Talk:Municipalities with language facilities

Lack of neutrality

I do think there's a lot of bias on those wiki pages and I'd lack to see less Flemish propaganda. However, I do not have enough time to take part to the editing of the pages. Is there anyway to alert a moderator? I think on such controversial/debated subjects as the linguistic and regional "problems" in Belgium, there's much need for a neutral moderator to overview the wiki pages. It is worth noting that the majority of contributors to wiki Belgium seem to be from the Flemish part of the country. The clear lack of neutrality comes, for example, in listing in this section (Municipalities with language facilities) a whole lot of the negative aspects of the "Actual implementation of language facilities" on the French-speaking side, without putting it into context at all ("In terms of local public services and communication, it seems that the Flemish municipalities with facilities have a correct bilingual communication", while "some Walloon municipalities with facilities appear monolingual in their general communication towards their inhabitants": it would be worth mentioning that some of those great Flemish municipalities which are so nicely multi-lingual are just on the outskirt of a multi-cultural capital with above 70% of French speakers and a good deal of other nationalities, the case of the monolingual Walloon municipalities being maybe a bit different). Even statements of facts can be very manipulative when they come out of context, and this is what propaganda can be all about! Then there are simple wrong statements, with no referencing, such as "It is, however, worth noting that Le Soir (a French-language local Brussels newspaper) supports the demands of the militant Front des Francophones, as many of its editors live in the municipalities with facilities." The statement that Le Soir is a local Brussels newspaper is simply completely wrong, and nothing in this sentence is backed up by facts. Moreover, this sentence brings nothing to the wiki page but yet more Flemish bias. I pointed this out, but there would be much more to discuss about. I do honestly think some of the wiki pages about Belgium lack greatly in quality simply because people cannot stay neutral and no one seems to be moderating the subject with care. A pity. Manoni (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

about the lack of neutrality: I do not think there is lack of neutrality on this page. Honestly, this page (or wikipedia in general) can be quite different than what is read in international newspapers on these topics, but I think the bias is in those newspapers, not here. Remeber that the international reporters in Brussels tend to only follow the French as most of them are only fluent in French. 84.195.182.23 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"It is worth noting that the majority of contributors to wiki Belgium seem to be from the Flemish part of the country"

In order to contribute to an English wiki-page, one needs at least a basic knowledge of the language. Most Walloons would't even recognize the English language (or the Dutch for that matter) if it slapped them in the face. I wish I were kidding, but I'm not 81.88.110.49 (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, 81.88.110.49, if you're going to insult someone, don't hide behind an IP address; and BTW, your English isn't good enough to have spotted the incorrect modifier in the title.Laburke (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

German speaking community vs German language region

I wonder whether the title "Municipalities in Wallonia belonging to the German speaking community with French-language facilities" shouldn't be replaced by "Municipalities in Wallonia belonging to the German language region with French-language facilities" ("German language region" comes from Art.4 of the Belgian Constitution: in Dutch "België omvat vier taalgebieden : het Nederlandse taalgebied, het Franse taalgebied, het tweetalige gebied Brussel-Hoofdstad en het Duitse taalgebied." or in French "La Belgique comprend quatre régions linguistiques : la région de langue française, la région de langue néerlandaise, la région bilingue de Bruxelles-Capitale et la région de langue allemande.") ??? -- Edcolins 17:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that would indeed be better, so no problem at all for me if changed. D.D. 20:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

That might be confusing. te Belgian constitution has two different concepts: regions as one of the instituional levels (3) and linguistic areas (4 such areas). In the French version of the constitution, the same word is used for both (région), while the Ducth has two different words (gewesten (3) and 'taalgebieden', where the word 'taalgebied' translates in English in 'linguitic areas' or something like that. the word gebied translating in 'area', 'region' and 'territories'.

