Talk:Belgium/Archive 2

History of Rwanda and Belgium

I think in the history section, at least a sentence shall be added about the Belgium's responsibility in Rwandan genocide. The criteria used by Belgiums to differentiate the tall and short people of Ruanda, created two artificial nations "Hutus and Tutsis". They initiated the hatred and anger between innocent people. Belgium shall be judged by United Nations for apology and indemnity..

Not NPOV. Every country has had troubles with its colonies. All countries (and all its human beings within it) are inherently racist. Face it. -- Lord Snoeckx 10:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quibble

Can we get a better map of the provinces? One like the standard Wikipedia plain red/green ones? Also, it's been a long while since "F.R.G." was used to refer to a country! Gee Eight 28 March 2006 20.08 UTC

(no title)

I was wondering - since Belgium is a bilingual country, why were the African colonies of Belgium automatically French-speaking? Especially since Rwanda and Burundi had previously been German colonies, surely using Dutch would have been easier? Joziboy 4 May 2006, 17:24 (UTC)

Because of the historical bias Belgian authorities had in the past against the Dutch language. They considered French better suited as official language in the Belgian Congo (and before that in the Congo Free State) and in Ruanda and Urundi (as these countries were called in those times). On the other hand, the Dutch government used the Dutch language as official language in its colonies, (it is still spoken now in Suriname and Aruba and the Dutch Antilles). JoJan 18:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't Belgium predominantly Dutch-speaking? I thought it was about 60% Flemish? Yeah I know about Dutch colonies - I'm from one :) (Although Afrikaans is now a seperate language) Joziboy 4 May 2006, 20:35 (UTC)

Indeed, Belgium is predominantly Dutch-speaking. But, until recently, the Dutch language was suppressed by the authorities in Flanders and French was enforced upon the Flemish population (and therefore also in the colonies). The complete history of the Flemish struggle for emancipation hasn't been explained properly yet in the en.wikipedia. This subject has been barely touched in the articles Flanders and Flemish movement. A good external link in English is Flemish Movement, even if it doesn't go all the way back into the historical causes of the oppression of the Flemish language, dating back to the 15th-16th century (Burgundy rulers, Hapsburg rulers - first Spanish, later Austrian - French revolutionaries ...). This is a very complex matter. JoJan 09:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

predominantly Dutch-speaking is a fallacy. The truth is we don't know. There hasn't been a linguistic census in years. The current statistics are based on what side of Belgium people live in, but as we all know not everybody speaks the language of their region as their first language. Saying that, it is probably certain there is a majority of Dutch speaker in Belgium. Even if it were 60%, 60/40 ration is not predominant. The historical discrimination against the Dutch language variants in Belgium has marked Belgium and its colony. ---moyogo 10:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that appears a bit 'very cautious'. I have the impression that 99,00% of all French-speaking politicians and journalists very much insist on maintaining all the special double majorities and special alarm bell procedures BECAUSE otherwise the lemish minority would be able to dictate them all 'national' decisions. So, from their point of view, there is not the slightest doubt on the fact that a numeric majority of the belgians are Flemish. So, altough theoretically (given the absence of linguistic census), you're right, that appears excessively far-fetched, given the common understanding. --Lucas Richards 14:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it was a sort of lingual nationalism? The French speaking minority forced the Dutch speaking majority to speak their language because they thought that it was better?[[User:Bobthellam--Lucas Richards 14:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)a9|The Holy Hand Grenade Attack Llama]] 02:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmuch of the Bourgeoisie was French speaking and since they had the power, the did what they wanted. At that time I don't think we can talk about a majority/minority of linguistic groups, but we can talk of influence of groups. Again 60/40 is not really a majority/minority ratio, at least not to me. A lot of this was majorly influence by the French era in Belgium, the Bourgeoisie was heavily turned francophone. ---moyogo 10:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. --Lucas Richards 14:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Largest city

Why do people keep changing largest city from Antwerp to Brussels when that's factual incorrect?

Although the Brussels-Capital Region (a region just as the Flemish region or the Walloon region)has about a million inhabitants it consists out of 19 different municipalities of which Brussels proper is only one. The City of Brussels only has 142,853 inhabitants whereas Antwerp has a population of 457,749, which makes it the largest city/municipality of Belgium.

