Talk:Belgium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Belgium vs Kingdom of Belgium 2 Dutch/Flemish 3 Local language 4 The inclusion of Kosovo 5 Latin Europe 6 Date of formation of Belgium? 7 Two map optional display 8 World Wars 9 A numismatic sub-section

ARCHIVES : 2005 2006 June 2007 December 2007 Belgium is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do. This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 4, 2004. Article milestones Date Process Result May 8, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted June 22, 2005 Featured article review Demoted August 16, 2005 Peer review Reviewed August 26, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 21, 2005 Peer review Reviewed November 12, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted June 21, 2007 Featured article review Kept August 10, 2007 Featured article review Kept Current Status: Featured article This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. Additional information: FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.   This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details This page relates to the WikiProject Belgium, a project to create and improve Belgium-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can join the project, and help with our open tasks. This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Belgium, or visit the project page for more details. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on its quality.

[edit] Belgium vs Kingdom of Belgium

Belgium has no right to exist! It is too late for it to apologise now, the slap-in-the-face Euro Parliament was built well before the 2005 Exhibition on the African Atrocities and Holocaust. Any Power seating itself there now will be tainted with evil. Any Christians here will know what kind of power that will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.125.222 (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While Belgium is indeed a kingdom, I wonder why this article is called "Kingdom of Belgium". Even the Belgian constitution just refers to 'Belgium', and not to 'the Kingdom of Belgium'. Therefore, I think that the official name of Belgium is just Belgium, and that this article should follow that. (We don't call it 'the Federal State of Belgium' either, even though it is correct that Belgium is a federal state.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.196.3 (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The name "Kingdom of Belgium" is often used by the Federal Government. The name is also used on documents such as Belgian passports.--Ganchelkas (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Federal Government refers to 'Belgium' much more often than to 'Kingdom of Belgium'. It seems that the name 'Kingdom of Belgium' is never used in a Belgian domestic context (e.g. the Belgian constitution, Belgian ID cards, Belgian laws), but that it is used exclusively in an international law context (passports, names of treaties, etc). My conclusion then is that both names have official standing. This is not about a choice between the 'regular' name and the 'official' name. Instead, it's a choice between two official names, of which one (Belgium) is used much more often than the other (the Kingdom of Belgium). Anyone else have ideas on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.196.3 (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to nuance my own point above: even in international settings, the name 'Kingdom of Belgium' is not always used. See eg http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml#b —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.196.3 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

81.243.25.190 (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

well, i live in belguim, it is "the kingdom of belgium", "belguim" is the short version and is more popular since the king of belguim lost most of his popularity during and after WW2, currently losing even more popularity because he does not take any action in the current political crisis, that seems to last longer then expected. (from june 10/2007 untill may 20/2008, and moving onward with yet another (unchosen) illegal gouvernment.

the country is on the edge of breakdown, i live here and i can sense this due to ever increasing prices/inflation and dropping prices. strikes everywhere, politics ignoring the real problems of the state and move on talking about a "staatshervorming" (translated "reform of the state"), to change the kingdom into a more liberal nation. causing poverty for the mass of the population that used to live from the (once an example to the world) social system.

thanks to ex-prime minister verhofstadt the retirement fund is bankrupt, many of our courthouses (eg: antwerp (antwerpen), ghent(gent)) sold to (possibly corrupt) members of the political family, renting the buildings (builded with taxpayer's money, sold for a fraction of the price) from these individuals. allso "privitazing" state corperations like "electrabel" (power-supply), "belgacom" (communications, telephone/internet/cell-phone), "nmbs" (rail road network), causing increasing transportation/communication/power prices, in some cases (power) a rise of 60% over the course of 2 years was recorded, officially attributed to the rise of oil prices, this increase in costs is simply to high to be attributed to oil prices alone (figuring half the power is created using coal and a quarted using nuclear stations)

further, the "index" (an invention that lists all prices, and when the index "rises", so do the wages) was altered not to include oil/gas, therefore the people have to pay more to get to their work using a car, but they do not get this refunded in any way, causing further poverty amongst the population.