Moreover, as of today, altough many german-speakers (including theur minister-president) would like to obtain the regional institutions (and thus seperate from Wallonia), maybe using German language area or German language territory is more precise. Just an idea. --Rudi Dierick 14:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Belgium is divided in 3 regions (Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia) and 3 communities (German speaking, French speaking and Dutch speaking).Julien Tuerlinckx 00:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

railways

In "in addition, in certain such municipalities, there are also publicly funded schools for the language minority, as well as railway services", I don't grasp the "railway" part. Does this allude to the extension of the Brussels's STIB/MIVB tram network outside of Brussels and inside Flanders ? Regardless of who's paying for these rails, I fail to see how they relate to facilities. Rails don't talk, AFAIK. --FvdP 03:22, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Information given in railway stations in municipalities with language facilities is also gibven in the minority language. Regards

Factual sources of the information needed

Removed two subjective parts:

"Most of those French-speakers did want to respect the equal rights of the local Flemish population. They acted as if they had superior rights."

and

"That Flemings who migrate towards Wallonia integrate fairly well, whereas many French-speakers migrating to the Flemish region do not, or only partially."

Are there any opinion polls showing this? Please cite your sources. Verifiable facts needed. --Edcolins 13:47, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

There is indeed a HUGE typographic error in the first sentence, correct wording being "Most of those French-speakers did not want to respect the equal rights of the local Flemish population. They acted as if they had superior rights.". This is generally accepted knowledge among all scientists publishing on these topics. One of the indications is that the same 30 and 50% thresholds were used to determine these muncipalities, and how the percentages evolved since: in Wallonie, the minority integrated and its percentage of the population rather declined. Around Brussels, the percentage of French-speakers hugely increased, and in the other Flemish cities onthe border with Wallonie, it apparently remained more or less stable (or decreased slightly). Do you deny this? Or are you just sceptical? --Rudi Dierick 20:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please cite your sources. Claiming "This is generally accepted knowledge among all scientists publishing on these topics" is not enough to allow everyone to verify your claims. Your interpretation seems to be original research of yours. --Edcolins 08:25, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Some sources (I assume, as you insist on discussing community issues in belgium, that you are certainly capable of understandng the foolowing quotes): De Morgen van 5 feb 2005, p.30-31, tweepaginalang interview met Beatrice Delvaux en Luc Delfosse, resp. hoofdredacteur en adjunct-hoofdredacteur van Le Soir.

Delvaux: "Franstaligen die in Vlaanderen wonen en geen Nederlands spreken, dat gaat er bij mij niet in. Ik woon zelf in Vlaanderen en heb met mijn buren nog nooit spontaan Frans gesproken."

Waar in Vlaanderen woont u?

Delvaux: "Dilbeek. (hilariteit). Ja, ja, Dilbeek, 'waar Vlamingen thuis zijn'. Ik vind het normaal dat ik in de winkel en op de voetbalclub Nederlands praat. En ik kan me ergeren aan Franstaligen die in een Nederlandstalige school hardnekkig Frans blijven spreken."

Delfosse: "Laat me het even wat brutaler zeggen. De Franstaligen in Vlaanderen kunnen zich zo niet blijven gedragen. De tijd van het kolonialisme is voorbij: in Kongo, in Indonesië, maar ook in de Brusselse rand. Franstaligen die zich in de Vlaamse rand vestigen, moeten Nederlands leren. Ik woon in Waals-Brabant, waar zich de laatste jaren duizenden Vlamingen vestigden. Zij spreken Frans, hun kinderen gaan naar een Franstalige school. Hun integratie verloopt heel snel en natuurlijk."

Dear, I do agree with your desire to obtain more authoritative information on this. However, as you know that I'm contributing quite a lot overhere, I am getting the feeling that there is a huge imbalance in this. Furthermore, I'm getting the feeling that several of the other contributors -speaking in general, not about you- on these pages are incapable of properly understanding Ducth. This creates the situation where people insist on their version of 'facts' where they are incapable of analysing relevant sources, and thus being reduced to what (in the case of Nicnac25) a very hostile and anti-Flemish press says about Flanders. --Rudi Dierick 11:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In addition, I have a very bad experience with providng sources on this kind of articles: whenever I do provide sources (and spend time looking things up), teher is only poor aknowledgemenet and acceptance, and certain contributors as Nicnac25 just continue as if I provided nothing at all, and continue imposing their partisan points of view (including, to give a recent example) the statement that in Flanders and Wallonia, the communiti--Rudi Dierick 11:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)es would have authority over the municipalities (which is a plain error, as it are the regions, everywhere).

