Talk:Brussels/Archive 2

Wrong information about Spain
The article talked about Charles V 's "unified Spain". Spain was not unified until the arrival of the Borbons, so I've corrected it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.47.158.240 (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Population density is wrong...
There is no way that the density is only 200/KM2. In fact in 2003 it was already well past the 6000/KM2 mark
 * Indeed. I corrected it. I haven't checked when the wrong number was entered... Fram 19:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Palace of Justice
There is no mentioning of it. It was the largest building on earth when it was erected. --Johannes Hüsing 20:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it merits a mention, possibly most appropriately in the "Places of interest" section.
 * There's already an article on it, Law Courts of Brussels.
 * Do you have a reference for the claim about the size? I've heard a lot of similar statements but don't know which are true (eg. largest on earth, largest in Europe, largest built in the 19th century. Also, does 'largest' mean by length & width, by total volume, by floorspace or what?) --David Edgar 10:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OtherUses template
Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.

For a sample use of this template refer to the articles Alabama or Algiers-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talk • contribs).
 * Note that that functionality is now at . OtherUses redirects to, and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move of name for communes of the Brussels Region
User:Diemietrie placed a block move on WP:RM to move some "communes of the Brussels Region are bilingual and don't have an English name (sometimes the French name is more in common, sometimes the Dutch name, according to Google search). Therefore a uniform bilingual title like is also done for the communes of South Tyrol is the best solution here, with respect to both languages" If you wish to participate in this debate please see Talk:Brussels-Capital Region --Philip Baird Shearer 14:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sports clubs
Hi guys, I still don't understand why you don't want a link to hockey clubs in the sports clubs section. We even have 2nd div foot clubs so why remove the 1st class hockey clubs? Hockey is an important sport in Brussels/Belgium so what? Julien Tuerlinckx 11:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture
I added a picture that I took on one of my recent visits. --^pirate 17:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

International French
The French pronunciation of Bruxelles with a "k" (BruKsel) is heard not just in France, but also in Switzerland, Canada, Africa, Oceania, etc, so I removed the "often mistakenly pronounced /bʁyksɛl/ by citizens of France" (what's a language "mistake" anyway...), and replaced it with "International French". Hardouin 01:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your revision could imply, however, that the local pronunciation  is not accepted elsewhere. To be honest, I think the majority of Belgians would consider  a mistake, just as I consider a mistake the fact that some people outside of my state (Illinois) pronounce the "s" when local Illinoisans don't. I thus propose the following: "French: Bruxelles, pronounced  in  Belgian French and often  by non-Belgian speakers of French." As long as we have the French pronunciaiton, we also need to put up at least the Dutch and possibly the German pronunciations; I will attempt that. Lesgles ( talk ) 02:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

BruKsel is a mistake, as is AuKserre. Moreover, it is a mistake that is losing ground even in France. I propose to reinstate the original text. --Melodius 16:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

BruKsel is definitely a mistake. It just happens to be a common one outside of Belgium. --Pushit 12:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we should even mention BruKsel, if we mention the correct pronunciation then it should be obvious that the other pronunciations are wrong. Or maybe this should be mentioned later in the article or in a footnote. Do we really want the very first thing people read about Brussels to be some boring statement about different pronunciations in the French language? --Lamadude 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In my view the wording is fine as it is: we should mention the 'wrong' pronunciation "for the avoidance of doubt" as lawyers say - it just clarifies things. TobyJ 18:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Safety
This section looks utterly POV to me, seems to try to mark 2 dubious points: Brussels has a high crime rate and Immigrants are (as always) the cause for that.

The audit:
 * According to Urban Audit, Brussels has the fourth highest crime rate of all European capitals and a murder rate about nearly ten times higher than that of London or Paris.
 * Who are "Urban Audit" ? How serious are them ?
 * What Brussels ? Brussels-center, Brussels-city, Brussels-region ? Since Urban Audit statistics are "per inhabitant", this is an important question, because there are relatively few inhabitants in Brussels-center in proportion to the people who just work there or pass there, comparatively to Brussels-region or Paris(75).
 * I don't know where the original writer found the 10x statistics. In Urban audit, for year 2001 (the last they provide), I found only about 2x (and fixed the text accordingly.) Here they are:

city        recorded crime per 1000 pop        violent deaths per 1000 pop

Brussels         153.94                           0.10 Inner London      83.37                           0.04 Paris (75?)      146.66                           0.02 Luxembourg       112.22                           0.00

as you see, Luxembourg looks quirte dangerous too, albeit much smaller and isolated than Brussels, which is surprising.

Now if the original writer multiplies by 5 an objective number, I wonder how much he multiplies his less objective statements (and also how he selects them).

--FvdP 17:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, my edit is not POV. I agree it is rather pessimistic, but all things written there are facts with proper references. If you know anything to cheer the section up, feel free to add it.
 * I don't know who Urban Audit are and how serious 'them' are. But I do know that: (i) they are referenced all over the internet, just do a Google search; (ii) you can say that about just about every reference that is not familiar to everyone on this planet.
 * This is not an acceptable answer. (i) so what ? (ii) too easy a way to skip the question ! --FvdP
 * I don't know either what part of Brussel they mean, but I don't see why that matters to this discussion. The number is per 1000 inhabitants, so it doesn't matter how big or populated the area is.
 * Because where there are only offices and most people in the street are commuters, like in the center of Brussels, no wonder the ratio (crimes / inhabitants) is high. --FvdP
 * Are you trying to prove me wrong with those numbers? I agree that almost 10x was an overestimate, although that is more accurate than your 2x. If I recall correctly, 0.1/0.04=2.5 and 0.1/0.02=5.0. So I changed it to this exact truth.1652186 18:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So you admit your 10x were indeed far off the mark. (How come you wrote 10x then ?) Now your fix to 5x only holds for violent deaths wrt Paris. Your original statement was about criminality in general: in that category, wrt Paris, the ratio is nearly 1-1. --FvdP 17:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (and i can't see how 10x is a more accurate approximation to 2.5x than my 2x.) --FvdP 17:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And I notice that in your "fix" you, naturally, so much predictably, only provide the "5x more crimes than in Paris". Fact selection, that is BLATANT POV in my book. --FvdP 17:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole section is too POV to be kept, unless it is strongly NPOVed. The original writer has shown above how prone he is to select facts that suit his views. The whole section smacks of that. --FvdP 17:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I agree with your changes in the article. That said, I do not accept the accusations here. I will not argue about your first two points (UA/part) because there are no facts to prove these statements either way, and I have already learned that discussions without facts are useless if points of view differ. However, I don't think it's illegal to quote a reference that isn't listed as the most reliable source in the world (I'm hereby not conceding anything), neither to use the word Brussels for whatever part of Brussels they are talking about.
 * You're trying to beg the question. It's important to make clear which part of Brussels the stats are about, because of the argument I presented. It's important to assess how reliable UA is. (Sure, they look serious and neutral, but that is no proof.) You make efforts to bring dark statistics, but don't care about what they actually mean or how well they are grounded in facts ??? Since you brought up the information, you are the one who should back it up. --FvdP

''So you admit your 10x were indeed far off the mark. (How come you wrote 10x then ?)'' i can't see how 10x is a more accurate approximation to 2.5x than my 2x
 * First, I wrote almost 10x. We're not trying to approximate 2.5. I was trying to approximate 5 (see further). 10/5.0=2.0<2.5=5.0/2.0
 * Then why didn't you write just "five" ? That's even shorter than "almost ten". Your "almost 10x" was never an approximation but at best an error, and at worst a lie. --FvdP

''And I notice that in your "fix" you, naturally, so much predictably, only provide the "5x more crimes than in Paris". Fact selection, that is BLATANT POV in my book.''
 * Fact selection is not POV if you select the most remarkable fact. Or should I quote every other ciy in the world?
 * (1) Balance is more important than showing off remarkable facts like sensations newspapers would do. The comparison becomes meaningless if you compare only with extreme cases. (2) fact selection is POV when it consistently supports a single POV. --FvdP 20:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

