Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belgium/Alternate language names

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal, originally found at Talk:Halle, Belgium. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV: non-English non-local names in article lead of Belgian cities

By including the French name of this city, the article seems to imply (as many francophones want - e.g. the radical FDF francophone political party) that Halle is part of some bilingual Dutch-French region (like Brussels) or provides language facilities for French-speakers. This is not the case: Halle is a monolingual Dutch-speaking town that is part of the monolingual Flemish Region. The argument that is being used, is that the city is called differently in French, but this is not a valid argument: we do not add the Dutch name of Cologne (Keulen) to the Cologne article, or the Arab name of Brussels (إقليم بروكسل العاصمة) to the Brussels article. Why do we then have to add the French name be added to a Flemish city? This is by the way the English wikipedia, not the French - so the argument of French-speakers does not count (and no one objects to having a redirect from Hal to Halle). I suggest to remove the French name from this article, or at least from the lead, to restore the neutrality of the article. Sijo Ripa (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at the other articles concerning Belgian cities. We do put the name use by all belgians ( Dutch, French or German Speaker ). Have a look at Liege:

Liège (French pronunciation: [ljɛːʒ]; Dutch: Luik, [lœyk] ( listen); Walloon: Lidje; German: Lüttich; Latin: Leodium;

Namur:

Namur (Dutch: Namen (help·info), Nameur in Walloon) and so on.

So, it should stay. By the way, Cologne is not in Belgium and Arab is not a national language in Belgium. Le Liegeois (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And Halle is not in Wallonia and French is not an official language of Halle. You basically just proved my point on the POV...! On the Walloon cities: I have never said that I supported the Dutch or German names in these articles, though I can entirely understand the inclusion of the Latin names (as these were the city names before the French or Walloon names). Sijo Ripa (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please the same goes for Switzerland. Have a look at Basel. In Countries with more then 1 national language we use all the languages from this country. Le Liegeois (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Following your logic, we should then also change English wikipedia articles for cities like: Antwerp, Bruges, Ypres,...... English is not an official language in Belgium, but english speakers do not always use the Dutch name. But, if you have a look at the official Tourism website from Antwerpen, it says Antwerp in English and Anvers in french ( http://visit.antwerpen.be/bze.net?id=1470 ) Le Liegeois (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We should indeed always use the common English name like Antwerp, Bruges, Ypres and indeed Halle, simply because this is the English wikipedia and not the French or Dutch. Next to the English name, the local name should be mentioned. I am increasingly at loss on what you are trying to say, because your arguments support my point. Also, as said, I do not object a redirect from Hal to Halle, and I do not object that the French name is mentioned somewhere in the article. I do however object that the French name is put on par with the Dutch name in the lead, as this does not reflect actual usage of the French name in the English world and only seems to serve as a way to advance the position that this city, or by extension the whole of Flemish-Brabant is bilingual (Dutch-French), as some francophone radicals strive for. We should not give English speakers the false idea that these cities or provinces are bilingual - they are not, they are monolingual.Sijo Ripa (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem in putting the name of the cities in all 3 Belgian national languages ( when there is a difference ), this has nothing to do with radical french speakers. Belgians are using the name in there language and it could be therefore relevant to put them on the english wikipedia. Otherwise, as said previously, we need to remove every dutch and german names for cities in frenchspeaking Belgium, as well as in Switzerland, and all other multilingual countries. Flanders is still in Belgium and there are 3 national languages. But, if you prefer, you can remove all french name from Flemish cities as well as all dutch and german names for walloon and french cities. Can we then agreed on guidelines for all Belgian cities ( excluding Brussels capital region ). Or shall we vote then ? Le Liegeois (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your proposal sounds great! For Brussels and all municipalities with language facilities, both names should of course stay. I propose that the names used elsewhere in the country can also stay in the articles of other cities, but are moved out of the lead. We should also make sure that all names in the three languages are available as redirects, so that every language speaker can easily find his city. Can you agree on this? It seems that the "Belgian compromise" still exists :) Sijo Ripa (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Hi. Let's first get a couple things out of the way. There actually is a policy on alternate names in the lead; see Wikipedia:Lead#Alternative_names, more on that later. Next, there is no voting, as Wikipedia operates on consensus. Third, there are certainly not yet enough of us here to form a consensus for all articles on Belgium. Also, the examples and reductio ad absurdums that you are using are not especially helpful as examples, because this is a complex situation and it is not obvious that these articles should be analogous to any others.

Don't be hasty in changing every article in Belgium yet, I have invited members of Wikiproject Belgium to contribute to the discussion. Oreo Priest ^talk 17:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the policy I linked above states that "When [the] title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc.", so this really boils down to whether or not the off-language name is significant. Now for my opinion! In the case of Halle, Vilvoorde, and Sint-Pieters-Leeuw, these are in the suburbs of Brussels, which is a French-dominated city, and for better or for worse, there are a great deal of French speakers living in the surrounding area. This means that one is very likely to encounter the minority French name, and that it should be included, and one way or another it should be made clear that it is not locally official and not on par with the Dutch name. Having said that, I don't think having two names bolded in the lead causes as much confusion as you seem to think it does, and whatever confusion there is should be addressed in prose and not with the absence of useful information. Herne, Belgium is also near Brussels, and on the language border, so the same argument applies.

I also think that every major city in Belgium should have the off-language name. These are likely to be referred to often, appear on road signs throughout the country, and for historical reasons they are important. Again, it should be clear that Namur and not Namen is the local name, but cutting out the Dutch or French entirely is not the right way to go about doing that. Oreo Priest ^talk 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, local minority dialect names should not be removed (e.g. Walloon, West Flemish, etc.), especially not just to prove a point. Oreo Priest ^talk 17:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note in advance that the discussion is not about bolding the non-English non-local name (that would be even more POV, to say the least), but about whether the non-English non-local names have a place in the lead. This discussion is also about all towns in Belgium, not only the monolingual villages in the Flemish periphery. Just some other points: let's make sure we have a balanced mix of people involved in this discussion - several Flemings, several francophones and a mix of non-Belgians (preferably not living in Belgium and not French or Dutch speaking). Secondly, I completely agree that dialect names should not be removed. Thirdly, please note that I am not per se for removing the non-English non-local names out of the article, but rather out of the lead and that I support redirect names in all languages. Fourthly, let's not change any articles in the meantime until we have achieved consensus. Sijo Ripa (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad on the bolding, of course we shouldn't do that; I've had a long day. I specifically linked the settlements that I saw you had edited, in part so we don't forget to fix them when we're done. You're also right that this discussion is in principle about every settlement in Belgium, but it's good to have concrete examples. I would also argue that settlements near Brussels are a special case that settlements in Limburg or Hainaut, for example, are not.

As for contributions to the discussion, we can only take what comes, but a broad cross-section would be preferable. I think it is preferable that whatever contributors there be have some awareness of the situation, so I think not living in Belgium or speaking French or Dutch is counterproductive, and it's especially unlikely that any of them will come to contribute. But already we have a Walloon, a Fleming and an English-speaking foreigner, so it's a good start. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As no one else gets involved in the discussion, do any of you have any large objections to my solution? (see above) In my opinion, it seems fairly balanced. Sijo Ripa (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame, I thought there would be more contribution. I'm 100% with you in terms of redirects, although I think people are unlikely to use the German names of most cities. I do, however, thing it's not a good idea to move the other names outside of the lead; the lead is where other names belong, as is standard practice on Wikipedia as a whole, unless there's enough to say on the matter that it warrants its own section, which will rarely be the case. What do you think of what I proposed? Oreo Priest ^talk 17:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, Oreo Priest, I do not see how adding the French name to Flemish cities (or vice versa) can do anything else than result into POV, despite any other well-intended efforts to make it clear it is only a Dutch-speaking city. Indeed, the French name in the lead puts undue weight on it, giving it some French character which it does not have in reality. These cities are not bilingual. For me these names also are not necessary to be mentioned at all in the article -- so please do not use my compromise to argue now that if we indeed include the name, it should be in the lead. One could very well argue that the French name just does not belong in the article at all and that their exclusion could, in fact, be even the only NPOV solution. I however do see an easy solution to our problem: if I make a etymology section for each village, explaining where the name comes from, I can easily move the French and German names to that section. Etymology of city names is a standard practice is some encyclopediae and already has many precedences on Wikipedia, so it can be made a "regular case" (instead of "rare") for these cities. I am happy to hear your views on this. Sijo Ripa (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing POV about adding commonly used alternate names to the lead; see Gdańsk, Pristina, Nice, Lille, Maastricht, Geneva and Bern to name a few. I really don't see where you're coming from there. There is no 'undue weight' in mentioning that 'Rijsel' or 'Nizza' are alternate names for their respective cities that are frequently used and that the reader might very well come across. And keep in mind this isn't just an issue of adding French to cities in Flanders, it also applies to 'Namen' in Namur and 'Waver' in Wavre for example, both of which are likely to come up.

