Talk:Queen Fabiola of Belgium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Since Queen Fabiola is still alive, she should be at her regnal title, not her awkward and little known maiden name. john k 23:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
what about queen's mother,is she still alive???????????she is 113 years old???
I'm sorry, but I find this article to be near hagiographical. Especially the talk on her supposed linguistic superskills and on her "religious virtues" is quite frankly shameful and even debilitating. This is Wikipedia, not Belgian state media!
Somebody should really clean this up and rely not just on official sources but on commonly available articles in the Belgian press to paint a more nuanced portrait of this lady. This must also include the controversial issues, of which there are plenty. (That they are criticisms, does not mean they are true. However, given her public nature as a head of state and the fact that some of these criticisms are very persistent and widespread in Belgian public opinion, they *must* be included in order to obtain a complete article. Compare this with any article on any American politician or public figure; where such criticism is always fairly mentioned.)
When not interwoven in the main article, they can still be put under a section called "Criticism".
[edit] Suggestions for complete rewrite
I'm sorry, but I find this article to be near hagiographical. Especially the talk on her supposed linguistic superskills and on her "religious virtues" is quite frankly shameful and even debilitating. This is Wikipedia, not Belgian state media!
Somebody should really clean this up and rely not just on official sources but on commonly available articles in the Belgian press to paint a more nuanced portrait of this lady. This must also include the controversial issues, of which there are plenty. (That they are criticisms, does not mean they are true. However, given her public nature as a head of state and the fact that some of these criticisms are very persistent and widespread in Belgian public opinion, they *must* be included in order to obtain a complete article. Compare this with any article on any American politician or public figure; where such criticism is always fairly mentioned.)
When not interwoven in the main article, they can still be put under a section called "Criticism".
[edit] Suggestions for complete rewrite
I'm sorry, but I find this article in its current state (31/1/2008) to be near hagiographical. Especially the talk on her supposed linguistic superskills and on her "religious virtues" is quite frankly shameful and even debilitating. This is Wikipedia, not Belgian state media!
Somebody should really clean this up and rely not just on official sources but on commonly available articles in the Belgian press to paint a more nuanced portrait of this lady. This must also include the controversial issues, of which there are plenty. (That they are criticisms, does not mean they are true. However, given her public nature as a head of state and the fact that some of these criticisms are very persistent and widespread in Belgian public opinion, they *must* be included in order to obtain a complete article. Compare this with any article on any American politician or public figure; where such criticism is always fairly mentioned.)
When not interwoven in the main article, they can still be put under a section called "Criticism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.239.48 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