''I think the whole section is too POV to be kept, unless it is strongly NPOVed. The original writer has shown above how prone he is to select facts that suit his views. The whole section smacks of that.''
 * Go ahead. As long as you add only facts, I obviously have no problem with that. 1652186 19:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The hole point of this section is to publicize Vlaams Blok anti-muslim propaganda. As such, it has no place in an encyclopaedic article about Brussels, and I deleted it. --Melodius 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of safety
While I obviously can agree with corrections and POV balancing, the unacceptable just happened. Users Melodius and 212.68.251.92, obviously the same person, and just as obvious (jusk look at their conributions) sockpuppets, unilaterally deleted the entire section on safety, which has been worked upon and discussed (see above) for several weeks. I see this as blatant vandalism. 1652186 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed forget to sign in. The section on safety is totally irrelevant in an article about Brussels. Moreover, it is propaganda for a far-right political party, the Vlaams Belang. Create a specific article if you wish, but it is ridiculous to include 15 lines on petty crime interlaced with racist claptrap in a general article on a city which deals with, e.g. WW 2 in ONE LINE. What is unacceptable is your agitprop, nothing else. As for vandalism, the section about linguistic history is mostly my work, hardly the work of a vandal in other words. --Melodius 09:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course WWII is covered in only two lines, as it is in the history section. This section is about something that's happening now. But you're right, it was getting too long, I'll find a solution for that. In light of your last sentence, I'll have to reconsider that vandalising, and just say you were POV-ing. And please give me one good reason how a list of referenced facts could be propaganda, certainly with a last paragraph that relativates the rest. 1652186 11:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A list of facts - and I have serious doubts about the factual accuracy of your list - is propaganda when they are taken out of context and nothing puts them into perspective. Moreover, Brussels is harldy the only city in the world where people get mugged sometimes. I haven't seen a section on "safety" in the article about Bruges for instance, where Flemish skinheads beat an African and his Flemish friend so badly that the African might yet die. Do you think it would be fair to spend 5 lines on that in the article about Bruges ? Evidently, no. So I don't see why it would be different for Brussels. --Melodius 15:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I get your point and I partially agree. Therefore, I reduced the section to two lines and linked to a new article, as you suggested. This new section and the new article have however been vandalized already. 1652186 17:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I only kept the link to the new article for the reasons already mentioned. We'll continue the discussion on the ad hoc article. Meanwhile, I'm digging into the figures you provided. --Melodius 10:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob. 1652186 11:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Brusselsconnect.com
Dear Webmaster

Your website has a lot of useful information for our visitors We really like the site of brussels in wikipedia, and want to know if we’d be able to put our link on it.

Our website is www.brusselsconnect.com. It’s a cityguide for Brussels with an active online community. We provide our visitors with useful information, travel tips, restaurants, accommodation, nightlife and events, inside information covering living and working in Brussels, language schools, classifieds from visitors, a chat room, message boards, and much more.

you can contact me on brussels@goandconnect.com thank you Aurelie de Burbure

Infobox
Where is the infobox ?????????????
 * at Brussels-Capital Region --moyogo 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Brussels as a cultural centre?
There is next to nothing in this article about the cultural and artistic life of Brussels. Unfortunately I know next to nothing about this beyond the fact that the joke "Name five famous Belgians (but Stella and Artois only count as one)." is very unfair (and no one from beyond the British Isles understands it anyway), otherwise I would fix this. A few of starting points perhaps: Ireneshusband 19:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Flemish culture has been going on a long time
 * There are a good few Congolese living in Brussels, including musicians
 * Marcel Broodthaers
 * Hergé
 * Jan Bucquoy

Capital of Flanders
Re the change on 7 Sep, if Brussels isn't the capital of Flanders, but only that of the Flemish Community, then what is the capital of Flanders? Do we have to distinguish Flanders as a region of Belgium from the language community?TobyJ 12:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Brussels is the capital of both the Flemish Community and the Region, if those two are actually two different things. All their head institutions are in Brussels. --moyogo 12:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * TobyJ, Flanders cannot have a capital, as it is not as state. Flanders is the word used in the common language to designate the Flemish Community and the Flemish Region altogether, as these two, indeed, sort of merged when the Flemish Region was not organised, and its competencies were directly assumed by the Flemish Community.
 * Correct explanation from Bradipus.
 * So, when Brussels become the capital of the Flemish Community, as no capital was named for the Flemish Region, well, Brussels became sort of the capital of the Flemish Region.
 * But there is a little problem: the Flemish Region has no competence at all in Brussels, and it is of course not acceptable to say that Brussels is the capital of the Flemish Region, because Brussels is a region, the Brussels-Capital Region. This a bit like France deciding that the capital of France is Brussels.
 * This looks like an far-fetched play of words. And worse, here you neglect a very crucial distinction (between France and Flanders): it remains primarily the Flemish Community's insitutions which ae based in Brussels. This has been internationally recognosed by all EU states, oher states etc. It has ALSO been recognised by the French speaking partiers. Note that, if my memories are correct, some French-speaking hardliners have attempted to mount legal procedured against the Flemish community, but he've lost or their complaints have been deemed irrelevant etc. So France indeed has no competency in Brussels, where the Flemish Community is fully legitimately present in Brussels.
 * So, de facto, the Flemish Region has no capital and its administration is in Brussels, but it is just impossible to say that Brussels is the capital of the Flemish Region, because Brussels is not in the Flemish Region.
 * To those interested, this is part of a permanent fight between Flanders and Brussels-Capital Region: Flanders has difficulties accepting the mere existence of Brussels-Capital Region and constantly tries to question this.
 * Hmmm, this appears a misleading and factually inaccurate presentation of the situation. Only certain (many) French-speaking politicians (both in Brussels and in the Walloon region), object to that autonomous choice of the Flemings for Brussels as their capital! Moreover, ALL political representatives from the Flemings in Brussels explicitly defend that Flemish choice for Brussels as its capital. However, as the Brussels capital region is jointly governed by French-speakers and Flemings, you should not present it as if i is he Brussels region who opposes it, where in fact, it's only certain French-speakers (and how much of them, that's another question, which is not relevant here).
 * Bottomline is that saying that Brussels is the capital of Flanders is POV. The only NPOV text would be, if it necessary, that Brussels is the capital of the Flemish Community and the de facto capital of the Flemish Region. Bradipus 19:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Stritcly speaking, saying that "Brussels is the capital of the Flemish Community and the de facto capital of the Flemish Region" is correct. However, ordinary people don't care for so overly complex description. Moreover, you could just as well state something much simpler, and equally correct: for the Flemings, it's the community which matters; also, strictly legally speaking (which you pparently like to do), it is only the Flemish community which has a governemen and a parliament. The Flemish region has none! All those cmmunity regions assumed competencies of the region, which as, strictly legaly saking, left within no practical major institutions of its own. In addition, when people refer to 'their national institutions' they lok to minitsers, parliaments etc. so taking into account all that, it appears quite OK to me to say that 'Brussels is he capital of Flanders'. And indeed, as you correctly noted, when discussing the fine details of he institutions, a more detailled, more precise way of describing things is what you proposed. Therefore, your description looks apropriate in a specific chapters in institutional details, but not in a general article. Yours, Rudi.
 * Followig the same line of thinking, Toby, I hope this gives sufficient answer to you: in a general article or in an introduction of a general article, it appears more sensible to speak just about "Flanders" (short, concise and clear description); however, when a paragraph or an article primarily deals with the complexities of institutions then one indeed should make the distinction (but a the cost of ending up with a much more detailled description). According to me, a good encyclopediae, and thats wht Wikipedia wants to be, details should not burden geneal introduction, but left fr the appropriate place, being specialised articles or paragraphs. Rudi.

I must admit that I don't fully understand where the problem lies in this debate. Flanders as a separate entity is not constitutionally enshrined. The terms can cover a lot of meanings (the territory, the region with a small and a big R, the community with a small and a big C etc.). It is also used by officials and others to refer to the competences of the Region and the Community. As there is considerable overlap between the "assisse térritoriale" of both, one might get the impression that they constitute a homogenous entity, but in fact they are not. The Flemish Community's competences are not limited to the territory of the Flemish Region only, but extend to the Dutch-speaking or Flemish cultural institutions in Brussels, not the people living in Brussels. Therefore, Flanders, in its form of the Flemish Community, is competent in Brussels. The Flemish Region is not. The separation between these competences is amongst other reflected in:

- the fact Brussels deputies in the Flemish parliament are excluded from voting when regional issues are discussed - community competences in Brussels are delegated to the Flemish Community Commission (Vlaamse Gemeenschapscommissie) - separate ministerial responsibility for a "Brussels policy" within the Flemish government (to be taken up by a Brussels Fleming) that is distinct from the normal Flemish urban policy. -... --- Brussels is not the only example of a capital of a subnational entity which is located outside that entity's territory: have a look at the article on Chandigarh which "is a city in India that serves as the capital of two states: Punjab and Haryana. However, administratively, the city is not under the jurisdiction of either state, it is administered by the Centre government and hence classified as a union territory." MaartenVidal 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Extraterritorial capitals?
Interesting point, and probably one that would merit the attention of a constitutional lawyer. Thought experiment: Just suppose France _did_ decide to say Brussels was its capital? Could Brussels deny that? Yes it could - but is either of them righter than the other? Surely France has the sovereign right to say where it thinks its capital is. Equally Brussels (or possibly Belgium) has the right to decline that honour (as an individual can refuse a decoration). The two different views would each have currency within their respective states. But for the rest of us outsiders, I can't see that either belief necessarily takes precedence. An analogous situation comes to mind where we have "governments in exile": was the de facto capital of France and Belgium in fact London for a while during WWII?TobyJ 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all a question of sovereignity. A country can only execute its sovereignity on its territory, outside of that territory they have no powers and no competence. France would thus be able to relocate its capital to an other place inside France but not to a place outside its borders as that would mean an infraction on the territory and sovereign rights of an other country. As to the WWII comparison, both Brussels and Paris remained their countries capital, London was only the seat of the government in exile. -- fdewaele, 16 September 2006, 23:25

Complement EU
On December 16, 2004, The World Factbook, a publication of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) added an entry for the European Union. According to the CIA, the European Union was added because the EU "continues to accrue more nation-like characteristics for itself". Their reasoning was explained in this small statement in the introduction:

The evolution of the European Union (EU) from a regional economic agreement among six neighboring states in 1951 to today's supranational organization of 25 countries across the European continent stands as an unprecedented phenomenon in the annals of history... ... for such a large number of nation-states to cede some of their sovereignty to an overarching entity is truly unique... ... the EU ... has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded. Thus, inclusion of basic intelligence on the EU has been deemed appropriate as a new, separate entity in The World Factbook. However, because of the EU's special status, this description is placed after the regular country entries.