If you want to add an etymology section to every city in Belgium, go nuts, but I think you'll find it both a long and thankless task and difficult to find sources on. I really think at this point the best idea is to ask for an RFC, and I think you'll agree. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I do have in fact a (reliable) encyclopedia which seems to contain a brief etymology for most Belgian cities. The WNT also contains a well-referenced etymology for most cities and villages. I do not see why this would imply "going nuts" or would be "thankless". The etymology of city names is often quite interesting and it would surely improve the quality of the existing articles. I find it a bit disappointing that my efforts to find a solution are just swept from the table... when I was just trying to find an easy and quick compromise, following your point "I do, however, thing it's not a good idea to move the other names outside of the lead (...) unless there's enough to say on the matter that it warrants its own section." By the way, no one would ever think that a e.g., French city like Lille is bilingual because a Dutch name is added to it. In villages near Brussels, seen the very complex language situation in Belgium, people could however think that these villages are bilingual (officially or bilingual), while they are not (they have a clear Dutch-speaking majority). As such your analogy with other cities does not hold. Sijo Ripa (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

'Go nuts' isn't rude, it basically just means 'go ahead [and do as much as you could possibly want]'. 'Thankless' means that it would be a lot of work and you probably wouldn't get very much thanks out of it; in other words I think it would be hard and unfulfilling. If you really are up to adding etymologies for every settlement in Belgium, I think you should go for it, and you have my blessing, independent of this discussion (I love etymology!). I just didn't think you would be up for it.

On another note, if you think that cities far from Brussels are not problematic or ambiguous, then do you agree that the other language can stay in the lead? It would be nice to take those off the table.

As for putting the names outside of the lead, you completely mis-quoted me. I said "...it's not a good idea to move the other names outside of the lead; the lead is where other names belong, as is standard practice on Wikipedia as a whole". Putting them outside the lead usually only happens when there are too many to list in the lead; often the dedicated section also goes over the nuances and history of each name. And again, I really think the best way of clarifying what the official and actual status is is by saying so, not by hiding information. Oreo Priest ^talk 00:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternate city names in Belgium RFC

This discussion is not just about Halle, but about most cities in Belgium.

Belgium is an officially bilingual country, but two of its three regions are officially monolingual. At issue is whether, or under what circumstances, the (non-English) name of the city or town in the other official Belgian language should be presented in the lead of the article when it is not an official local language. Oreo Priest ^talk 01:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Background

First and foremost, the language situation in Belgium is a very sensitive and controversial issue. Languages_of_Belgium#Official_use_of_languages and the sub-articles and Frenchification of Brussels would be good places to start to get a feel for this. A brief summary of the current situation is that there is since recent years a minority of French speakers in the officially Dutch-speaking-only area around Brussels. To many French-speakers, this area should be incorporated in the Brussels Region (the Brussels region is officially bilingual (French-Dutch) but with a majority of French-speakers (85%) and thus de facto French speaking). They argue that this is a normal evolution, as Brussels is just an expanding city that should incorporate its suburbs. Many Dutch speakers disagree, as they fear that this would lead to an even stronger Frenchification of villages that have been entirely Dutch-speaking for centuries. They argue that French-speaking and other newcomers should learn and adapt to the language of the region they moved into. There is considerable bitterness on parts of both sides about how best to resolve this. In the areas not near Brussels or the language border, the country tends to be fairly homogeneous in terms of language. I imagine the number of French and Dutch speakers far from Brussels and the language border would be similar to the number of Englishmen in Scotland and Scots in England; they exist, but are a fairly small minority.

