Talk:Breendonk

Revert war

There is disagreement between one user and some users about the inclusion of the sentence "Much to the regret of its locals" about the fusion. History: July 5th

• Addition by 81.245.176.73
• Reverted by Seidenstud
• Readdition by 81.245.176.73
• Reverted by Fram
• Readdition by 81.245.176.127
• Reverted by Fram

July 6th:

• Readdition by 81.245.170.108
• Reverted by Fram
• Readdition by 81.245.170.108

I have placed this on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. Comments are welcome about both the dispuited sentence (is it WP:POV and/or WP:WEASEL or is it acceptable?), and about the behaviour (reverts and comments) of the editors involved (I assume that all 81.245.17... users are one and the same person, not sockpuppets or so, just a variable IP). Fram 14:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

From RfC

Yes, as it stands, I would call that WP:POV. Not much weaseling, but no WP:V. If this is going to be in the article, there Must be a credible, verifiable source cited - not just a few pissed of locals, but credible significant opposition. And context and explanation. Why? (again, with WP:V, WP:NOR sources).Bridesmill 14:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right, verbal cites don't work here, we do //not// wait for things to be fixed 'when you get some time'; put it on fully and correctly, or fix it quickly, or we leave it off until it is mature enough to be on here. It is also suggested that you get an account; anonymous users tend not to be taken as seriously as those with accounts. And discuss things here, not on the article page.Bridesmill 15:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The merger and reform of communes should be covered more in detail on the page Municipalities of Belgium. The 1977 mergers were indeed heavily opposed by local communities, being mostly imposed by the government without consulting local authorities. LHOON 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

From the author of the article

Yes, indeed one and the same person (Who lived in Breendonk, from birth in 1955 until 1991).

Yes, indeed, I should have put more time in preparing the article befor trying to write it down in a few spare moments.

No, not very serious of adding a few lines whenever I had the time and thus creating a war over one (Actually unfinished) statement.

No, not POV.->

As LHOON states: The merger of communes was a big issue in Belgium, and, indeed for many years in Breendonk (The split of the town and a part of it being merged with even another community (Willebroek), thus 'loosing' the fortification, complicating matters - and yes, causing bitterness - even more).Furthermore there always had been an antagonism between Breendonk and Puurs dating from the time it was 'created out of the marshes' by the monks of Puurs (See my article that I once hope to write).

Be very carefull with your demand that EVERY statement must be 'backed' by a credible and verifiable source: That is unfeasable. Even scientific publications do not impose this as it would make their publications take up five times more space in citations and footnotes than the actual text of the article (Which indeed sometimes is the case). And so, the problem of when demanding a verifiable source, and when not to is one that bothers every editor of any scientific publication (As taught to me by prof. Prevenier in his class of 'Historic Criticism')

Wikipedia (Like ANY publication) CAN'T avoid of being filled with unverifiable statements.

Read an article - ANY article, in ANY publication - VERY CAREFULLY and you'll find heaps of them.

(So we where taught, and it was demonstrated to us, by prof. Prevenier and prof. Vandamme in his class of 'Argumentation Theory')

Sorry, for having discussed things on the article page. Hadn't noticed yet there was also a talk page.

Please sign your articles with 4 tildes (~~~~). No intent to be rude; it's just that here on WP very often anonymous editors make outrageous unsubstantiated political statements. Also did not mean to imply that *every word* had to be substantiated; common knowledge & reasonableness etc etc; but any phrase that is apt to cause eyebrows to be raised, that anyone might have reason to disagree with, that sounds like 'opinion' should be - that is a lot to ask, but from my experience here it is better to cite that sort of thing right off the bat rather than risk arguments and "revert wars" - lots of decent material ends up being argued about for no reason when an early cite would have settled it. I don't mean to be "kicking the newbie", sorry if it came across that way. In this case, pehaps a link to the appropriate section in Municipalities of Belgium, with the appropriate section on the municipality mergers there expanded upon as LHOON suggests. Cheers, Bridesmill 00:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

From 'The author':

Since I seem to have help on-line here:

- Why signing with 4 tildes? (What does it do?)

- Where signing with tildes? (Where on the page?)

- Where do I find these things on a Macintosh-keyboard (NOT a QUERTY but an AZERTY)?

Very easy: option-n ! Happy macintosh user too

LHOON 07:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried that on the talk page of 'Municipalities of Belgium' and it does indeed sign my entry with my IP-adress,

but I get no date-stamp81.246.156.148

Be sure to type four tildes. On a Mac, type a space after the fourth tilde to make sure it is registered (tilde is a special character that can be combined with other ones, like the spanish ñ !) LHOON 14:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Right-on pal, the 'space' does indeed do the job, Thanks!81.246.156.148 00:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Been using these machines since '87 (And programming them from '88 till '98)

but often had to 'cut and paste' (Out of example text or program-code) in order to produce 'special characters'

that I could not find on my keyboard (Of-course, when all else failed I SHOULD have read the manual,

but I've got a room full of manuals).