I might add that EU citizens have EU- numberplates, -passports, drivinglicense, the EU institutions, and regular election. I hope you support the small extension I made... all the best Lear 21 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice one CIA. But as far as I know the "EU number plates" are actually Belgian plates: EU officials can opt to have one numbered in this series. They have a sky blue border (rather than the normal Belgian red) and 7 (not 12) stars (which shows you how uncurrent they are). I believe they became a bit of a magnet for vandals and so fell out of favour, similarly to UK armed forces plates in Germany. I don't think any other Member States have a special series of plates for the use of EU institutions?TobyJ 08:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To correct myself, I have just seen a Belgian "EUR" plate with 12 yellow stars arranged in an oval around the number. (The EU decided to stick for ever with 12 even though there are now 25 members.)TobyJ 17:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While a lot of the points the CIA & Lear 21 makes are valid, I think they are still rather subjective. Before 'EU' being listed as the country, I would expect the article on the European Union to give more definitive reasoning as to it being commonly accepted as a nation.
 * Furthermore, it doesn't make sense that the article on Brussels should include 'EU' in this position in the infobox, while other cities do not include it in the corresponding positions in their infoboxes.
 * For these reasons I removed it. --David Edgar 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wordy
13-December-2006: Why did the intro text (mostly now moved to section "Political center") seem so wordy? A principle of clear writing is to avoid sentences with over 4 prepositional phrases or clauses: the first sentence of the intro had 16 clauses!!! Other sentences had similar gobs of prepositions and parentheticals. When sentences were shortened to fewer than 5 clauses, clarity improved. Beware wordy, rambling, meandering, and run-on sentences in other sections of the "Brussels" article. -Wikid77 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Linguistic situation
The description of the linguistic situation in Brussels is markedly unbalanced. If in 10% of the Brussels households only Dutch is spoken, in 10% both French and Dutch, in 50% only French, and in 33% French and another language (except for Dutch) - as is pretended in the current text - then: 1. Brussels would have a population of more than 100%; 2. there would be not a single household in Brussels where neither French nor Dutch is spoken. This is blind nonsense. There is an important - and presumably growing - share of the population who speaks neither Dutch nor French at home. Trying to obscure or to manipulate this social reality is POV, pretending that everybody who knows French also speaks this language at home is POV, and the partisan and widespread deduction that the number of French-speakers must be equal to 100% minus the number of people who speak nothing but Dutch (hence reducing the debate to downsizing versus maximizing the number of Flemings in Brussels) is POV. In the current version of this wiki, the criteria (1) knowledge of a language, (2) mother tongue, (3) the use of a language in home circumstances, and (4) the use of a language in the public domain, are blurred. Moreover, the references to Janssen and Corijn are nothing but name dropping. Where and when have these scholars said or written what is assigned to them? This section needs revision. --Criti 11:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fewer than 10% of the Brussels population are native Dutch-speakers ; About 10% have both Dutch and French as a mother tongue or use both languages at home. The same studies show that half the population are native French-speakers and about one more third of the population speaks French and another language (except for Dutch: see above) at home ; thus Corijn shows that French-speakers as a whole make up about 80 % of the Brussels population.
 * ''However, according to a 2001 study by Rudi Janssen, a sociolinguist, and a similar study conducted by E. Corijn (both affiliated with the VUB):

Indeed the numbers can't be correct, but he survey by Rudy Janssens (VUB, Flemish Free University of Brussels) (2001) exists. It is used in the bilingual interdisciplinary book « De 19 Brusselse gemeenten en het Brussels model - Les 19 communes bruxelloises et le modèle bruxellois » (by André Alen, Roel De Groof, Hugues Dumont, Pierre Vandernoot, Els Witte), which is a neutral source because it is a collaboration du Centre d'Études Interdisciplinaires de Bruxelles (BRUT) à la VUB et d'autres équipes de recherche nationales et internationales. (check http://editions.larcier.com/livre/?GCOI=28044100891810) Academics of both language groups participated in this project.

They say:
 * Dutch-only 9,3%
 * French only 51,5%
 * Bilingual at home (du/fr) 10,3%
 * Bilingual by learning the other language later (du/fr) 9,1%
 * Others (often French combined with a foreign language other than Dutch) 19 ,8%'''

The sum is 100% but it is not a census. I think it is the most representative survey we have and in any case better than guess work --Dionysos1 14:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I know the work of Rudi Janssens, and it is indeed a useful source. But he never wrote nor suggested that "one more third of the population speaks French and another language (except for Dutch: see above) at home".

"Bilingual by learning the other language later (du/fr)" is not the same as speaking that other language at home. Moreover, these bilinguals speak both French and Dutch. The same figures show that Dutch-speakers as a whole make up about 30% of the Brussels population, and that another 20% (which is definitely underestimated) speaks still other languages. Within the research approach of Rudi Janssens, there is no contradiction to have a sum of over 100%, since 40% of his survey is at least bilingual.

My main point, however, is that one cannot presume that the "Others" speak French at home, just because they often know French combined with another language. Knowing a language and speaking a languange at home is not the same thing. The current text in this wiki blurs these categories. --Criti 09:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I adapted the article according to the quoted figures by Rudi Janssens. --Criti 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have adapted the article with the REAL figures instead of a distortion. As for the "others" speaking French at home, that is pretty much what happens, as anyone living here can testify. The study moreover is very clear on this point: the category is "home -French and other". The figure of 35,40% of people who know Dutch has to be understood as "Nederlandskundig", not "Nederlandstalig" and is important e.g. in the discussion about the number of people that the KVS and other Dutch-speaking cultural institutions can hope to reach in Brussels - and consequently how much subsidies they are going to get. See e.g. http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:-wPrN9BFPzYJ:www.raadvgc.irisnet.be/Norbert%2520De%2520Batselier%2520opening.htm+Rudi+Janssens&hl=fr Melodius 13:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism: there is not one "Brussels dialect", there are several. Moreover, it is stated futher down that the city is bilingual and that French is the lingua franca. Please do not imitate our Flemish nationalist friends: stick to the facts. A bon entendeur... --Melodius 11:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Linguistic situation" section started with this very misleading sentence: "The indigenous language of Brussels is Dutch", somehow implying that Dutch is the language most spoken by people in Brussels. What is the aim here, inform people or disinform them? It was only way further down the section that people somehow learned that French was actually the most spoken language in Brussels. I rephrased the beginning of the section to make it clear that a- the city is officially bilingual, and b- most of its inhabitants speak French. Godefroy 15:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what "indigenous" means. It has nothing to do with the current majority, it has to do with history. In Monaco, the indigenous language is Monégasque, but the majority language is French. In the Americas, the indigenous languages are native (Amerindian) languages, but European languages (English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, etc.) are the majority today. Brussels was a Brabantian-Dutch-speaking city before forces of history (particularly the Belgian ruling class at the time of the Belgian Revolution) made it mostly French-speaking, so this is accurate. Emile 19:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the linguistic section of the Dublin article started with "The indigenous language of Dublin is Irish Gaelic", I think most people would call it misleading, and that sentence would be deleted within one day. It's as simple as that. You can argue about the exact meaning of "indigenous", but here the key is to write things that are staightforward and not ambiguous. Godefroy 00:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am French-speaking myself, and I have written most of this section, which btw I have had to protect against persistent vandalism from the "other side". The indigenous language of Dublin is indeed Gaelic, to use your example, and the logic of this section is to be neutral, factual and chronological. I have several issues with your modifications : 1 / there is not one "Brussels dialect", there are/were several. Using the singular proves that you do not know what you are talking about 2/ French is not indiginous in Brussels; that is a fact. It is not contradicted by that other fact, so disliked by the "other side", namely that French is the majority language today, and overwhelmingly so 3/ You only repeat what is clearly stated further down, with statistics to prove it. So what's the use ? Se gratter pour se faire rire ?