As a final remark, most of the references I have on Flanders are in print, and often spread over a large number of books, making it a significant effort to get to precise references. As a general remark: the statements you asked for sources, are based on writings of different autors as prof. Philippe van Parijs (UCL), prof. Rudy Janssens (VUB), and press articles from Hugo Fonteyn (DS) and others.

To conclude: it is so cheap (as some others do) to erase whatever you don't like, never to provide any relevant, authoritative sources, and then to shout that I have to provide references. This is really not a 'satisfacory' working technique for Wikipedia, especailly as there is no 'sanction' at all for those who are systematically wrong and whom erronuously deleted information. Whenever I write opinion articles for the press (as my last on the referendum on the European constitution from friday 27 Jan in De Tijd), I make sure that I can substantiate any fact I mention. However, I hope you understand that with these forums so 'polluted' by people as Nicnac25, Im becoming very selective what requests for further information and sources I do answer and which not. By the way, if you prefer, we can continue this discussion on how to proceed also via email (rudi.dierick@skynet.be).

official denomination

Karel Anthonissen replaced 'Their official denomination is 'municipalities with a special status'.' by 'They are so-called 'municipalities with a special status'.' I don't understand why: this is the official denomination, the expression "communes à facilités" does not exist in legal texts. There are several official denominations: 'communes dotées d'un régime spécial en vue de la protection de leurs minorités' (communes that have been given a special regime in view of the protection of their minorities) or 'communes à régime spécial', divided into 2 categories, 'communes périphériques' (around Brussels) and 'communes de la frontière linguistique' (see: '18 JUILLET 1966. - Lois sur l'emploi des langues en matière administrative'). The other original law on this matter ('30 JUILLET 1963. - Loi concernant le régime linguistique dans l'enseignement') also refers to 'communes dotées d'un régime spécial en vue de la protection de leurs minorités'. For the rest, his modifications indeed neutralize the previous excesses of a Flemish nationalist, 'Rudi Dierick', about whom I think it would be wise to look at all his modifications on wikipedia, he seems obsessed by his Flemish nationalism and by his opposition against Turkey becoming a EU member, and his 'contributions' are mostly non-neutral. --Pylambert 10:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your observation. I can answer your question: the only reason for that particular change was that http://www.juridat.be/cgi_loi/legislation.pl only gives general acces to Belgian legislation, which is of no direct use to readers. It is nevertheless possible to make a more concrete link, for example the Law of July 18, 1966: in Dutch or in French. But even these are not very usefull to English readers. Karel Anthonissen 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Move to most commonly used terminology in English

The former article name 'Municipalities with linguistic facilities' became 'Municipalities with language facilities'.
The Wikipedia guidelines leave no option other than to use the term with most common usage in English for an article title, and a glance at Google results (as suggested by the guidelines for this determination) delivers nearly five times as many 'language facilities' [265] for Belgium than 'linguistic regions' [58] (just counting the actual pages shown by Google, not the uninformative and entirely unverifiable 'hits'). My advanced Google search was on pages in English including one of the words 'Belgium' or 'Belgian', and the specific terms as exact phrase (and excluded 'programming').
Furthermore, it is also more normal and unambiguous English because 'linguistic' can refer to linguistics, the study of languages, and that usage is more common than simply referring to plain languages spoken somewhere. Full details:

813 English pages for Belgium OR Belgian "language areas" -wiki -wikimedia -wikipedia -wikimiki.
357 English pages for Belgium OR Belgian "language regions" -wiki -wikimedia -wikipedia -wikimiki.
439 English pages for Belgium OR Belgian "linguistic regions" -wiki -wikimedia -wikipedia -wikimiki.
374 English pages for Belgium OR Belgian "linguistic areas" -wiki -wikimedia -wikipedia -wikimiki.
'language area' most common; within this context, 'language' is also more common than 'linguistic', and 'area' is more common than 'region'

265 English pages for Belgium OR Belgian "language facilities" -programming -wiki -wikimedia -wikipedia -wikimiki.
 58 English pages for Belgium OR Belgian "linguistic facilities" -programming -wiki -wikimedia -wikipedia -wikimiki.
'language facilities' most common; hence'language' is also in this context more common than 'linguistic'