The difference in size is due to governmental politics. When in 1976 Belgium unified its municipalities in to larger ones, Antwerp was joined with several other then autonomous municipalities (for instance Deurne) into one single big Antwerp municipality, whereas "Brussels" remained divided in 19 autonomous municipalities. With federalisation the Brussels capital region was created but as this is a region on the same foot as the other regions and communities, it cannot be equated with a municipality. fdewaele --- 7 June 2006, 14:50 (CET).

Hmm You'd be right if it was saying largest municipality but it is largest city and I'm quite sure it's refering to the general conception of what a city is and not what on paper for some political reason. --moyogo 13:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a paper reason. People from Jette or Etterbeek are not Brusselois. They live in the region but not in the city. You can't negate the (political) reality because of general misconceptions fdewaele, 7 June 2006, 19:00 (CET)

That's bullshit, depending one’s point of view Brussels, the city, not the municipality, is greater Brussels. I've met people from Jette who had no problem introducing themselves as Brusselers. What's the largest city for you is not the largest city for the next person. What do you do, you impose your point of view just like they imposed their's. This is utter nonsense with regards to NPOV. Largest city clearly isn't an official thing on Wikipedia. We should indicate both conceptions (yours and that of others). --moyogo 07:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POV, it's simply the law. The Brussels Capital Region is a metropolitan area (agglomeratie) but not a city. The difference is as big as between the NYC (8 million) and the NY metropolitan, area (22 million). And yet the metropolitan figures are not used to determine the size of a city itself. -- fdewaele, 8 June 2006, 13:25 (CET)

Once again, you're mixing things, Brussels Capital Region is not a metropolitan area but an federal entity in Belgium. The metropolitan area englobes things that are not part of the Region. Now in Belgian terms what is a city? Is a city a municipality? Is a city a whole metropolitan area? I guess it's whatever you feel like it is. I insist however that this is not about the largest municipality and therefore the different conceptions of the largest city of Belgium should be indicated. Polaron mentioned the case of Japan which seems like a good idea to me. --moyogo 12:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] in Dutch [2] in French, and other official documents use the general conception of Brussels being the largest city in Belgium. You'll be able to find more in the Federal Government website. I'm not saying this to prove a point, it is clear the "city of Brussels", the municipality, is not the largest one, however the city of Brussels, which exists in everybody's head and is pretty close to the official Brussels Capital Region is the largest city of Belgium. Btw what is a capital? Isn't a capital a city? Oh wait it's called a Region, maybe that's because there's already a municipality that bears the name therefore they had to call it something else. If you still insist that only official municipalities can be cities then you might want to go change a couple of article that claim the Region is the capital, starting with the definition of capital.---moyogo 12:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... and here's another one for your almighty official conception: What about the city of London? London can't be the largest city in UK since the City of London is tiny. --moyogo 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at what Japan does as a possible option. Polaron | Talk 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! so u would also said that Paris is not the largest city of France since "Paris Intra Muros" is tiny? Brussels is the largest city of belgium period. im from woluwe st lambert and i feel "bruxellois" and nothing else.--Boulinou 05:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Dutch and French links don't state that Brussels is the largest city but one of the five largest cities of Belgium.
True, sorry for taking a non crystal clear example. However they do have them in a non alphabetical order that matches the order in size of the general (non legal) conception of cities. ---moyogo 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the following official website of the FOD Economy, statistical division gives the 25 largest cities of Belgium: [3] Take not of the position of Brussels in it (nr. 5)
De 25 bevolkingsrijkste gemeenten... no comment. ---moyogo 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I used "metropolitan area" because I don't know the English term for "agglomeratie", the 19 municipalities are enjoined in the Brussels agglomeratie which powers are executed by the Region.
Metropolitan area is fine, agglomeration works too.--moyogo 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The capital city of Belgium is Brussels, meaning the entity with as mayor Freddy Thielemans... meaning the municipality. Nor the Region, nor the agglomeratie are the capital. Capital city isn't the same as capital region, those two are completely different things.
You're right [4](nl), [5](fr), Bruxelles-City is officially the capital. --moyogo 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Belgian law, a municipality is either a city (stad) (because it has charter rights) or a "commune" (gemeente). Both Antwerp and Brussels are cities in that context but Antwerp has a greater territory and more inhabitants because of the fusions of 1976.
I would therefore propose turn your edit around: state that Antwerp is the largest city but in footnote that Brussels is the largest urban area. That way you come closer to the legal truth.