As for the citation that someone wants, to "prove" that the knowledge of Dutch is considered desirable today - you only have to read a bit further; what better proof can there be than the fact that a sizeable number of francophones send their children to Dutch-speaking schools ? --Melodius 08:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you argue that a sizeable number of francophones send their children to Dutch speaking schools, therefore it proves that the knowledge of Dutch is considered desirable today. That is called original research, and original research is forbidden on Wikipedia. See: No original research. For all I know, there could be many reasons why they send their children to Dutch speaking schools, such as money, or the desire to avoid having their kids going to schools with immigrant kids. To say that it proves that the knowledge of Dutch is considered desirable today is simply original research, so you'll have to find a reference otherwise it will be removed. As for the rest, please do not behave as if you owned the article. Your reverts appear motived by ownership. It's not because you live in Brussels and you wrote the linguistic section that other people don't have the right to edit the section as well. This ownership attitude is not accepted on Wikipedia as far as I know. Godefroy 13:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also have a look at Attribution which states that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." Godefroy 13:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem with your contributions is that they are useless and biased. We've had the Vlaams Blok crowd, we don't need the FDF crowd. Your interpretation of "original research" is ridiculous, especially since I refer to a well-known fact; you only have to open any newspaper's job-ads section to see that F/D bilingualism is becoming indispensable to find a job in Brussels. As for your take on my so-called "ownership attitude", mwahahahaha ! If you don't like the fact that I try to protect this article against vandalism by extremists, please feel free to refer this problem to arbitration. --Melodius 13:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is a well-known fact, then it should be very easy for you to find a reference, right? As for your accusations of extremism, keep them for yourselves and read Civility and No personal attacks. Godefroy 14:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your extremism, and that of your flamingant friends, expresses itself in your petty posturing, your blatant denial of reality and your looking, as do your flamingant friends, for unflattering reasons, e.g. racism, why people could do something that you disapprove of, e.g. going to a Flemish school. That, BTW, is also what some of your flamingant friends say about francophones who go to Flemish schools, since they also disapprove of people not caring for all this linguistic BS. --Melodius 17:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite a lame debate.Aaker 10:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Corijn is mentioned with regard to research on the Brussels language situation. The research however was conducted by Rudi Janssens. Corijn mentioned the research in a recent interview with the Flemish newspaper "De Standaard", refering to "our research". I think this "our" refers to VUB, and thus Rudi Janssens, and not to his own person. 193.190.224.1 13:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Brussels / City / Capital Region
This seems to have been talked about long ago, but that discussion is rather out of date. Wouldn't it be best to put the Capital Region at Brussels and leave the City at it's own article? I'm mystified as to why this hasn't been done already. The existance of Brussels and Brussels-Capital Region is odd and uneccessary. The casual user would be very confused. Is there no precedent with London and City of London? There is a Greater London, but that is an administrative unit, and maybe itself should be combined with London. The whole thing smacks of a previous edit war that went unresolved and left us with an extra article. Even if the Capital Region is some sort of official name, Wiki naming convention would still suggest that it should be at Brussels since that is what most people would look for it under, and what most people refer to when they say Brussels, correct or not.

Sources needed for the linguistic studies by Rudi Janssen and E. Corijn
I placed a "request quote" tag in the linguistic section because percentages of French and Dutch speakers from studies by Rudi Janssen and E. Corijn are given without any reference or weblink, so other editors and readers cannot double-check the figures listed. The figures don't even add up to 100%, so they look very fishy to me. Godefroy 14:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything is not on the Internet. Have you even read this page ? No, probably, since it gives this weblink : http://editions.larcier.com/livre/?GCOI=28044100891810

You can find this study in any good library. As for being "fishy", ha ! --Melodius 16:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.briobrussel.be/ned/webpage3.asp?WebpageId=30

The figures come from "JANSSENS Rudi, Aspecten van het taalgebruik in Brussel, In: Witte E., Alen A., Dumont H. en Ergec R. (red.), Het statuut van Brussel/Bruxelles et son statut, Larcier, 1999, pp. 283-306."

I'll revert your vandalism tomorrow. --Melodius 17:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * None of these links show the figures that you listed in the article unfortunately. One is a curriculum vitae of Rudi Janssens, while the other is the presentation of a book called "Les dix-neuf communes bruxelloises et le modèle bruxellois". So other editors and readers are still unable to double-check your figures. As for reverting my "vandalism", I would advise against it, as it can only be interpreted as edit warring, which is highly frowned upon by Wikipedians. Also, for the second time, I suggest you read Civility and stop calling other editors "vandals" and their edits "vandalism". Godefroy 00:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Pointless sentence in the intro?
What does this sentence say or add?

"Brussels is the capital city, in the centre of Belgium, and also the largest municipality of the Brussels-Capital Region."

Capital-of-Belgium has already been mentioned by the time this sentence comes along. This sentence seems to combine information about Brussels being the capital city of something (Captial Region? Belgium again?), with the fact that Brussels is in the middle of Belgium, and then adds that Brussels-Captial Region is the "largest municipality", whatever that means to the layperson (is it by population?).

A clean-up or removal might be useful... 216.94.11.2 19:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... You may be right about a cleanup. The thing is (and I thought the article made it clear, but then again I live here) is that Brussels can either mean the capital city or the central district of that capital city. Think of Brussels-Capital Region as New York City and of plain Brussels as Manhattan. But yeah, I'll have a closer look tomorrow. Thanks for bringing up the subject. --Targeman 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A warning was given above about the article's wordiness, but it seems to have become worse. The first paragraph reads like a devious attempt to slander Brussels as the most bureacratic and boring city on Earth. Actually, no: the first paragraph doesn't read at all. Compare the elegance of the first para of the Dutch language version on Wikipedia: "Brussel (Frans: Bruxelles), is de hoofdstad van het Koninkrijk België en daarnaast van de Vlaamse en Franse Gemeenschappen en van het Vlaams Gewest. De stad is tevens het bestuurlijk centrum van de Europese Unie en wordt daarom vaak als de hoofdstad van Europa beschouwd. Het is een van de 19 gemeenten van het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest dat ruim 1.018.000 inwoners telt. De gemeente Brussel telt ruim 145.000 inwoners."
 * I can extract more meaning in a shorter time from that para than from the monstrosity in the "English" article, and I don't speak a word of Dutch. Rexparry sydney 06:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion
That topic is still misssing. --217.83.11.204 12:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dual map
Hi. Following the recommended wikipedia policy of being bold, I have inserted a new map in the userbox. This is, to some extent, inspired by a recent discussion on Talk:Berlin. Basically, if any European capital should be introduced not just with a map of its location in its respective country, but also in the EU, Brussels obviously is top of the list, as it is the de-facto EU capital. Thus, I would argue that the new map is relevant. Feel free to modifiy it, though, as I am a poor map-maker... athinaios (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Twin cities
The Wikipedia standard for sister/twin cities is a list comprised of "City name, Country", while in this page it is "Country: City name". Why deviate from the standard? I think this should be changed.