  4 English pages for Belgium OR Belgian "municipalities with language facilities" -wiki -wikimedia -wikipedia -wikimiki.
  1 English pages for Belgium OR Belgian "communes with language facilities" -wiki -wikimedia -wikipedia -wikimiki.
  9 English pages for Belgium OR Belgian "municipalities with linguistic facilities" -wiki -wikimedia -wikipedia -wikimiki.
 13 English pages for Belgium OR Belgian "communes with linguistic facilities" -wiki -wikimedia -wikipedia -wikimiki.
'communes' (14) is equally common than 'municipalities' (13) and 'linguistic' more common than 'language', both in this highly specific context, but the total number of availabe pages is far too low to draw any valid conclusions as to "common usage in English", the expression is simply too rare and occurrances may well originate from even fewer sources. Closer inspection of the 13 'communes with linguistic facilities' confirms this (mainly originating at the Council of Europe or referring to it as a source, and another even states "the linguistic facilities accorded to the French-speaking residents of the six communities ").

Thus on the English language Wikipedia, the terms 'language area' and 'language facilities' need to be used for titles of articles, and in absence of sufficient data for 'municipalities/communes with...' shown neither to be common nor to have formed a coined expression, hence 'common usage' will be that which is found to be most common comparing 'language facilities' and 'linguistic facilities'.

— SomeHuman 12 Jun2007 00:55 (UTC)

remadiate about the boycot

Some of the English language here needs to be cleaned-up by a native speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop it, Belgians!!!

Please, I beg of you, don't use the English Wikipedia to play out your internecine squabbles. Also, you might rate the importance of this article as being high, but do you really want the rest of the world to know how high you rate an article such as this? Ah, but perhaps they should know. By the way, a native English speaker might get a laugh out of the title. It's akin to saying, Cities with toilet facilities. The usual meanings of facility do not have the same connotation as facilité nor faciliteit. I suggest, Belgian cities with a choice of language, if you insist on even having this article. Affectionately,Laburke (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did my best to explain in the Introduction the two meanings of Facilities as they apply here. BTW, I believe the Flemish should fear the influences of English on their language much more than of French. Laburke (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actual implementation of language facilities

I think this part, should be rewritten

Especially, the: " In terms of Objective observations". Because, this is not objective.

1. "That the Flemish authorities finance French-speaking schools in the Flemish municipalities with facilities for the French-speakers (see below for a list; annual subvention nearly 10 millionEuro)"=> Not correct. The Flemish authorities, receive an annual sum allocated by the federal state to pay the schools. This sum depends on the number of students, so, the flemish receive also money for the French-speaking students from Flanders ( about 2600 students )

2. In contrast, the authorities of the French-speaking community do not finance Dutch-speaking schools in the Walloon municipalities with facilities for the Dutch-speakers => Again not true. The French speaking community finance ( via the federal state, see above ) a flemish school in Moucron ( Moescroen ), the "Broeders Maristen Instituut"

3. In terms of local public services and communication, it seems that the Flemish municipalities with facilities have a correct bilingual communication (e.g. their websites are bi- or even multi-lingual), whereas some Walloon municipalities with facilities appear monolingual in their general communication towards their inhabitants.=> Can someone please provide some sources ? I checked the 4 wallon municipalities websites, and only 1 is monolingual, the others are bi or multi lingual. On the other hand, 4 flemish municipalities with facilities for the french speakers do not have a french version : Mesen, Spiere-Helkijn, Ronse and Herstappe. ( Check done on 01/10/2010 )

Herstappe (the smallest comunity in Belgium, does not have a website. So, indeed no French version, but also no Dutch version, so what's the point? 87.66.141.86 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

4. ... although it de facto already severely restricts the facilities for Flemings, e.g. the monolingual communication of the Walloon municipalities involved, the blocking of all funding for Dutch-speaking schools, and at least one of the four municipalities required to offer facilities for Dutch-speakers, demands similar repeated requests for documents in their language per every instance.[2]=> Not correct. Monolingual communication ?( see above ). Blocking founding ? ( see above ).