On std belgian AZERTY: Bottom row right, same key as the "+ =". four tildes mark the end of your talk entry with a timestamp and username, that way it is easy on talk pages to keep track of who said what (but only on talk page, on article page the 'history' shows that). If you get an account though (which costs nothing), you can discuss these things on your own talk page (see mine at User talk:Bridesmill for example - just don't mind the arguments ) without getting in the way of this talk page, which should be only about Breendonk. Cheers.Bridesmill 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I know and respect Prevenier. Don't assume a lack of knowledge from other people because you disagree with them. I don't ask for verification or sources for every statement. I ask for verification when a subjective statement is introduced which may or may not be correct (I have not said that you have made a false claim, I have said that it is the kind of claim that shouldn't be in Wikipedia or eny encyclopedia without any reference). I know that the fusions of 1977 have been contested (just look at how some people in Ekeren try to get their independence from Antwerp back), but that does not mean that this was specifically the case in Breendonk, and even less that all the locals felt that way (which is what the article says now by omitting any quantification: "the locals"). I knowthat absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all such, but absence of evidence does mean that it shouldn't be included here. Your statement that it is true only means that at least one local felt that way, but that doesn't mean that perhaps another (major or minor) group welcomed the fusion. As it stands, the statement is totally subjective and should disappear. If you can provide us with references to newspaper articles of the time or other published sources about protests, petitions, votes for a separatist party, ..., then it can be reintroduced. Fram 07:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Another RfC response

Here's a practical suggestion. Leave out "much to the regret of locals". After the sentence explaining the bare facts of the merger add another sentence: "This merger attracted protests" or "This merger was controversial" and then add {{fact}} , which in the article will read "Citation needed". Then when you have time add in a reference to relevant articles in the local newspapers and take out the {{fact}} tag. If it was a controversy large enough to note, then there would have been a petition, a protest rally or some other event that was reported. Itsmejudith 12:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE FROM THE AUTHOR:

First, let me tell you all that this was NOT a personal point of view. As a matter of fact, in those days, I didn't care much what happened to Breendonk! I was very much preoccupied finding money to fund my I.F.R.-license and start my first carreer, that of a taxi- and charter pilot (I am now very busy with my third carreer, that of full-time houseman).

Second, there are no such things as 'Local' newspapers in Belgium. The national papers did write about the mergers of-course, but certainly did not mention an unsignificant town like Breendonk.

Third, I know what I am writing about: The antagonism of the people of Breendonk towards those of Puurs is much greater and more complex than you can know if you have not lived there; also it goes back to the time that Breendonk was 'created' by the monks of Puurs:Imagine their dismay when they heard they were going to 'Belong to Puurs' once more!

It is indeed in this way that the mergers happened and caused so much bitterness: It was as if the 'bigger' towns were 'usurpating' the smaller-ones. And people of Breendonk (But not me, I disliked both) loved Willebroek but hated Puurs that looked down upon them and whose 'slaves' they once had been.

Breendonk is a place where you can't (And couldn't) even buy a newspaper. For everything they needed the people of Breendonk went (And still go) to Willebroek, not to Puurs. Puurs is a place you HAVE to go to for paying your taxes and renewing your identity-card.

But how on earth do you want me to prove all this: There simply IS NO written account of this, but is it therefore less true? Or important?

I KNEW - at the very moment I was writing that so much disputed sentence - that it was 'on the edge' but found it just (By a narrow margin) acceptable, mainly because it is so important in characterizing Breendonk.

I KNOW there have been town-meetings, I KNOW there has been a petition (Remembered signing it myself). I remember the mayor telling the people that there was no hope in turning back the mergers (Which I already knew, the then minister of the 'Home Office' was one who DID NOT make U-turns). But these facts were never written down! Breendonk, typically, is 'A place that doesn't exist' and there are no local papers - people of surrounding towns will tell you that no-one can read in Breendonk anyway (No I am NOT exaggerating: Breendonk is the mock of the region). You begin to get the picture? People of Breendonk then asked the mayor to ask the 'Home Office' that Breendonk would be merged with Willebroek, not with Puurs. The minister (Who was a very cynical man) let them know that their wish would be fullfilled (At least partially) and decided to split the town in two, 'giving' the fortifications and surrounding (but unhabited) areas to Willebroek (The split may be documented, but the reason why certainly is NOT). People of Breendonk cried havoc and would have slipped the dogs of war - but in a final yield the 'Home Office' concided that, although now part of Willebroek (By the way: Medieval for 'Wide Marshes'), the fortifications would STILL be called 'Fort van Breendonk'.