Nenorbot (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

City or Region?
If the City of Brussels relates to the core municipality, and Brussels-Capital Region to the region with all its municipalities, what does this article relate to? - J Logan t: 10:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Both entities, City of Brussels and Brussels-Capital Region, are administrative in nature. This article is about Brussels (i.e. a city which is a bit larger than the Brussels-Capital region) not about its admistrative definition. User:Vb 12:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.221.22 (talk)
 * Perhaps some clarification on that in the article? It seems a bit odd to me and the present map indicates the capital region, not anything larger or smaller.- J Logan t: 14:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Education
Just wondering why the history points were removed from the education section just now, they were fully cited and give background to when these educational institutions came about (i.e. the development of the city, and contrast to the modern international developments)- J Logan t: 14:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi JLogan, I indeed removed some things when reworking the education section. My reason to do so was twofold: (1) some things seemed to be too detailed and are available in the corresponding pages of the universities; (2) the situation in which the Free University of Brussels was split was very complex, and the way the dates were specified oversimplified this splitting.PhiRho (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have reintroduced the dates in a more correctly wording.PhiRho (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay fair enough, thanks. I was just following what I was reading, don't have the normal knowledge on it.- J Logan t: 13:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Names and pronunciation
A conversation regarding the use of different language names and pronunciations regarding Brussels has started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities.  SilkTork  *What's YOUR point? 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would argue that said discussion should take place here, and not on some general cities page, as it's essentially about a Belgian issue that may or may not be relevant elsewhere. The question is, simply, whether the German name of Brussels, Brüssel, should be displayed on this page (as it has been since January 2003). My argument is that Brussels is currently the capital of Belgium, a state with three official languages, and that therefore the name should be given in all three of those. Silktork's argument is up to him/her to present, but appears to be based on what languages are spoken, and how frequently so, in Brussels. I would point at examples like Leuven, Liège, Helsinki, Dublin, Quebec, Edinburgh or even Newfoundland and Labrador as examples. I should also like to stress that this is not about pronunciation. Brüssel is most decidedly not some local pronunciation variant of Brussels. It is the German (and hence an official Belgian) name of the city. It is a separate name in the same way that Cologne is French or English for Köln, or that Copenhagen is English for København. athinaios | Talk 23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone also look to the phonetic notations. The "bru" is the french "Bruxelles" and in the Dutch "Brussel" is pronounced exactly the same, but now there are different notations...PhiRho (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ordering languages
I find the current edit war between User:Alwetendheid alom and User:Targeman quite silly. Let's just stick to one order. I propose the alphabetical order as this is the most common form on Wikipedia (so Dutch, French, German). This order does not concern itself with importance - as this can be endlessly discussed in case of Brussels (French is currently the most spoken language, it's capital of the French community vs. historical (=several centuries) its language was a Dutch/Flemish dialect, it's the capital of Flanders and it's the capital of Belgium which has a majority of Dutch speakers).Sijo Ripa 15:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not an edit war. User:Alwetendheid alom is a new user and I assume he or she isn't familiar with the standards used on Wikipedia. I'm something of a noob myself but from what I gather French is normally mentioned first since the French names are generally much more frequently used in English. --Targeman 15:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an edit war... (1) Four reversals in only a short period of time. (2) And reading the edit history, it seems to resolve about the order of languages, so there's also a topic of dispute.Sijo Ripa 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the argument of Targeman re the most common used name for the place, including for english speaking persons, is perfectly valid. As an example, the way the Grand Place is mentionned on the UNESCO website (La Grand-Place). The fact that Grote Markt (Brussels) is a redirect is, I assume (as I did not follow those discussions), an acknoledgement of this mere fact. It is not just because the vast majority of Brussels inhabitants are french speaking, but more because it is just the most common way to adress the object. Bradipus 09:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before Bradipus, you can debate endlessly and cite hundreds of sources to defend one position. It all depends on one's POV. The only neutral solution is the alphabetical one and we should consequently use that one - before we get into an endless discussion or edit war. Sijo Ripa 13:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You misundertood what I was saying. I am not debating but referring to an old discussion to which I did not participate. You can find a trace of it in Talk:Ixelles for instance, that refers to lengthy discussions such as here, where the reached conclusion was that the French name was to be chosen, in line with the most commonly used names in English. Bradipus 16:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the relevance for this article. No one seem to dispute that "Brussels" should be the name of this page. Rather, it seems to be about the language order after the English name.Sijo Ripa 15:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but your answer shows that you haven't read the links I gave, who deal about the use of the french name or the dutch name. Bradipus 19:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really know where you're going. The talk page of Ixelles concerns a discussion about that names "in line with the most commonly used names in English" should be used... So not relevant for the discussion here. The results of the other link is the use of the alphabetical order (first Dutch, then French..., see e.g. Woluwe-Saint-Pierre. So what are you trying to say besides agreeing that an alphabetical order of languages (Dutch, French, German) is always most neutral in disputed areas? Sijo Ripa 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I quote from Talk:Ixelles: "The final result of the survey is that for the following municipalities the French name has been chosen, in line with the most commonly used names in English (follows a list of municipalities)".
 * I repeat: the French name has been chosen, in line with the most commonly used names in English.
 * The most common name in english and in the whole world for the Grand place is...Grand Place. Bradipus 13:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never objected that the most used name in English should be used, on the contrary as this is the English Wikipedia. So I agree about the Grand Place. We seem to have been talking about different things. In the case of this article, in English the city is called Brussels. Then there are the other names in corresponding languages in brackets. An alphabetical order is the best solution for these brackets I think - and would be in all cases if the English name does not correspond to another language. Sijo Ripa 13:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could someone explain why an alphabetical order is neutral? To my mind it's misleading since it implies that Dutch/Flemish is the principal language in the city, which is not. It seems like you just want to promote the idea of a "Flemish Brussel" and not neutrality. This discussion is quite lame. Aaker (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Part II
As there is a new edit war recently about this matter, we should continue this discussion. Is not alphabetical ordering the most neutral? This is also used in, for example, the article about Geneva, which is in a similar situation as Brussels.PhiRho (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The only edit war I can see in the history of the article is that you have reverted three times several users who put the French name first, so please do not claim a revert war to actually revert users who edit the article, that's rather Machiavellian. As for the language issue proper, it is completely inaccurate to say that the normal ordering on Wikipedia is always alphabetical. In fact in country and city articles the language ordering is most often in terms of numerical importance. The Geneva article has French first, not German. The Munich article has German first and Austro-Bavarian only second. The Genoa article has Italian first and Genoese only second. The Dunkirk article has French first and Dutch only second. Need I continue? Putting Dutch first in the case of Brussels goes against all these established precedents, and it's not difficult to see the ulterior motives behind putting Dutch first, in light of the current community dispute in Belgium. I would advise editors here not to bring the Belgian linguistic controversy to the English Wikipedia. Godefroy (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit war was actually earlier (see topic on this talk page before); I stronly think that we should not advance any opinion before consensus is reached (again see discussion above). I did not even want to bring up the issue of the Belgian linguistic controversy, because I did assume good faith in the previous edits. I agree that alphabetical ordering is not a policy, but at least it would be the most neutral choice (and that is a Wiki policy).PhiRho (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, if you want to discuss the issue here it's fine with me, but blanket reverts of edits made in good faith (at least my edit was made in good faith, I can't talk for the anonymous IPs) is quite aggressive and doesn't create a good editing atmosphere. You seem to be a very "hands on" in this article. I edited the article today and you reverted my entire edit (not just the language ordering issue) within 13 minutes (!). So I suggest you take a bit of distance from things, your life doesn't depend on this article. Also beware of article appropriation which is an all too common trap among Wikipedia editors (read WP:OWN). Godefroy (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In articles about cities in every other country the majority language is always mentioned first. Why should Brussels be an exception from this "democratic" rule? Aaker (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Brüssel
It has been discussed before, but maybe we can come to an agreement as to whether the section (Brüssel, ) should be in the first sentence. Currently, it isn't, as it was removed recently. While German is not an official language of the Brussels region (which is, I believe, why it's omitted from the infobox), it is one of the three official languages of Belgium, of which Brussels is the capital. I would argue that therefore, the German name should be mentioned after the Dutch/Flemish and French ones. For examples of similar usage, see Edinburgh, Dublin, Luxembourg, Saxony or Helsinki. athinaios | Talk 14:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The big difference in all of those is that those languages are either official or historical in those places. German here is neither, but more of an exonym. Thus I think the status quo makes most sense. - Oreo Priest  talk 11:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But German is official in Brussels, as it is in all of Belgium as the third official language. Check the Belgian government website, or the Belgian Monarchy's one, or even the start of the Brussels-Capital Region article on wikipedia. The point is that German is not some kind of part-recognised minority language in Belgium, like, say, Sorbian in Germany, but quite clearly one of the three official languages of the state, of which Brussels is the capital. Incidentally, Dùn Èideann for Edinburgh (and probably Baile Átha Cliath for Dublin) is also essentially an exonym, as in a name devised outside the city or town in question in a language not then spoken or official there. athinaios | Talk 15:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. You forget that Belgium is divided into linguistic regions; Brussels being an overlap of the Dutch and French language regions. German may indeed be a official language at federal level, it is not an official language in any way in Brussels. Dutch is not an official language of Liège, just as French isn't an official language of Ghent. The only argument to add German in the first line would be that it is an official language of Belgium (but not of Brussels), of which Brussels happens to be the capital. But since German is neither an official nor historic language of Brussels, I don't see the need to add the German name.--Hooiwind (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see and don't see your point. But what exactly do you mean is not? Yes, I understand that German is not officially spoken in Brussels, in the same way that Sorbian is not spoken in Dresden (for example). No-one ever doubted that. But German is, without any doubt, an official language of the Belgian state, of which Brussels is the capital. That is an independent fact from the linguistic regions. Just look at the health warning on a Belgian pack of cigarettes: It has three languages, in equal size, saying the same thing. General habit on wikipedia appears to be to have at the very least country capitals listed in all official languages of the countries in question. Your examples of Liège and Ghent are of some interest: the wikipedia article on Liège does state the name in Dutch and French and German (and more), and similarly the article for Ghent does include the French name. The Brussels article, in its present form, relegates German to something less in official Belgian terms than Dutch/Flemish or French. Why? athinaios | Talk 00:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You said But German is official in Brussels and I explained that it's not, that's all. Depends on how you look at it. Should every place in Belgium state all three languages? Is that of any interest? However, I can understand why German could have its righteous place here since Brussels is the capital, but I really don't see why Dutch is stated in the Liège article. I am not against having the German name in the first line (not in the infobox though, that'd make it seem as if German were official), I just clarified that it is not an official language of Brussels. But apparently you got that already. --Hooiwind (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do understand that. I thought that was why for the longest time, German was mentioned in the first sentence, but not in the infobox. Basically, Brussels is two things at the same time: a designated urban region with two officially spoken languages, and a federal capital of a state that has three official languages. I kind of agree with you on Liège and such places, unless the Dutch or German versions have historically been in use in English, in which case one might as well include them. athinaios | Talk 10:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we are on the same line then. Personnally, I'm quite indifferent to having German in there or not.--Hooiwind (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
The name of Brussels (Bruxelles) possibly has the same origin as Latvian word brukstalas, meaning 'a bushy place, a brushwood', brukslājs 'a marshy place, a bog'. Roberts7 17:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you got a reference for that? - SSJ ☎ 05:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge
I propose we adopt the level of the Brussels-Capital Region properly, and continue to call it Brussels, like the article of London is focusing on the geographical area of Greater London. That article includes the history of London.

