personally, I'd incline towards spelling it Grand'Place, but that's entirely irrelevant! I think there should be an explicit note about the versions. Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Ian, the claim is that Grand Place (without a hypen) is a wrong toponym to identify the main square of Brussels. There are two villages which are written without a hyphen but that's their name and not the one of the Brussels square. The note about the acceptable name versions and their development can be found at the relevant article: Grand-Place#Naming. --Gunnar (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Metro

It says that the Brussels metro is "the only rapid-transit in Belgium" - but that's not true, is it? Charleroi has a Metro as well, with 10 underground stations, the rest above ground. 85.167.34.27 (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Coat of arms of Saint-Jean-de-Molenbeek.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Move this page to Brussels-Capital Region

Please move this page to Brussels-Capital Region to avoid confusion with the City of Brussels. Guspurius296289 (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Picture layout

Jason Lagos raised an issue on my talk page that I am adding here for a fuller discussion. In my edit yesterday, I moved all images to the default location on the right, per WP:IMAGELOCATION, but Jason reports difficulties with pictures not aligning with sections, and white space at Transport. Jason, how are you viewing the article? When I look at it on my browser or on the mobile app, the images are all appropriately placed and much easier to view than having them staggered left and right. However I would like to hear from others to see if problems have arisen for others too. Happy to go with consensus. I've just tweaked the Transport section slightly, as the distance table may as well go at the top of the section - perhaps that helps the white space problem? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Road network Brussels

Hi Laterthanyouthink, thank you for your prompt reply and for raising a note here. I am using Wikipedia's Vector legacy 2010 appearance on my browser. I have checked and the problem does not seem to occur in the Vector 2022 (default) appearance, nor on the mobile app. The previous layout with the staggered images did not cause any problem with either setting. As I suggested on your user page, I could trim a few pictures to see if it helps (this article has a bit too many anyway in my opinion). I also agree with your move of the distance table to the top of the section for the reason you specified (though it did not solve the white space at the bottom of that section, see attached picture). On a bit of a side note, I wonder about this table's usefulness altogether. It is unsourced and other European capitals' articles do not specify such distances, so I would be happy to remove it, unless other users disagree. Jason Lagos (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jason Lagos. Ah, I see. I was not aware of that version. I've just checked and I am using the MonoBook version on my browser, because I find it easier for editing, and didn't think to look at the new version. Just go ahead and do what works best on all versions, in that case. It looks as if you've removed the distance table and some of the pictures, which is fine by me. I agree that the article is rather over-endowed with photos! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again - indeed, I tested several options by moving some pictures and deleting a few others, but unfortunately, it did not suffice (if we are to keep at least one illustration per subsection), so I partially restored the staggered look in the 'History' and 'Languages' sections, whilst keeping all the other ones on the right. It is not perfect, but an acceptable compromise in my view for now. I also removed a 'clear' tag which seemed to have been the main cause of the white space, so at least that is solved! Jason Lagos (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)