--- fdewaele 8 June 2006, 16:10 (CET)

Sure, do it if you like but then change the capital from Brussels to Brussels-City, since you want to prioritise legal matters. Still, as a city, Brussels = Brussels-City still rings extremely wrong to me in real life. ---moyogo 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may sound wrong and it almost never is used in its full form but it's the correct legal form nonetheless, regardless of what the current City of Brussels topic says about article 166 and 194 of the Constitution, which is plain wrong. --- fdewaele 9 June 2006, 9:20 (CET)

The problem is that you're saying only the legal point of view has a value. Yes Brussels-City is the capital of Belgium, but in most people's head it's Brussels (the general concept that is not on paper). Yes Brussels-City is not the largest municipality but Brussels is not just the municipality in many people's head. Should the article Brussels be erased since it doesn't represent anything legally recognized? --moyogo 08:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it might be cleaned up as to give a correct picture of what "Brussels" in all its forms really is. --- fdewaele 9 June 2006, 10:20 (CET)

I checked a lot of different country pages and it announce only one city as the largest city. and i dont see why belgium should have 3 cities on the "largest city" section (and not "cities"). for me only brussels should be there. i understand flemish are proud of their cities but for real i repear only brussels has to be there. and gent has absolutely no reason to be there AT ALL.

please not that old monniker again. See the above discussion. We came to a modus vivendi about it. An equilibrium between people's conceptions and Belgian LAW. It's got nothing to do with pride in one's region. fdewaele

YOU by YOURSELF made an agreement about it. Don't you see that no one is okay with that bullshit. Brussels is the largest city of Belgium.--162.83.147.122 14:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not me by myself, as you can clearly see from the above if you only read it. What you're now claiming is that the Region is a city which it definately is NOT. You claim something which runs contrary to Belgian constitutional law, communal law and federalization.fdewaele 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels isn't the largest city of Belgium, Antwerp is.Fdewaele shouldn't even be defending this, because it's a rock hard fact this whole discussion is a waste of time. Rex 16:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wwhat's the largest city in England? We say London, despite the fact that the City of London is minuscule.... Greater London, like the Brussels Capital Region, is not a city, although it is often treated like it is one. The 10 largest "Cities" in England would seem to be Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Wakefield(!), Coventry, and Leicester. The City of Westminster is only the 20th largest city, and the City of London is even smaller. Point: "City," as legally defined, is not necessarily equivalent to "city" as a general concept. john k 17:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, every country is different but there is a separate mayor of London (Ken Livingston) so London is somewhat unified as a city. Whereas the Brussels Capital Region has nineteen separate towns and cities - all separate municipalities with their own government, legal personality and mayor. The Region itself is - for lack of a better alternative - the quivalent of a German lander (as are the other Regions and Communities). As said before the difference lays with Antwerp being unified in one big city during the "Big Fusion" of the seventies whereas for Brussels the political choice was made to keep all the separate entities

Brussels indeed is the largest urban area - as said in the footnote AND as used by the government office of statistics as shown above - but with regard to cities (that is a municipality with its own legal personality and possessing city status) Antwerp is the largest, which the above mentioned government office of statistics figures unequivocally say as well -- fdewaele -- 3 July 2006, 20:20

The existence of a Mayor of London is a new thing, it's only existed since 2000. London consists of 20 separate boroughs - all separate municipalities with their own government, legal personality and so forth. London is considered a region of England, on the same level as the North East, or the East Midlands. I don't see on what basis Greater London is to be considered a city, and the Brussels Capital Region is not. john k 19:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an official source with the size of both brussels which includes its "19 communes" and antwerp wich includes its "gementen". then we can agree. without a source. brussels is the largest city de facto. --66.65.114.223 04:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official data from the Belgian statistics office: Gives data for both communes and regions. LHOON 05:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. someone should put The land area On Brussels page. And maybe follow the template made for paris.

