Talk:Hesbaye

message: I found the following errors on this page:
*Treaty from the year 880 between Charles the Bald and Louis the German.
Both kings had died before 880. So either the treaty of Ribemont in 880 is meant which is signed by their successors or the treaty of Meerssen is meant, signed in 870 by Charles and Louis. The latter treaty seems to me more likely the case because it is mentioned here: nl:Haspengouw_(gouw) 
*The map showing "The natural regions of Belgium". 
These regions are anything else but natural. Some regions bear historical names some bear political names and the grey zones are even described on the left as "industrial region".
--Eusc (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean about the natural regions? Here it's supposed to mean that the different regions have different plants, animals and terrain. And I've made the first change. Oreo Priest talk 15:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! Thanks for your quick response! Yes, I agree with you that this is a map which shows different types of natural landscapes such as hilly wooded regions or flat and sandy regions and so on. But what I wanted to say is that the given names on the map don't match always properly with the borders of the natural regions shown by different colours. There is a description missing what the different colours represent with exception of the grey coloured industrial regions. I give you an example. The Haspengouw-Hesbaye region is divided in a dry southern part (droog Haspengouw) where wheatfields dominate and sugar is produced while in the sandy and humid northern part (vochtig Haspengouw) grassland dominates and where apples and other fruit as well as milk are produced. The northern part is a transition zone to the Kempen region (Campine). So the Haspengouw-Hesbaye belongs to two different types of landscapes. But the map makes the reader feel the purple area with the name Hesbaye inside is the Haspengouw. But it is only the southern part, while the northern part is partly in the yellow zone with the name Campine inside which is the French word for the Kempen region. So the given names are only rough indications sufficient to show what type of soil etc. is found in which region. But this map doesn't show the right borders of the regions. Another example are the polder areas which are close to the sea and green coloured. These regions are part of Flanders while the map gives the impression Polders and Flanders are two different areas. The Kempen (Campine) region is part of Flanders as well. The region des collines belongs partly to Flanders as well. The name Flanders ist here used in a restricted way to describe parts of two flemisch provinces. So these names are used in a rough and casual manner that people get an idea where the different coloured areas are to find and can be used to show the structure of the Belgian landscape but it doesn't show the proper borders of the used region names. By identifying the purple colour with Hesbaye is in my opinion only partly correct. That is what I wanted to say. --Eusc (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that very clear response. I've found the map quite helpful in this and other articles, (try explaining where Fagne is without it) but it is admittedly imperfect. The problem is that I doubt that there's a better free equivalent or that one will be created anytime soon, so we have to live with this one.Oreo Priest talk 21:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors 

message: I note that User:Ninanta has made a change in the title of this article, after having added some edits, also emphasizing name changes. All the work refers to Charles Cawley's online "Medieval Lands" project, hosted on the FMG website. Basically all these edits have the same proposed rationale "Hesbaye is the French spelling; Hesbaie is the English spelling". I have some concerns about this and would like to make sure discussion is put on record. Possibly we should revert all these edits if no good responses can be given.
*The Medieval Lands project is one which has been the subject of much debate on Wikipedia. (Search the archives of WP:RSN for example, or search in mainspace generally or on talk pages generally.) I should put on record I have generally been sympathetic to the source, at least as a helpful website, and as a medieval genealogist myself I've had correspondence with Charles over the years a few times. Basically though, the source is not seen as meeting the standard of a good "reliable source" as per WP:RS, which is one of Wikipedia's 3 "core content policies" (some of the most important rules on Wikipedia, generally seen as really being rules we must follow). 
::*A basic problem for Wikipedia is that this is a one man project with no oversight by cross checkers or moderators or editors. (FMG just hosts the project on its website.) 
::*Charles Cawley himself makes it clear this is an on-going project, not a finished work, and he frequently makes massive changes. This is to be expected because he has to some extent tried to ignore commonly used secondary sources (the type Wikipedia normally uses) so that he can try to rebuild the genealogies of medieval nobility based on primary sources.
::So I think the best that can be argued is that sometimes Medieval Lands can be used in conjunction with the sources it cites, on the principle of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.
*Putting aside the question of whether Medieval Lands can ever be used on Wikipedia, we must consider what it aims to do, and whether this matches the way Ninanta is proposing to use it, as a source for English usage. I think Cawley would not at all see his work this way. He is citing primary documents which use a bewildering array of archaic spellings, from a variety of languages, and he is not trying to set any "standard spelling" rules as far as I can see. To the extent he would be doing that, it would not be concerning modern English spelling anyway, which is what Ninanta is making claims about.
My proposal: I have seen the French spelling used in modern English, and by normal Wikipedia norms, the Dutch spelling, which can undoubtedly also be found in modern English publications, can also be used. (Most of the region is Dutch speaking.) I have no strong preference. I can see no argument for using "Hesbaie", but I will wait for replies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'm opposed to the use of Hesbaie or Hesbaye as the name of the regio is Haspengouw and that is the name used in Belgium. The Haspengouw is known throughout Belgium by that name and as a fruit growing region. Using an English or French name would be like renaming the Ireland page Irlanda since most people in Spanish speaking countries know it as such and there are more Spanish speakers than English speakers. The name is Haspengouw and anything else is quite insulting in my opinion.Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

