Talk:Breendonk

message: 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)
thread_title: Revert war

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: From RfC

message: 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  , 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   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)
thread_title:  Another RfC response 

message: 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)
thread_title: RESPONSE FROM THE AUTHOR:

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:3O]] request 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spelling: Breendonk vs. Breendonck 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified