Talk:Sint-Genesius-Rode

[Untitled]
The neutrality about the political issues can be disputed. On the other side the sentences from the last block are complex and not well written for the Wikipedia quality standards. I think a 'See also' section is needed to link to Municipalities_with_linguistic_facilities. This page should contain as less as possible political stuff concerning the linguistic stuff.

As I am probably not someone with a neutral point of view I do not prefer to edit the page. (Christophe 08:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Into which direction would the article lack neutrality? I see both the reasoning and arguments of the Francophone and those of the Flemish population and politicians presented quite accurately, as the Wikipedia neutral point of view standards dictate. I assume you are more susceptible to particular arguments than to others, and thus feel one set of reasonings to be more powerful; but such is then your point of view, not the article's. The "linguistic stuff" is what places Sint-Genesius-Rode on the map, it would otherwise not be very notable besides being some municipality: it is this one municipality that by Francophone politicians is specifically being used as the to-be bridge between the Walloon Region and the Capital Region. It is also this one municipality that has obtained a French-speaking majority after the creation of linguistic regions. Neutrality is not keeping dead silent about controversies. — SomeHuman 10 Apr2007 21:55-22:20 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is necessary to keep dead silence about these matters, but being someone that lives very close to this municipality I don't have the feeling this is the most important thing in that town. The current article contains 80% of political matters vs 20% of town related matters. In that way I think the amount of interest in the content is not balanced. But of course I don't have enough knowledge about the history of this place to make this article bigger (Christophe 22:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC))
 * « Into which direction would the article lack neutrality? » -> The fact that Francophone people migrated from Brussels to the suburbs, even if probably partially true, seems to be quite exaggerated by Flanders: something to not forget is that the "borders" defined in 1960s were not done in respect of the languages spoken there at that time. There were already lots of Francophones around Brussels. Also, in the article it is said « French-speakers have interpreted these facilities as a permanent right » -> if it was not permanent, why would it have been put in Belgium's constitution rather than just adding a temporary law or something like that? From my point of view, this article was written by a Dutch-speaker from Flanders ;) And it seems that in past revisions there were many things added and then removed which were even less neutral. But I am for sure not neutral on that subject either. Antp (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In 1947 was amper 30% van de bewoners Franstalig. Anno 2009 is dat percentage meer dan verdubbeld. Wilt u nu echt beweren dat de migratie vanuit Brussel hier voor niets tussenzit?--Westermarck (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC) In 1947 only 30% of French residents. Anno 2009, that percentage has more than doubled. Would you really argue that the migration from Brussels tussenzit here for nothing?