Sources: http://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/politique/quand-la-flandre-ment-155737

http://pourquoipas.lalibreblogs.be/archive/2009/11/03/mythes-flamands-6-la-communaute-francaise-refuse-de-financer.html#more

http://www.lalibre.be/actu/belgique/article/392035/la-wallonie-a-aussi-ses-ecoles-a-facilites.html

And again in recent trends:

"Worse, the Experts of Venise, legal experts working on behalf of the Council of Europe,.....

If this report says that the french speakers cannot be concider as a national minority they are on the other hand a regional minority in Flanders and should be protected, and I'm quoting:" At the regional level, having regard to the distribution of competences between the various regions and communities and of the territorial division of the country, the Commission considers that French-speakers in the Dutch-language Region and in the German-language Region may be considered as a minority in the sense of the Framework Convention, as may Dutch-speakers and German-speakers in the French-language Region." ( See last point of the conclusion ) http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2002/CDL-AD%282002%29001-E.asp?MenuL=E Le Liegeois (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

September 2011: Removal of doubtful and harmful material as per Wikipedia Guidelines

1) Under the title Actual implementation of language facilities, a sub-section titled Communication used to include one single statement (cited below) which seems to have been written by Kvdh on 25 September 2008 at 21:35 and later moved to this separate sub-section "Communication" by SPQRobin on 13 October 2010 at 12:35. The allegation was not referenced; harmful to the Walloon municipalities with language facilities for Dutch-speakers; and it was based on a wrong statement (evidence provided below). Consequently, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, this statement was simply removed and the title of the sub-section combined with the next one (also dealing with communication matters):

“In terms of local public services and communication, it seems that the Flemish municipalities with facilities have a correct bilingual communication (their websites are bilingual or even multi-lingual), whereas most Walloon municipalities with facilities for Flemish appear monolingual in their general communication towards their inhabitants.”

• The above satement about websites is wrong:

The official websites of Dutch-speaking municipalities with language facilities for French-speakers are (on 1st September 2011):

• not available in French for 4 municipalities: Ronse/Renaix, Herstappe; Mensen/Messines (the French link reverts to “under construction”)) and Spiere-Helkijn/Espierres-Helchin (the French link provides a few titles in French below which the whole information is written only in Dutch).
• bilingual or multilingual for all other municipalities with language facilities (mainly thanks to the local council's will whose compositions reflects in most cases the French-speaking majority among the local population). The French version might be slightly lighter than the Dutch version in some instances (e.g. Biévène) but ensures proper access in French to most information.

For comparison: the official websites of French-speaking municipalities with language facilities for Dutch-speakers are (on 1st September 2011):

• not available in Dutch for 1 municipality: Comines-Warneton
• bilingual or multilingual for all other municipalities with language facilities. The Dutch version is slightly lighter than the French version for the municipality of Mouscron/Moeskroen but ensures proper access in Dutch to most information.

Links to the official website of every Dutch/French municipalities with language facilities in French/Dutch:

• Official website for the municipality of Drogenbos
• Official website for the municipality of Kraainem / Crainhem
• Official website for the municipality of Linkebeek
• Official website for the municipality of Sint-Genesius-Rode / Rhode-Saint-Genèse
• Official website for the municipality of Wemmel
• Official website for the municipality of Wezembeek-Oppem
• Official website for the municipality of Bever / Biévène
• Official website for the municipality of Herstappe
• Official website for the municipality of Mesen / Messines
• Official website for the municipality of Ronse / Renaix
• Official website for the municipality of Spiere-Helkijn / Espierres-Helchin
• Official website for the municipality of Voeren / Fourons
• Official website for the municipality of Comines-Warneton / Komen-Waasten
• Official website for the municipality of Enghien / Edingen
• Official website for the municipality of Flobecq / Vloesberg
• Official website for the municipality of Mouscron / Moeskroen

• The rest of the statement is not referenced nor backed by any evidence and is harmful to “most Walloon municipalities with facilities for Flemish”.

Consequently, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, this statement was simply removed. Aramidae (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

2) Under the title Actual implementation of language facilities, the sub-section recently renamed Communication and Translated documents used to include the following paragraph :

Nationalistic French speakers have generally considered that the ruling of the Flemish Chambers of the Council of State was politically motivated and legally unsound. The Walloon Region has not taken any formal step to restrict the use of facilities in a similar way for Dutch-speakers or German-speakers: although it de facto already severely restricts the facilities for Flemish: (the unilingual communication of the Walloon municipalities involved, the blocking of all funding for Dutch-speaking schools, and at least one of the four municipalities required to offer facilities for Dutch-speakers demands similar repeated requests for documents in their language per every instance) .

