Talk:Hesbaye

Name for the article: Hesbaye vs Haspengouw

I strongly object to the use of the French name and not the Limburgisch or Flemish name of the Haspengouw. The Haspengouw is in Limburg and Limburgs has always been the language spoken here. It is now in the Flemish part of Belgium so I propose (INSIST) to change it to the Flemish/Limburgian name. Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As this region finds itself in both the French speaking and the Dutch speaking part of the country, the name of this article should not just mention the French version, but both versions: Hesbaye/Haspengouw. Propose to change it as yet.-- Limbico (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that there have already been a lot of precedents discussed on wp for exactly this type of case, many of which are of course much more controversial, for example Danzig. You could maybe look around but i think the general rule is that one name should be chosen for the article title. In cases where there is a common English name, that tends to be used. And sometimes that can lead to French influenced names being used for some places. But personally i think Hesbaye is a word hardly used in English, except amongst people who speak French also and know Belgium. So my own feeling is that Haspengouw could possibly be better, but maybe it would be good to call for opinions on such an article name change.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Important in this question also is likely to be that (as far as I know) all Belgian geographical names originally are the Dutch version of those names. Those names that by now officially are in French, simply are frenchified (mostly wallonified) versions of the names in Dutch (Haspengouw became Hesbay, Henegouwen became Hainaut). As a result those French names do sound a bit like the Dutch ones, but don't really mean something, whereas the Dutch do; in case "gouw" is an historical Dutch word for "district".

So if indeed a choise has to be made, there seems to be more that pleeds for the original name in Dutch: Haspengouw.-- Limbico (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's say that if within a week there are no objections, a new page will be made under the name Haspengouw, whereas the existing one named Hesbay will be redirected to the new one.-- Limbico (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

We should call for more community input on an article name change like this. I will mention it at WP:BELG.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, proper names should be in the language of the area. The proper Dutch name would be the logical choice in this case. Fdutil (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Dutch is not the only language of the Hesbaye or Haspengouw, there's also a significant part in Wallonia, as you can see on the map in the article. It includes the Wallonian (French-speaking) towns Jodoigne, Gembloux, Hannut and Waremme, among others. "Haspengouw" could a better name for the article, but you need to collect evidence that it's the most used name in English. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) for advice, and especially the "Widely accepted name" section. When you're convinced that it should be renamed, please use Wikipedia:Requested moves. Markussep ^Talk 15:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I should start by saying that double names are not acceptable on Wikipedia; each article must have only one name. Beyond that, I agree with every word of what Markussep said. In collecting evidence, try not to naively count Google hits, as that lends itself to all sorts of imperfections. Oreo Priest ^talk 20:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Double names are not acceptable" and "Dutch is not the only language of the Hesbaye or Haspengouw"; indeed both former contributors to this discussion, that was exactly the problem already. So a choise had to be made and we were concidering what arguments are relevant. The Wp-rule that the widely accepted name has to be used goes for the current French name as well as for the proposed Dutch name. So as long as no users can proove that the French name is the widely accepted one, this doesn't have to be prooved relevant to the Dutch name either.

Arguments in favour of "Haspengouw" are:

• This is the original name; (this argument was mentioned above already).
• Although the undersigned didn't succeed in finding a map that clearly shows how much surface of this region is situated in Wallonia and how much in Dutch speaking provinces, he dares to presume, that the surface of the Dutch speaking part is (much) bigger than the Wallonian part.
• Although indeed the Wallonian part "includes the towns Jodoigne, Gembloux, Hannut and Waremme", (with together some 60.000 inhabitants), the Dutch speaking part includes the towns Tongeren, Sint-Truiden, Bilzen, Borgloon, Tienen, Landen and Zoutleeuw, with together more than double as much inhabitants. This in its turn gives reason to presume, that also more in general, the Dutch speaking part of Haspengouw counts (much) more inhabitants than the French speaking part.

Limbico (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

According to French wikipedia, even the city Namur and several suburbs of Liège are part of the area (which might have been correct in the middle ages, but seems a bit silly now), which probably shifts the balance towards French. Anyway, your latter two arguments (area and population) are relevant if no preference can be established in English usage, it would be better to check that first. Markussep ^Talk 07:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Some comments on various points made:

• In terms of policy I think Markussep is not mentioning one option, which is that we are dealing with a name not common in any form in English. I think that is what we have here, and in such cases we normally try to work out the most local name.
• I don't think modern Dutch "Haspengouw" is the "original" name at least in the sense that it is not the oldest spelling found. I think Latinate forms such as Hesbania or Haspinga are earliest? But maybe this is a side issue because it is generally accepted that these reflect a Frankish name, and therefore the name is in a sense ancestral to the modern Dutch one. (And the French name is basically an adaptation of it, as is common for many place names in this area.)
• It is true that historically the borders of Haspengouw are not perfectly clear, but it is hard to take this argument too far. For example, it is sometimes argued that Haspengouw once stretched to Louvain (Leuven) and including all of what is today called the Hageland. I think that in any case the maximum historical extent of Haspengouw only stretches to the edges of the big cities around it, not into them. To name more of these edge markers: Hasselt (Dutch), Maastricht (Dutch), Liège (French), Namur (French), Louvain (Dutch), Diest (Dutch), Genk (Dutch). I think Limbico was rightly trying to stick to towns clearly inside the modern region.
• Anyway I think that unclear history is a less important criterium for our decision than the modern definition, which is quite clear? In terms of both population and area covered, I think Haspengouw is mainly Dutch speaking today.
• To the extent it was bigger once, it should be kept in mind that the language border was also less clear once. We should not make anachronistic arguments about medieval Haspengouw and which parts of it were in modern Wallonia. Instead, to take Limbico's point, at least we can say that in the old bilingual times, the name of this area was apparently Frankish/Dutch based both etymologically and politically. (Not just because the aristocracy was Frankish but also because the politically important towns when the Haspengouw had a political meaning, such as Borgloon, were apparently all in modern Limburg, although this is not perfectly clear today.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Having followed the advice of the "Widely accepted name" section and of User:Markussep by searching for both Haspengouw and Hesbaye on Google Books and Google Scolar, [1], [2], [3], [4], I was estonished to find out that (at least from these sources) the French name seems a bit more common in English language than the Dutch. I got the impression that Hesbaye all by all is more often also used in books of native English speaking authors than Haspengouw.

As a result I cannot say (any more) to be convinced that the title of the article should be changed.

But as the name Haspengouw as well turns out to be common in English language, it certainly seems to make sense that a new page with this title will be made, redirecting to the current article with the French name.-- Limbico (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean this redirect: Haspengouw? That already exists. You're right about English usage, I repeated your Google Books and Scholar searches, adding "Belgium" in order to filter hits that aren't written in English. Seems like 80-90% use the French name. Also, Encyclopedia Britannica calls it Hesbaye, without even mentioning the Dutch name. Markussep ^Talk 15:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Limbico, I'm impressed at your maturity for conceding that you might be wrong, and also for presenting the sources that work against your point. It's nice to see that for a change. Anyways, I think it's pretty clear at this point that 'Hesbaye' is the better option, and I'm glad this could be resolved amicably. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If I would have been wrong, I also would have been pleased to admit that, as it would mean that my opinion would have been perfectionated, which is always a pleasing fact to truth lovers.

In this case the cause of my initial idea that the article name should be changed was not based on an abusive conviction that the French article name is not the most common one in English, but simply a result of an uncomplete knowledge of the (to outsiders) rather complex total of WP-rules and more in special of what according to these rules is the decisive criteria in a question like this one. So my initial conviction was wrong, but I wasn't (in the sense that I made a mistake). -- Limbico (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that you found lots of examples of the term in English. Thanks for your efforts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Errors

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)

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)

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)

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)

undiscussed article move

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)

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)

• I fully agree that Hesbaie is inappropriate; it is an antiquated name (to the extent that it's accurate at all), and it should be mentioned for interest, but not be the title of the article. We don't use the antiquated English names Mechlin or Filford, and we shouldn't use Hesbaie here. Jorgenpfhartogs is incorrect that Hesbaye is not the (a) local name, as has been discussed at length higher up the page.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Historical precedent is not the guideline, but modern English publications are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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_Liège — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.153.253 (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

Alright, that explains it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.153.253 (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

existence of another article County of Hesbaye

The above article already exists but needs a lot of work. I am currently thinking it will in effect become the "main article" which covers the medieval history of Haspengouw, when the term meant different things than today. I have already added the "Main" template to the history section. I intend to first work on the other article before coming back to this one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I am proposing to change the title of that other article to something like "Hesbaye (History)" for reasons explained there on the talk page. Do any watchers of this page see any problems with that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if this article has many watchers? One of the ideas proposed on the other article is simply to re-merge here. That would mean this article becoming longer, covering more historical detail. That might be a problem if anyone was thinking that this article should be more about the modern region: tourism, agriculture, etc. Any concerns?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Putting this here for now. I removed it from the article because it did not fit where it was. I have not checked the history but I assume it is meant to be a hint for something which needs further work before it really fits in the text, and so the talk page is a better place:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Today Hesbaye continues to be rural, with many small villages. Théo Brulard, La Hesbaye. Étude géographique d'économie rurale (Louvain) 1962, attempted to disengage the original aspect of the region from its open, deforested agricultural aspect of modern times, characterizing Hesbaye as a human region rather than a natural one.