Some examples: Antwerp and Namur (big, far from the language border and Brussels), Halle and Wavre (medium-size, close to Brussels and the language border), and Groot-Bijgaarden and La Hulpe (small, close to Brussels). Not at issue are officially or semi-officially bilingual cities, small towns very far from the language border, or dialects that are neither standard French nor standard Dutch.

Positions

• User:Sijo Ripa thinks that putting a non-English non-local name on par with the local name in the lead is POV (e.g., the French Hal for Halle, or the Dutch Namen for Namur), as it gives the false impression that these monolingual cities are in fact bilingual. These names are thus also unlikely to be used by English speakers. The analogy with examples of cities on other countries does not hold. E.g., No one would think that a French city like Lille is bilingual because a Dutch name is added to it. In villages near e.g., Brussels however, seen the very complex language situation in Belgium, people could however easily think that these villages are bilingual (officially or by daily practice), while they are not (they have a in this example clear Dutch-speaking majority). Putting both names on par is thus misleading/confusing and POV. Sijo therefore argues that these non-local non-English names should be transferred from the lead to a mention elsewhere in the article. Sijo supports redirects using the names in different languages (as does Oreo Priest).
• User:Oreo Priest thinks that the other language's name is likely to be encountered in other places by the reader. Under Wikipedia:Lead#Alternative_names, it states that "When [the] title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc.", so this really boils down to whether or not the off-language name is significant. In the case of Halle, Wavre, Groot-Bijgaarden and La Hulpe, they are very close to Brussels and in its sphere of influence, so both names are likely to come up (French names especially so, but Dutch of course should be included where relevant). He also thinks that every major city in Belgium (e.g. Antwerp, Namur) should have the off-language name. These are likely to be referred to often, appear on road signs throughout the country, and were often historically more prevalent. It should be in every case made clear which name is official and which name is not, but the lead is the place for alternate names, as with everywhere on Wikipedia (see Gdańsk, Pristina, Nice, Lille, Maastricht, Geneva and Bern to name a few), and hiding information in an unexpected place or cutting it out entirely is not the appropriate way to communicate the linguistic status of a city.

Comments

• I second Oreo Priest in that off-language names are worth mentioning, especially if the other language is one of the national languages. To avoid creating the impression the city or locality is bilingual, alternative names should not be included in the infobox but confined to the lead, in italics, not in bold, between brackets, and appearing after the local name. --Hooiwind (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Personally, I think that readers are very likely to have encounter the French name for a officially-Dutch town, and vice versa; so we should include those in the lede of the article - where necessary this can be framed in brackets, or something like that, to avoid giving the impression that it's an official name. Very many reliable sources will use these names so we can hardly omit them. Some redirects may also be appropriate. bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Responding to the RFC: As long as the other language is an official national language of the country in which the city is located, it should be included. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• I see no problem in mentioning the Dutch name of a French-speaking town and vice versa in the lead. Also the German name, where this is distinct (e.g. Lüttich for Liège/Luik), and the French and Dutch names (where distinct) for German-speaking towns. If distinct names in other Belgian regional languages are verifiable, there's no reason not to add them, too (e.g. a distinct Walloon name for Antwerp or Ghent, or a distinct Flemish [as opposed to Dutch] name for Namur or Liège). If there are so many names that the parenthesized string after the bolded title is getting out of hand, however, then maybe a separate ==Names== section is called for. If the whole issue is getting complicated, maybe a WP:Manual of Style (Belgium-related articles) should be initiated. —Angr (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oreo Priest could be wrong when he says that Belgium is officially bilingual: if I'm not mistaken, there are three official languages in Belgium. Ghpwc (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Seconding Oreo Priest and Kurdo777. Keep the non-local names as long as they're in an official national language. --Kristian 15:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

I think there's a clear consensus that the off-language name should be included in the lead. While some are in favour of also including German, I think it would make more sense to have it appear where appropriate rather than it being a blanket policy. Oreo Priest ^talk 21:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.