• The term “nationalistic” (which seems to have been added by 62.235.179.164 on 3 May 2010 at 10:28) induces a biased POV and can not be reasonably applied to French-speaking Belgians in general. Unlike the largest Flemish political party that received in 2010 the largest number of votes among Flemish electors (NVA), none of the 4 major French-speaking political parties representing all together the large majority of French-speaking Belgians uses the terms “nationalist” or “nationalistic” to qulify themselves or their electors, nor in their respective programmes. Therefore, the term was removed.

• The allegation (which seems to originate from Manoni on 25 November 2008 at 13:05) whereby the Walloon Region “de facto already severely restricts the facilities for Flemish: (the unilingual communication of the Walloon municipalities involved, the blocking of all funding for Dutch-speaking schools” is wrong, harmful and not backed by any reference. Until proven otherwise (with serious references backing such allegation):

-Apart from the specif case of Enghien in 2005 (kept in the article), the language facilities in Wallonia are generally implemented in accordance with the relevant linguistic laws and, since the Flemish region started to implement the measures decided by Leo Peeters and Luc Vandenbrande, in a less restrictive way than in Flanders.

- the French-speaking Community finances Dutch-speaking school(s) in accordance with the relevant linguistic laws (see the section “School” recently complemented with additional referenced information). Regarding to the Dutch-speaking school of Comines-Warneton (to which the author of this paragraph was probably reffering), the binding criteria of 16 heads of households had not been met. Therefore, the French-sepaking Community was not required to finance it and it would have been even entitled to oppose its establishement (whether financed by the Flemish Community or not).

Consequently, this part of the statement was removed in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines

The rest of the paragraph ("at least one of the four municipalities required to offer facilities for Dutch-speakers demands similar repeated requests for documents in their language per every instance" (including the reference), "French speakers have generally considered that the ruling of the Flemish Chambers of the Council of State was politically motivated and legally unsound" and "The Walloon Region has not taken any formal step to restrict the use of facilities in a similar way for Dutch-speakers or German-speakers") was maintained, though rephrased in order to be more specific and to better reflect the content of the cited article. Aramidae (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

3) In the section Recent trends, the following paragraph aimed at formulatinga wrong statement (see evidence below). Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, it was removed.

“The Experts of Venise, legal experts working on behalf of the Council of Europe, formulated a set of four criteria for determining if 'a minority' might qualify as a 'national minority'. Two of those criteria cannot be said to be satisfied for the French-speakers in Flanders (being lack of historic and peaceful relations between the minority and the national authority from which they request recognition and a 'sufficient number'). Other legal specialist also mention the historic nature of the minority and specific areas where the minority is established in sufficient number.”

The Resolution 1301 (2002) on Protection of minorities in Belgium recalls (among other things) that: “The Venice Commission concluded that, “at the regional level, having regard to the distribution of competences between the various regions and communities and of the territorial division of the country, the commission considers that French-speakers in the Dutch-language region and in the German-language region may be considered as a minority in the sense of the framework convention, as may Dutch-speakers and German-speakers in the French-language region.” The reading of the whole resolution (only 1-2 page(s) long) helps understanding the difference between the status of French-speakers at State level -co-dominance even though they are less numerous than Dutch-speakers- and at regional level in Flanders where they should be, according the Council of Europe's aforementionned resolution be considered as a “minority” in the sense of the framework convention. --Aramidae (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

References

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

easing up on language restrictions?

This article seems to imply that language facilities is simply the easing up on language restrictions. As in 'the official language of Mouscron is French, but since it's a municipality with language facilities the Walloon government and the city council can't say that only French can be used.'

This is a wrong depiction of the facts. In municipalities with language facilities the municipality is obligated to provide certain services to the designated linguistic group.--Wester (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Municipalities with language facilities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613135452/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta02%2FERES1301.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta02%2FERES1301.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613135452/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta02%2FERES1301.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta02%2FERES1301.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)