I think this discussion is pedantic and not informative. Any user interested in Belgium should know that Brussels is the largest Belgian city and not Antwerp! This discussion is an insult for WP! Vb 10:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comment! The whole thing is pedantic in the sense that the term city has a well defined legal meaning as a type of municipality which is not the same as an urban area in general. Solution: in the infobox, put Largest metropolitan area or something of the kind, to avoid all confusion as to the correct use of the term city. LHOON 09:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will somebody please answer my question? If Antwerp is the largest city in Belgium, why isn't Birmingham the largest city in England? As far as I can tell, the legal issue is almost exactly the same. john k 10:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is really pedandic. I had a look at my Larousse and my Atlas from school. There is really no discussion about which is the largest city. From a qualitative point of view you just have to visit both city to realize this. Please refrain from non sense! I you go on vandalizing this article, I will ask for getting rid of the featured status! Vb

Didn't we reach a consensus a while ago? Leaving Brussels, Antwerp ⁽¹⁾ with the note : (1): Brussels is the largest urban area, Antwerp is the largest city with legal status or something like that? ---moyogo 08:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw "city" can mean different things. It has a legal meaning but it also has a common meaning many people use. If we don't want to reach a consensus, a good way to go is to avoid taking that into account. In the Belgian legal sense Antwerp is the largest city without a doubt, in the general common sense of the term, Brussels (not just "the city of Brussels" but what people conceive as Brussels) is without a doubt. ---moyogo 08:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! I cannot find it anymore but i can remember the article stated brussels was the biggest city with a note or a sentence between brackets stating Antwerp is the largest municipality. This is clearly the best solution as it explains the two POV and doesnt introduce confusion in people minds (especially in that of people who don't care about the linguistic situation in Belgium). Julien Tuerlinckx 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Myongo said, it is simply wrong to say that Brussels is the largest city. It is NOT! Antwerp is bigger than brussels, both in surface (Antwerp totalling 204,51 km² vs. 32,61 km² for Brussels only) as in population (460.000 vs. only +/- 145.000 in the Brussels city/municipality).

BTW i think the discussion is misleading: at some point people believe largest city is the city with the most inhabitants and at another point people talk about largest city as the largest area. If you visit this page you will see the meaning of the largest city in the infobox is about population. Julien Tuerlinckx 18:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I utterly agree with the comments above (particularly Myogo's). The two meanings of the word "city" have to appear in the text. Vb

Hi. I've been living in the Brussels municipality of Uccle for several years and it would never occur to me to say I'm from Uccle. Nobody I know here has any kind of identity linked to the commune/gemeente he or she lives it. The 19 communes are, granted, officially separate entities. However, note the following facts: Brussels' main train station, Bruxelles-Midi/Brussel Zuidstation, is in fact in Saint-Gilles. The famous Atomium is in Laken. The European institutions are sprawled over several municipalities. The NATO headquarters is in Evere. The mass transit network takes no account of internal boundaries, which are invisible save a few small rusting signs on buildings. My point is this: nobody gives a damn about administrative subdivisions in Brussels. Similarly, people from Queens or Brooklyn call themselves New Yorkers. From Laken to Watermaal and from Anderlecht to Woluwe, Brussels is just Brussels, the largest city in Belgium. Antwerp is a great city, but still much smaller than Brussels. Alex M. NOV 15, 2006

Wouldn't it be better to do it in the way like they did in the UK article? "Largest Most populous conurbation: Brussels". That is the most correct and it can't be discussed. It also is more correct than how it is right now, even with the footnote. If you ask someone from Belgium what the largest city of his country is, no normal person would say Antwerp. It's Brussels, by far. If you want the largest municipality then you have in fact Doornik. Because, in my opinion, 'largest' indicates the surface, not the population. A bigger population does not immediately mean a bigger city or municipality. The population also depends of the population density. So making it something like 'Largest urban area: Brussels' is never wrong and the most correct. Wikifalcon 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very good suggestion, I changed the article using the term largest metropolitan area thanks to the template feature largest_settlement_type (which however does not allow to drop the word largest for most populous). And to be wholly correct, I stated it as BCR and not Brussels proper which is just the city. Now at least we do not have to discuss the definition of city anymore in this context... LHOON 14:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Can't be more correct than this:) Wikifalcon 14:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister

In the article about Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium) Guy Verhofstadt (spelling?) is still mentioned as Prime Minister.