the maximum price of bread was cancelled, causing bread to go from 1 euro (40.3399 BEF, about 1.20 dollars) up to 2 and sometimes 3 euro's for the same bread. further causing poverty amongst the population.

additionally, crime and vandalism are at an all-time high, with police seemingly powerless to stop it. drivers from the public transportation system get attacked and beaten over petty squabbles and sometimes even mugged.

gas stations get vandalized and mugged, with police being late most of the time.

all so during the reign of ex-prime minister verhofstadt many of our constitutional freedoms where cancelled, such as the freedom of protest (now, you have to ask for permission to protest, usually being denied.), freedom of strikes (all tough the workers seem to ignore this fact and fight for their rights), these two things take away the power of the people to fight back against what is coming, where many (justified) protests have been quelled using "oproerpolitie" (translated: "roit-police") who do not shun using brute force.

we supposed to have a "free market", but many goods (such as cannabis) are illegal, and thus the market is not free at all.

freedom of speech, but be careful about what you say, since you cannot say everything you want. freedom of religion, with the choice of Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

[edit] Dutch/Flemish

I always thought Dutch in Belgium was classed as Flemish, can somebidy clarify? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Look at Flemish (linguistics) Vb (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

81.243.25.190 (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC) it is Flemish, Flemish is a collection of all the different dialects spoken in Vlaanderen (Flanders), where there is no real "Flemish" language, if you speak the Antwerp dialect, you are speaking Flemish. (so it's not a language on itself, it's a collection of dialects derived from Dutch)

[edit] Local language

"Its local language until shortly before Belgium's independence used to be Dutch, (...)" — that is simply not true. Dutch was till the first half of the 20th century the most spoken language, only after Belgian independance Brussels became a bilingual city and only after the 50s French overtook Dutch in which is now the Capital Region. Hooiwind (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

81.243.25.190 (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC) false the capital (brussels) is both Dutch and French, with about equal numbers. the French speaking part is the southern part (wallonie), and the Dutch speaking part is the northern part (Vlaanderen). Dutch being used a bit more then French. on the eastern part there is a small piece that used to be Germany (the "oostkantons"), where the language is German there are in fact 3 official languages Dutch French German

[edit] The inclusion of Kosovo

I'm resuming with the inclusion of independent Kosovo in the maps of the countries that have recognised it. Bardhylius (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latin Europe

Hello Belgium! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date of formation of Belgium?

The editors of the Belgium article have settled on 1830 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY).

But this article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the 'Date of statehood' of Belgium was actually 1790 (again, completely unreferenced). Both articles cannot be correct, so which is it? Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What means foundation of a country? Belgium took his present-day independance in 1830. There was indeed United States of Belgium in 1789-1790… David Descamps (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, that old chestnut again. The problem before 1830 was, that it is impossible in French to form an adjective from "Pays Bas", so French speakers living in les pays d'en bas coined the word "belge" from Caesarian Latin "Belgica" and "Belgae" (some Dutch kings in the Delft church have an inscription titling them "Rex Belgarum et Batavorum") to be used as the adjective of "Pays Bas". However, to complicate matters, from 1648 until 1815 both the United Dutch provinces (=more or less the Netherlands now) and "The (Southern) Netherlands" (Belgium minus Limburg, Liege and big chunks of Namur and Luxembourg but including the French Département du Nord) claimed to be "Les Pays Bas" in French (compare that with China-Taiwan and DBR-DDR), just check the Latin name of the Dutch Republic. In historical French texts, Louis XIV is claimed to have conquered Les Pays Bas Français or François (but note that at the time, a considerable Northern part of the conquered area was not French-speaking, and that Louis XIV did not conquer Hainaut, which was and is). The state that arose from the 1789 Brabant revolution called itself "de Verenigde Nederlandse Staten" in Dutch. The name in French varied, left-wing French speakers from Ghent simply said "les États-Unis", but elsewhere "les États-Unis belges" was used, of which the Dutch version was indeed a proper translation at the time. It is true that some historians later back translated "les États-Unis belges" into the incorrect, but often quoted, "de Verenigde Belgische Staten", but that was a Belgicist Hineininterpretierung ([1]). Note (secundo) that important parts of what is now Belgium (Liege Principality, Bouillon, ...) had nothing to do with the Brabant revolution, so not withstanding the Hineininterpretierung, calling it the first foundation of Belgium is also anachronistic. And also note (tertio) that the conservatives of Van der Noot et al actually wanted to join the United Dutch provinces, while in 1830 the object of the revolution was just the opposite. So, 1789 is even a pseudo-claim. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And now at List of countries by formation dates they claim Belgium was only independent again in ... 1944! --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrected into 1830 JoJan (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please contribute to the discussion, here:

• Talk:List_of_countries_by_formation_dates#Belgium

Thanks. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two map optional display

Hello Belgium!!! I have something that may interest contributers for this page. In a nut shell, it allows the option to display two maps in your info box, one could be a close up of Belgium, and another would be Belgium in a wider European or EU context. This is an example that was being discussed on Scotland's talk page (though I think they have rejected a two map option). Prior to now no one knew that you could have two maps displayed in the info box. For 'smallish' counties the benifits are easy to graps, an up-close view of the country, and a wider contextual visualisation of the country. Dydd da!!

PS: This is an example from the Scotland page, please do not be offended that I display the Scotland info box here. It is only ment as an example.

[edit] World Wars

The article does not say if Belgium was for the Allied cause or neutral during the 1914-18 and 1939-45 conflicts. This is a point which needs to be addressed. Marktunstill (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How would you phrase it? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll phrase it if someone would let me know whether Belgium was neutral or allied in the World Wars.Marktunstill (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Before being attacked, Belgium was neutral at the wake of both wars. During the wars, it was at least a co-belligerent of the Allied powers. MaartenVidal (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the time of the first World War, belgium was neutral and supported neither sides. However Germany violated Belgiums neutrality by invading it (in order to attack France from the north). After wich the Belgium army fought the germans in order to keep them out and defend the front, The troops were exhausted and low on ammunition after two months of fighting and retreat. France reinforced the Belgians with 6,000 Marines and an infantry division.. After WW I it was decided Belgium was no longer neutral and would chose sides in case of another war, so they weren't neutral in WW II. For more detail you can read the wikipedia article on History of Belgium and the Battle of the Yser for the keybattle with the Germans in WW I. ComicKurt: That is not death wich can eternal lie and with strange aeons even death may die. 15:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Belgium was neutral at the outbreak of the First Word War, and indeed German infringement of Belgian neutrality was the casus belli that brought Britain into that war. After the First World War there was no longer an international obligation of neutrality (as there had been since 1839) and Belgium had a short-lived defensive alliance with France and Britain in the 1920s, but when that proved unworkable they went back to being neutral, even after the German invasion of Poland in 1939, and were still neutral when the Germans invaded Belgium again in 1940 (so that infringing Belgian neutrality was one of the international war crimes that the Nuremberg Tribunal sat on). The government in exile made treaties with the allied powers during WWII, and there were Belgians serving in the RAF and (obviously) the Secret Army, but with Leopold III, commander in chief of Belgian forces, having capitulated in May 1940 I don't know whether the country even counts as a co-belligerent of the allies. --Paularblaster (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A numismatic sub-section

Hi, I was wondering if it worth to mention a couple of sentences within the economy section about a numismatics subsection. I was thinking of a couple of lines referencing to the articles Belgian euro coins and Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium). Any thoughts? Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this really important for the understanding of the Belgian economy? I don't think so. Vb09:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.246.213 (talk)

How about a section of its own? Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I say, "Go ahead, Mateo". Everything that will add information and inform the reader should be included. We, as editors, can not assume to know the wishes of future Wikipedia users. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT PAPER--Buster7 (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am just trying to be respectful, since this is a featured article, but I posted this question and in two days nobody answered, hence I did the change. I will make the "numismatics" a section within the article, outside of the "economy" section. Thanks. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)