Currently, this Brussels article is a very vague creation; a "settlement of people and history" without physical borders or political structure. It semi claims to represent the Belgian capital by having Template:Capital cities of the European Union in the bottom. But the capital of Belgium is by law the City of Brussels. But the City of Brussels' article will for example never include info about Brussels' role in the EU because it's geographically so small, and doesn't encompass all of the European Quarter. But the size of the Capital Region is perfect.

There is still an article called City of London, which is the old core of the city. We will similarly still have the City of Brussels article. And there is a separate article called Greater London that's strictly about the political level and democraphics of that political level. But I think the content of this article would be given direction if it focused on the area of the capital region. People think Belgium consists of three regions, and that Brussels is one of them.

I've made a new infobox that's similar to what's in the London article. - SSJ ☎ 00:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this before I think, I don't understand why we need separate articles for them. Capital Region info could easily be integrated into here and it would make it easier to understand exactly what one is talking about.- J Logan t: 11:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess we should do that. - SSJ ☎ 12:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Now: cleanup. - SSJ ☎ 14:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This merger was a very bad choice and taking simplification a bridge to far. It also betrays ignorance about Belgium's complex political structure. The Region's official name is Brussels Capital Region and not "Brussels". If you merge those two, then you have to merge Flanders and Flemish Region as well. Which doens't happen nor is it proposed. A much better choice/solution would have been to have "Brussels" as a disambiguation page which gives the possibility to go further to either the Brussels Capital Region or the City of Brussels articles. And all that nonsense about "Brussels" as largest city of Belgium again... this had been discussed ans settled in the past. Brussels as in the 19 municipalities is NOT a city but a region of Belgium. The largest city of Belgium is Antwerp, the Brussels Capital Region is merely the largest agglomeration. This is a consequence of the fact that in 1982 the various municipalities of the Antwerpian agglomeration were merged in to a single city but with regards to Brussels it was explicitly decided to keep 19 different municipalities and not to merge them in to one city. So please respect the political choice and use agglomeration were the entire Brussels agglomeration is meant with "city". -- fdewaele, 30 July 2008, 17:47.
 * In a strictly de jure wikipedia world, the name of most cities would go to disambiguation pages (for example, no legal area is called just "London", as mentioned above). But very few names of physical settlements aren't placed upon some sort of administrative level on wikipedia. The intro of this article explains exactly what this article is about, without simplifying. (if you think it's simplified or false, please correct)
 * If you want to, we can discuss whether the Brussels-Capital Region can be called a city. - But to send every visitor who type "Brussels" to a disambiguation page, simply won't happen considering what's standard practice on wikipedia. The way I see it (and have observed online on Brussels), the difference between Flanders/Flemish Region and Brussels/Brussels-Capital Region is that when journalists mention "Brussels", it's always about a city that's synonymous with one of the three Belgian regions. The smaller City of Brussels is never in focus; it's always Brussels=the region. I'm not trying to bend the legal truth; I'm just saying that two separate articles aren't needed to explain the nuances. - SSJ ☎ 02:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Yes, the formal title of this article would be Brussels Capital Region but convention applies that we use the more common name in such cases as that is what people are looking for. And there is always a difference between a legal city and what is considered to be a city. In legal terms, Brussels is just that small municipality, just as London is that square mile, but anyone walking the streets will consider the city to be the much larger urban area, ditto most other cities, not just because the buildings continue but because they are an integrative economic, cultural and even political area. Furthermore, Flanders and Flemish Region do not have to be merged just because another one is - the area of Flanders and its culture is different from the region while Brussels largely coincides with the boundaries of the region.- J Logan t: 09:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronounced...
Could one of the French Belgian speakers and one of the Flemish speakers here to create ogg files for their respective pronunciations of Brussels? (If you do not know what I am talking about, see the audio symbol next to the IPA on articles such as Paris and Mumbai) - J Logan t: 11:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The French one can be found in commons:category:Brussels. They exist for Flanders and Belgium too. --Foroa (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added French now, and I see they have them on the Belgian article. Still need Dutch. I will put out a request on the Dutch and Belgian WikiProjects.- J Logan t: 21:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"City of Brussels" capitalization
There seems to be some confusion here about when to capitalize the word city in the construction city of . An editor's summary of a recent change reads City of Brussels is a municipality, and is written capitalised; just like City of London. This assertion is not correct in the context of the edits here.Unless there is a special entity called the City of Brussels as distinct from the city of Paris or the city of Birmingham, the word city should only be capitalized when the term is used as a title, for example on a banner over the city gate, on a podium, or on the side of an official city vehicle. Please refer to the capitalization guidelines below. -Eric talk 13:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Capital Community College Foundation
 * Writing911.com
 * University of Colorado
 * U.S. Government Printing Office style manual (search page for Washington City)
 * Though the city is known as the City of because it is distinct from Brussels as a whole, where as when you talk about places like Birmingham, you are refering to it as a city rather than the city. Hence the same terms as the City of London would apply, as that too is termed to distinguish itself from the rest of London which would be a city, not the City.- J Logan t: 14:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to take one of your websites there: "only when it's included in the proper name" - we are talking about the proper name.- J Logan t: 14:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * City of Brussels is an offial title, not a name for the Brussels settlement as a whole. - SSJ ☎ 15:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SSJ and J- I'm sorry that I'm evidently not getting my point across. I'm not merely presenting my opinion here; I'm telling you what I know to be the generally accepted rules of English usage. If you are willing to look into this and consult other sources, you will likely find better explanations than I have provided. You and Wikipedia will benefit from the effort. SSJ, I am not saying that City of Brussels cannot be an official title, I am saying that it is not an official title as used in the article section we are discussing. J, I think you're referring to the Writing911.com guide, right? If so, look at the examples immediately below the words you quoted. -Eric talk 16:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Though in this usage it is the proper title, no one says Brussels City, they say the City of Brussels -as its formal title. Yes in other situtations I'd agree but here its a title rather than a descriptor. (but SSJ, don't bother reverting if he does it again- not worth reverting over)- J Logan t: 16:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where the title "City of Brussels" is mentioned in the intro, the text makes it perfectly clear that the City of Brussels is neither the Brussels Region nor the physical settlement, but the official name of one specific municipality. Still you wrote a lowercase "c". Official websites write City of Brussels capitalised. Do you disagree? - SSJ ☎ 01:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding whether I disagree: as I said above, I am not presenting my opinion here. By the standards of normal English usage, that website correctly capitalizes city twice (in the navlink header at the top and above the blazon) and incorrectly capitalizes it twice in the body. By the way, that website does not look to be the official one, though official does not mean grammatically correct anyway. I see official government documents every day that have not only extraneous capitalization, but bad grammatical errors as well. I followed a link on the site to one that does claim to be the official website of the city, but it has very little English on it at the moment. In any case, a website promoting a city, and likely translated into English, is not the ideal place to look for guidance on English usage for the body of an encyclopedia article. I gave you some pointers on where to find guidance, but I am not going to try to convince you of something you seem not to want to research. -Eric talk 13:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "diplomatie" :
 * Brussels: home to international organisations diplomatie.be
 * Brussels: home to international organisations diplomatie.be