text: We should move the page back to Hesbaye and not Haspengouw, as Hesbaye was the status quo before the absurd move (and no convincing argument has been put forward for overturning the status quo). Oreo Priest talk 17:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Very quick remark on the side issue (which as Oreo mentions has been discussed before): There is both a Haspengouw and a Hesbaye in modern Belgium, the later being the part in the modern province of Liège. I guess it could be argued that these are now two different places with two different names, but I think that is not a clear thing in sources. I think that would be more referring to an evolving situation in Dutch and maybe French, not in English? I feel in any case that it makes sense to discuss both in one article for now. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There's only one region, which straddles the language border, and has two different names. Splitting up the article doesn't make sense. Oreo Priest talk 18:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:NCGN, the article title should be the widely accepted English name. There's a list of sources for commonly used names in the same page, I checked some of those for this region. Britannica uses Hesbaye, Columbia uses Hesbaye, the NGA (search) uses Hesbaye. "Hesbaie" is not even mentioned in those sources. I guess it would be best to move it back to Hesbaye. Markussep Talk 09:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes in effect you are repeating the discussion we already had a long time ago, and I found that conclusion acceptable. Oreo I also tend to understand the term as a term for one area only. I was probably over doing the exercise of thinking about hypothetical counter arguments. I guess what I had in mind is that the term in modern Belgium has a meaning in tourism, brown signs etc, and presumably in that jargon the distinctions would be made between the two areas, which are not managed together. (Which means very few walking trail links between them unfortunately!) But that was a pretty stretched argument, that no one was making!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

text: The majority of the region is in Limburg with other parts being in Luik, Namen, Vlaams-Brabant and Waals-Brabant. Most of the region is in the Flemish part of Belgium and therefore the Flemish version of the name should be used. Most Belgians know the region as Haspengouw. The above discussion doesn't make any sense at all from a Belgian point of view. It would make more sense to rename the page Haspinga, than Hesbaie or Hesbaye. Otherwise we might as well rename s-Gravenvoeren to Fouron-le-Comte and Vooren to Fourons. Let's rename Sint-Andries to Saint-Andréand Neufchâteau to Negenkerken. And let's not stop there as Arlon could become Aarlen or Arel and Tournai should become Doornik. All makes just as much sense.
Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For better or worse though, Wikipedia is not written from a "Belgian point of view". The choice of terminology depends on what publications in English tend to do. In cases where a region is never referred to in any clearly dominant English way, then we use local names. For example, Bruges, Ghent and Brussels all have their own English names. I think several of the editors who have been involved in this discussion have sympathy with the idea that maybe we should use the Dutch name, but there does seem to be a pretty well established tradition in publications written in English. As is quite often, the English term seems to follow French rather more than Dutch. I think there is no pointing get upset about such artifacts of history though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

text:  There's every reason to be upset about it. After all if a historical precedent is the guideline we should call London Londinium and Dublin Dubh Linn. Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Historical precedent is not the guideline, but modern English publications are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen too many modern English publications using Hesbaie though. Quite the contrary. http://www.toerismelimburg.be/en/discover/cities-regions/haspengouw  http://www.tongeren.be/Toerisme/Tourism_Tongeren/Haspengouw_High_Points http://discoveringbelgium.com/2013/04/09/the-blossoms-of-haspengouw/ http://www.flanderstoday.eu/living/limburg-bloom  In fact, none of the arguments for keeping Hesbaie or Hesbaye make much sense. It would make sense if it was a well known region in the English speaking world, but it isn't. The names 'Hesbaie', 'Hesbaye' and 'Haspengouw' all sound foreign to English speakers. Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

text:  Google gives over 473.000 results for Haspengouw, 353.000 for Hesbaye and only 3803 for Hesbaie. The dictionary also mentions Haspengouw and not Hesbaye. Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Concerning Hesbaie, I have not seen one good defense of this spelling, and it seems clear we need to change it, so that is at least clear. I am quite neutral about the two spellings. My impression is that the French term is used in more "serious" books, for example by academics (who presumably are more aware of older norms in the English language), whereas the Dutch name is used in such things as tourist brochures. Do you agree? Concerning your Googlings, can you describe the search you did? (In theory we should try to stick to English hits.) And which dictionary did you use?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  At least it seems clear that we should move away from the current name. I will revert to Hesbaye, which is one of the two names it seems everyone agrees to be the contenders.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I note with disappointment that the reference to the Medieval orthography "Hispania" has recently been removed.  It is an important warning to anyone working on the topic that Hesbaye was often referred to as Hispania in Medieval documents.  For a recent discussion of this, see https://www.academia.edu/19224800/Jacobus_de_Ispania_and_Li%C3%A8ge  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.153.253 (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a very unusual spelling and it had no source. You are mentioning a source (although I have to say it only seems to mention a few examples), on that basis it could be mentioned in the body if we can find a reasonable way to do this, which is not WP:UNDUE. I think it should not be in the first line, because there are lots of spelling variations and we can not put them all there. Possibly the article deserves a name section because there are also other variations to discuss, such as mentioned in Verhelst's article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, that explains it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.153.253 (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  undiscussed article move