However, it is Yves Leterme now, as seen in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_Leterme

Yves Leterme is the Minister-President of Flemish regional government, Guy Verhofstadt is the Prime Minister of the federal government of Belgium. We are just a small country, but we have a complex political structure with lots of governments and ministers ! :-)

LHOON 11:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Minister-President of Flanders have a French name? john k 15:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Leterme's father was a Walloon who for economical reasons moved from Wallonia (Hanuit) to West Flanders and started a family there. The son was thus brought up as a Fleming. The same reason in reverse as to why various Walloon politicians have Flemish names, for instance Van Cauwenberghe, Onckelinckx,... fdewaele, 23 July 2006, 19:18

This is actually incorrect. The Leterme family came from France and settled in Comines-Warneton, on the language frontier. He has no Walloon ancesters whatsoever. The rest is true though. Even more funny, the previous minister-president of Flanders was named Dewael, which means the Walloon in Dutch.Dionysos1 10:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the idea of French-speaking people with Flemish names was familiar to me. Flemish speaking people with French names seems odder. john k 20:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that unusual though... -- fdewaele, 24 July 2006, 10:09

Environment section

I've thrown out the Environment section as it made the article worse. I have put some of the information and the link to Environment of Belgium under the Geography section, which is now Geography, climate, and environment. Feel free to expand the section and maybe recreate the environment section, but without compromising the quality of the article. Don't just insert crap into a featured article and hope for someone to cleanup after you. Piet 12:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much material

Much material has been recently added to the article (culture, history, etc...). This article is going down hill and some sections are looking more like lists. In contrast, many article like history of Belgium, culture of Belgium etc... are urgently needing more material and rephrasing. Please have a look at those before adding too much material. User:Vb 08:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cockpit of Europe

Fdewaele changed "cockpit of Europe" into "battlefield of Europe". This was a referenced phrase from Nuttall encyclopedia, you can't just change it into something else. Why was this done? Piet 07:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general saying for the many wars that took place on Belgian ground is the "battlefield of Europe", as used by the belgian Foreign Ministry and others[6] Cockpit is an old English word for a place where many battles have been fought. The word cockpit nowadays is rarely used in that meaning. But I'll change the wording a bit to include both. -- fdewaele, 16 August 2006, 9:50 (CET).

Either is okay with me, but not "battlefield" with a link to Nuttall because that's probably a misquote. Btw. the Belgian Foreign Ministry is neither neutral nor English speaking, so that's not proof that "cockpit" would be less good than "battlefield". But it's a very small issue. Piet 14:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, "Cockpit of Europe" is a recognised phrase. A quick Google shows it up as an entry in "Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable", published in 1898. Also a boardgame called "Cockpit of Europe" covering the War of the Austrian succession. Suggests that fdewaele's idea of including both terms is the right one. Brickie 16:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I provided a reference that also brings the earliest usage of 'cockpit' for this geographical area, to 1640. — SomeHuman 25 May 2007 08:10 (UTC)

WikiProject Belgium

Hi,

I just started Wikipedia:WikiProject_Belgium (for real this time, after it was previously hijacked by some guys writing articles about Plofbroekstraat...

Everyone interested is very much invited to join over there, and think together about the project. Hope to see you soon!

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted

The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.

Please support me in maitaining Belguim's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. Belgium deserves no less! Please also feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location Maps for European countries. JamesAVD 16:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DISCUSS THIS AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues as it involves more than just this country.

Thanks, —MJCdetroit 20:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the old map should be maintained untill consensus is achieved. Arnoutf 14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total area of Belgium

The area given as 30,528 km² - is taken from CIA factbook (and looks to be outdated). The Belgian Federal Government website gives it as 32,545 km² (2,000 m² were granted by the Netherlands to Belgium on 29 May 2000). Also the area rank is 139th not 140th (see List of countries and outlying territories by total area). ~~I have entered the data to the article and corrected the rank.~~

Relevant links:

feydey 12:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: See that Official statistics of Belgium website gives it as 33 990 km² (2006). So 30,528 --> 33,990? feydey 13:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link above gives the solution: 30,528 equals the total land area; 33,990 equals the total area including the are of the Nord Sea claimed by Belgium. --Donar Reiskoffer 15:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph is unclear

I find some text in the second paragraph (beginning "Straddling the cultural boundary...") very difficult to follow. In particular, the sentence beginning "It has two main languages..." should surely be divided up into three or four separate ones. I would do this myself, but I'm not even quite sure about what the author(s) is trying to say here. Stevvers

I also don't agree with this paragraph. It is nuch too detailed for a paragraph of the lead. Detailed info which has to be correctly referred and are subject of frequent update should be moved to paragraph "demographics". However SomeHuman and I visibly disagree. Vb 09:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)~[reply]