Enough images
Guywets must argue here why more images are needed. I think the culture section has enough images. If he continues to insert images without bothering to write edit summaries, I'll report him on WP:3RR, which might result in his account being blocked. - SSJ ☎ 12:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it not only clutters up the page but is against WP policy that you shouldn't have two images parallel like that as it unnecessarily squashes the text. This is not offset by again gain from the image, it is unnecessary.- J Logan t: 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of the region
If we use common sense, should there be a hyphen in "Brussels-Capital Region"? It obviously derives from the french "Région de Bruxelles-Capitale". - SSJ ☎ 13:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm always confused by the hyphens to be honest, is it important if we put it in or not? Is it official, can we not make it up?- J.Logan`t : 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, the official name is Brussels Capital-Region. - SSJ ☎ 22:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No WTF, they use both Brussels-Capital Region and Brussels Capital-Region. I guess Capital-Region makes more sense, so should we just use that? - SSJ ☎ 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's odd, idle searches seem to give the hyphen after Brussels, but if they use it on the header there.... I know, lets see if we can find their constitution...- J.Logan`t : 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, neglected the fact it wouldn't be in English. The Dutch don't use the hyphen but the French put it between Brussels and Capital as it follows the format Region Wallon, Region Flemish and hence Region Brussels-Capital. So I'd say Brussels-Capital Region would be a more accurate translation. The header probably just put it in the same location without thinking of the different words - i.e. calling it Capital-Region: Brussels rather than Region: Brussels-Capital.- J.Logan`t : 08:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We could send them an email, asking them why the hyphen seemingly is casually used on their website (what is official? ask whether they've thought through what's most logic in English grammar), why the Region's flag is blue and yellow, and what exactly the emblem is (FOTW states there are three colours, but the iris alone is only yellow with a blue border ). - SSJ ☎ 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Probruxsel
Questions for people in Brussels (that's another one, how do you spell the demonym for Brussels?): how notable is Probruxsel?- J.Logan`t : 21:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(Just on the demonym point, I thought it was something like Bruxellois, but the French wiki page lists variants on brusseler which look more Dutch. Could someone explain the difference please? Thanks.)- J.Logan`t : 21:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Probruxsel was founded recently but has not participated in any elections so far. It is therefore difficult to say how notable it is, neither can I estimate its electoral possibilities. As far as I know there is no English demonym for Brussels. Bruxellois is French, Brusselaar is Dutch, of which Brusseleir is the local pronuncation.--Hooiwind (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, there isn't a demonym option is there in the infobox? I was going to use it somewhere else but have forgotten, I hate my memory. Will come back to me soon....- J.Logan`t : 16:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Brussels per capita income
In the lead it says:

I think this is quite misleading since it insinuates that people living in the Capital Region were "rich". The money made in Brussels is taken home in the evening by the (mostly Flemish) commuters. The local population is actually quite poor compared to West European standards. Flemish and Walloon Brabant on the other hand are two of Europe's top five wealthiest regions. Shouldn't this be specified? --Hooiwind (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well best elaborate on that in the text, but is there a source?- J.Logan`t : 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a source. It was a WSJ article, but you have to pay to read it now. So I replaced it with . "It is the third richest city in the European Union in terms of per capita income." says the BBC. I don't know if its nescessary to specify the reasons for this, in the introduction at least. - SSJ ☎ 18:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well per capita income is fine then isn't it, I mean that would be of the residents in the region and hence the reasoning that the people would be rich would be correct as the commuters would be excluded no?- J.Logan`t : 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's exactly what I mean. Per inhabitant a lot of money is earned in Brussels, but mostly not by its own residents. Here is a source of the Brussels government: In Brussel is het BBP per inwoner 1,5 keer hoger dan het nationale gemiddelde. Het gemiddelde inkomen van de Brusselaar ligt momenteel onder (91,3 %) het Belgische gemiddelde. or same in French. Another one of the French language business newspaper L'Echo: Cet indice est fortement influencé par le flux des navetteurs. Ainsi, à Bruxelles, la venue quotidienne de quelque 200.000 travailleurs extérieurs a un impact considérable sur le PIB. Eurostat also makes this remark: It should be noted, however, that in some regions the GDP per inhabitant figures can be significantly influenced by commuter flows. Net commuter inflows in these regions push up production to a level that could not be achieved by the resident active population on its own. The result is that GDP per inhabitant appears to be overestimated in these regions and underestimated in regions with commuter outflows. Another one, of the EC: (see page 12) Dans ces régions, les chiffres du PIB/habitant ont tendance à être surestimés à cause des flux de navetteurs. I found this in English: Brussels-Capital suffers from a weak tax base, even if its economy is very productive, and appears to be a 'poor' city with a strong economy. From EUbusiness, when commenting on the top position of London: Regional GDP per inhabitant is a measure of the total economic activity in a region divided by the total number of people living in that region. Although it may be used to compare the degree of economic development of regions, it does does not measure the income ultimately available to private households. But this one might be the best source, also of Eurostat: Regional per capita GDP and the income of private households can differ substantially due to a wide variety of influences. This is particularly apparent in the case of capital regions, such as Brussels or London, where per capita GDP in the capital is higher than average, whereas it is comparatively low in the surrounding regions. This effect is caused by the fact that GDP is allocated to the place of production, even though it is partly produced by workers living in the area surrounding the capital region. — Brussels ranks third when is comes to GDP — The primary income per inhabitant of the wealthiest region (Flemish Brabant) is roughly six times that of the poorest. (Walloon Brabant ranks fourth) — Vlaams-Brabant sinks to the 10th position in the EU for disposable income after taxation. Perhaps this last pdf could be a good source to edit the economy section? --Hooiwind (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah fair enough, I imagined per capita would have been calculated according to individual or household rather than at its source of production. So, how do we make a point of this, breif mention attached to the note in the intro followed by full technical details in the economy section yes? Do we have anything other aspect of commuting we could use to discuss - maybe link it into the BHV style debates?- J.Logan`t : 08:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * [to link this to the contentieux belgo-belge] Some Francophone Brussels politicians demand taxes would be raised in the work location instead in the place of residence since this would spectacularly increase the tax income of the Brussels regional government. Others even argue that Brussels should simply be enlarged so that commuters would also officially be Brussels residents. The Flemish government strongly rejects these ideas and insists that Brussels shouldn't have the ambition to be a completely self-governing region (and thus having to pay for all the responsibilities this envolves) and just stick to its role as a capital (for which it gets funding from the federal government). In this context, they also demand the abolition of the seperate municipalities as to lower administration costs. Maybe in the lead we could say that Brussels is Belgium's economic centre but that this largely benefits the commuters from surrounding Flemish and nearby Walloon Brabant. Further down all the above could be explained in further detail. What do you think? --Hooiwind (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. We should have full detail somewhere me thinks - a full and comprehensive explanation of the above and related issues. Things like enlarging the region ties in with the whole city state issue, language/BHA issue but how do we define that in a section or article? A section on borders/limits to Brussels???- J.Logan`t : 16:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Other International Organizations
It might be interesting to list some of the other International Institutions headquartered in Brussels. Next to the EU and NATO we could mention for example the WEU, EUROCONTROL and the WCO.--Lamadude (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

World War 1 and the invasion of Brussels
I cannot find any reference to the German invasion of Brussels in 1914, the extraordinary situation when there was no resistance to the German Army which marched through the city. OK, Belgian was "neutral", but wasnt that taking advantage... Resistance was futile? There has been much discussion on this episode. The point is, not whether or not there was or should have been resistance, that is history, but that surely it is worth a mention. Can someone please do something about this. P0mbal (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Municipalities : image : languages
I know I might be opening a Pandora's Box here, but I propose to add the name in the second language to the list of the municipalities. Visitors to this article will be confused to find Sint-Agatha-Berchem, Forest, Ixelles, Sint-Jans-Molenbeek in the list, while in other publications or articles they might find Berchem-Sainte-Agathe, Vorst, Elsene, Molenbeek-Saint-Jean.

What do you think : --Luxem (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing that there were no reactions, I've gone ahead and changed the article accordingly. --Luxem (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. --triwbe (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Municipalities : image : languages -> link to archive
Sity multicultural Brussels. I see city Brussels is already 50% Long mohametanisch Arab city is a third language.Why did no one write about? Yes, I also think Islam is very nice atraktive, but they let no strangers to come in Mosqa. Vuvuakbaar (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

For my proposal behind the change of the municipality names a did today, see Archive 2.--Luxem (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
(From archive 2):

"The name of Brussels (Bruxelles) possibly has the same origin as Latvian word brukstalas, meaning 'a bushy place, a brushwood', brukslājs 'a marshy place, a bog'. Roberts7 17:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you got a reference for that? - SSJ ☎ 05:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Text article:

"The name Brussels derives from the Old Dutch Bruocsella, which means marsh (bruoc) and home (sella) or "home in the marsh".[citation needed
 * "Bruoc" nor "sella" sound very Dutch. More of Latin. "Broek" however is an old Dutch word for "land".
 * It is also said, that the name Brussels comes from "Brugzele". "Brug" (still) is Dutch for "bridge" and "Zele" might be a former version of nowadays Zenne. "Bridge over the Zenne". VKing (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bruoc" and "sella" are just old forms for "broek" and "zele". The old Dutch "broek" does not mean "land", it means marsh or brook (It is pronounced like the english "brook" too. Bruoc/broek (nl) and "brook" (en) have the same germanic origin.)--Luxem (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wet (or marshy) land is "land", so "broek" means "land". VKing (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. But if you ever have been in a marsh or a wet land, I'm sure that you would have doubted whether you would call that place "land". --Luxem (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Brussels' german name be listed in the beginning, since Brussel is part of a country where that language has offical status? To many, Brussels is known both as Bruxelles, Brussel and Brüssel

==>> The most common theory for the toponymy of Brussels is that it is composed by the celtic word "bruoc" and the Latin word "sella", which means marsh and chapel or "chapel in the marsh".