What I COULD have done was this: Elaborate on my statement in the broad context of the history of Puurs and Breendonk (Which CAN be cited with verifiable quotations - although the most horrible thing that can happen to someone plus two removals have now separated me from my sources which PERHAPS are in the pile of cardboard boxes for which I rent a garage next to my home).

This however, although perhaps typical for a large number of towns and Belgian history in general,woul have multiplied the article's length by a factor of ten; at first I had also wanted to elaborate on the fact how the war had left the town divided (Almost at war with each other) between 'The blacks' and 'The whites' (Pro or contra the Nazi's), also typical for many Belgian towns. Would this not lead us far beyond the scope of Wikipedia? 81.245.185.97 14:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Leave it or include it, that is the question

Argument for leaving it:

It can indeed not be cited (Verified it can be).

Arguments for including it:

It IS important in characterizing Breendonk, it was - and still is - a big issue in town and has, completely, changed it

Compare this for example with the article on the Belgian King Leopold III:

This is a very 'prudent' article - no statements that will raise eyebrows here. AND YET -

In a 'Wikipedia Review' by 'De Standaard' (Belgian equivalent of 'The Times') this article was brought forward as an example on HOW BAD Wikipedia is because - although no disputable statements here (The life and times of Leopold III though are VERY disputable) - almost everything about 'The Problem of The King' (De Koningskwestie) remains unexplained! 81.246.157.85 23:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if it cannot be cited, it cannot be here. Your statement amounts to WP:OR I understand your passion in this, and the potential of having difficulty here; but surely there must be something cite-able which indicates that the mergers were not smooth sailing (even if it did not specifically mention Breendonk); in addition there must have been something published. If not, it is a similar situation to where I live - population 1000 before amalgamation, and you'd be hard-pressed to find formal mention of displeasure; but what about town council records, debates etc? If that is still a blank, then all you can do is either imply that the general opposition to the merger was representative of what the situation locally was. The unfortunate part is that there are lots of people ith knowledge of local situations, but once we start on WP allowing people to publish that, it would allow WP:OR; and I am sure you can understand why that is just a Bad Thing.Bridesmill 00:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree when you state that if it can not be cited then it can not be here.

As stated before: There are heaps of uncited statements all over Wikipedia. And there is always lurking the danger of writing 'Sterile' articles when one exaggerates in 'academic ethos' (i.e.: The article on King Leoplod III)

I respect you for what you have done copy-editing my article (Though we shouldn't become personal here) and, yes, I concede that, perhaps, I should rephrase my statement in such a way that it is CLEAR that - although not just a personal oppinion - the dislike of Breendonk's population is not something that is proven by an official opinion poll or an academic inquiry. 81.245.174.48 01:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:3O request

Hi, I think that the statement as it is now is a violation of WP:V and WP:OR, so it shouldn't be included worded in the way it is. Perhaps, to portray the point, a short sentence on the aspect of the mergers that was covered in the national papers, eg "As part of the (disputed/unpopualar/whatever the papers said) town merging programme of the Belgian governemnt in 1977 the village of Breendonk was merged into the commune of Puurs; and the fort and surrounding area east of the A12 road (Leading from Antwerp to Brussels) became part of the commune of Willebroek." After this a reference to the newspaper should be included at the bottom of the article.

Perhaps, if you can find a source, you could mention the reasons behind the split of the town, but unfortunately wikipedia cannot allow un-referenced or un-verified statements which affect the meaning or the article. If such references were allowed here, it would just start the ball rolling and over time more articles would contain comletely untrue statements about their subject matter, unverified and unreferenced. Martinp23 13:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have posed the relevant question (I think) at Municipalities of Belgium, to see if one of the editors there can provide input. Until there is 'something' better than what the article has now I would propose that either it remain 'fact' tagged or the disputed clause is removed.Bridesmill 02:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling: Breendonk vs. Breendonck

In various electronic and print sources I've seen these two spellings referring variously to the town, the fort, and the Nazi internment camp (in operation there between autumn 1940 and summer 1944). A search in this Wikipedia of the two spellings indicates that no disambiguation page has been set up. Neither does the spelling "Breendonck" redirect to any article, though it appears (as a "redlink") on the List of Forts page. I'd appreciate an explanation of the distinction between and usage of the two spellings. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 06:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Village

Breendonk is a village, therefore its better to move this to intern. used Fort Breendonk Dasebu (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051230105805/http://www.breendonk.be:80/ to http://www.breendonk.be/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)