Dutch dialect
In most places of this article, where the language Dutch is mentioned, in fact it is Flemish, (which is a rather different Dutch dialect). This might be worth mentioning in the text. VKing (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dutch is Dutch, whether you mean one of the Flemish dialects, or one of the Hollandic dialects, or one of the other dialects spoken in Flanders or the Netherlands.
 * There is not one single Flemish dialect. The difference between the different dialects spoken in Flanders is broader than the difference between either of them and the standard Dutch.
 * Have a nice day. --Luxem (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Dutch" is "dutch" and "land" is "land", but the way with "land" sec usually not is meant marshy land, with the word "Dutch" in princple is meant standard Dutch (called "ABN" = "Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands" = "General Civilised Dutch"), and not one of it's dialects. They use to be called either "Dutch dialects", or the exact name of the dialect in question, (in this case "Brussels"). So the word "Dutch" sec in the text of this article might be not really sufficient. VKing (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an article about Brussels, not about the languages spoken in Brussels. It would be wrong, IMHO, to substitute every occurence of the word "Dutch" with "a Dutch dialect" or "a Flemish dialect". This is not relevant.
 * In the New York article, there is mention of Spanish, Italian and Russian as languages spoken in the city. Now we know that the Spanish, Italian and Russian spoken there is not necessarily the standard form of these languages. Ex., I expect that it would be Latin American Spanish, and not Iberian Spanish, that is meant.
 * So, if we would follow your suggestion, we would have to change this article too. And lots of other articles. I don't believe this is a good idea.
 * Furthermore, there is a paragraph on the fact that the Dutch spoken here is a Brabantian dialect.
 * I believe that for clarity, we should keep "Dutch" as the name of the language, and keep the paragraph on the dialect issue.
 * --Luxem (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it may be Brabantian and not Flemish. The word Flemish is likely to be used too generally for all Dutch (ahum) speaking part of this country. (The way "Holland" and "Hollandic" often uncorrectly is used for all of the Netherlands and it's standard ("Netherlandic") language).
 * Anyway, it was very interesting, to learn, that it's not standard Italian and Spanish, what is spoken in a town like NY. In the same way, for NY'ers it can be very interesting, to learn from the Wp-article, that in nowadays capital of Europe, natives are not speaking standard Dutch, but a local Netherlandic dialect.
 * It seems difficult, if not impossible, to find a valuable reason, why this information shouldn't be provided by this encyclopedia. VKing (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three valid (and maybe even valuable) reasons :
 * The information is provided in the article : "The original Dutch dialect of Brussels (Brussels) is a form of Brabantic (the variant of Dutch spoken in the ancient Duchy of Brabant) with a significant number of loanwords from French, and still survives among a minority of inhabitants called Brusseleers, many of them quite bi- and multilingual, or educated in French and not writing the Dutch language."
 * If we would change all occurences of Dutch to "Flemish dialect", the readability of the text would suffer.
 * There is also a tactical reason why this change might be a problem : You and I both know that it has long been a highly sensitive political statement to say that the language spoken in Flanders not really is Dutch, but an inferior dialect, not worth keeping, which was an argument against the official use of Dutch in Belgium. Flemish nationalists might feel that you were promoting this anti-Flemish POV. Therefor, you might be provoking an edit war with Flemish nationalists.--Luxem (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that article called "Brabantian"? There's no link to it in this one yet. That could for instance be changed by adding one in the intro, behind: "Although historically Dutch-speaking",....., so that the text would become: "Although historically Dutch-speaking (Brabantian),......
 * This allready would do, so that not all occurrances of the word "Dutch", would have to be changed. Besides in the article about this dialect, there's nothing said about inferiority.
 * This suggestion is just meant to add more exact information to the article, by mentioning a fact. It seems very unlikely, that Flemish nationalists will have objections against that.
 * (By the way, without spending too much time searching, a paragraph about the dialect is not easy to be found in this article? For sure it's not in the section about languages.) VKing (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the Brussels dialect is really Brabantian: through the French and international influences, it has become a different unique dialect mix that became almost a language on its own. --Foroa (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance. IMO, it decreases the readability and therefore the value of the article. So I think it is a bad suggestion.
 * The article as it is now is correct (ref. Dutch language for the definition of Dutch, which comprises the Flemish dialects of Belgium). Adding more detail on a subject that is not the subject of the article would be a bad thing for the article.--Luxem (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

New image
I recently uploaded a 17th-century engraving of Brussells by Wenceslas Hollar (right). Feel free to use or not use. Dcoetzee 11:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I recorded but I don't know where to put it in the article. Does anybody have an where it would best fit? --Hooiwind (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Region isn't Belgium's capital
Since when did Brussels-Capital Region become Belgium's constitutional capital? The introduction did already explain that Brussels (municipality) is the real capital. - SSJ ☎ 15:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I missed that. My bad.  Oreo Priest  talk 15:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. ;) - SSJ ☎ 16:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Brussels is the capital of the European Community"
The EU has no capital and the source cited is not authoritative. That statement sounds like boosterism. I would recommend changing the article "the" to "a," and changing community to Union since the EC is a pillar for the time being. You cannot have a capital of a component of a governmental organization. Miglewis (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Crime
Not a single word about the crime rate, which is the highest of any capital city in the EU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Languages in the introduction
Sorry for bringing up the eternal language issue once again but I wonder if it's really necessary to begin the introduction to language in Brussels by stating that it was originally Dutch speaking? "Although historically Dutch-speaking, Brussels became increasingly French-speaking over the 19th and 20th centuries. Today a majority of inhabitants are native French-speakers, although both languages have official status." Some months ago I added a similar text to article about Helsinki which has a linguistic history similar to that of Brussels, to see the reactions (of course I was reverted) see:. What's going on here? Why is the original majority language more "important" in Brussels and the present majority language more important in Helsinki? Well if you ask me it's because of the nationality of certain Wikipedians.Aaker (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Etymology
The firsts mentions of the city are "Brosella" in 695 and some later "Bruocsella". So the etymology of Brussels is connected to them and not to an unreal dutch name.

They are many sources which explain the celtic and latin origins. Please don't be so pangermanist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.141.127 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC) &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2012-07-07 17:33 (UTC)
 * We could perhaps put both etymologies in, but it is out of line to remove a claim cited by a print source with no rationale.  Oreo Priest  talk 16:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it 'pangermanist'? Or is one 'panceltist' or 'panromanist'? The 'Broekstraat' (rue du Marais) still reminds of the ancient toponomy of downtown Brussels. Broekzele, Broeksele, Broeksel appear formed like Zwevezele, Moorsele, Mortsel and numerous other place names of undisputedly linguistically germanic origin. The Brussels' place names like Ganshoren, Etterbeek, Molenbeek, Schaerbeek, Koekelberg, Watermaal-Bosvoorde (even in its French version as Watermael-Boitsfort) and those to the south like Drogenbos until even in nowadays purely francophone northern Wallonia such as Waterloo, can not be seen as of Celtic or Latin origin.
 * The first written mentioning of a place must have occured while that place was still known only very locally, else it would have been in writing much earlier. The language of that writing however, must have been one that was normally used for writing. Apart from only a few loose sentences that occur in texts in another language, the oldest writings in Dutch date from the 10th (one text) and late 11th centuries. Hence, 'Brosella' in 695 could not have been in any writing in the local language. For writing, Latin was the lingua franca and no, that was not the original language of the Franks. The writer who decided on how to spell the name might not even have been accustomed to hearing the local language and would have tried to represent whatever he could distinguish in the actual local pronunciation. And in many cases, the first written mentioning of a place name was done by one who may have spoken or understood the local language, but who preferred to latinize the name in his writing. All of this makes it very dangerous to assume a local language to have been properly represented in the earliest written place names, or to use a first writing for an etymological explanation of a place name.