This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Surely the simplest and least clumsy translation from the Flemish, French and German is, "Unity strengthens"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.171.212 ( talk) 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
81.243.25.190 ( talk) 11:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
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.
gas stations get vandalized and mugged, with police being late most of the time.
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.
I always thought Dutch in Belgium was classed as Flemish, can somebidy clarify? Speedboy Salesman ( talk) 11:20, 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)
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)
Hello Belgium/Archive 5! 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)
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)
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.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drachenfyre ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
While I feel that the early history of the area now known as Belgium is too short (0 to 1500 AD in one paragraph) I'm also proud of the article's classification as one of the best articles by the wiki community. So...I'm reluctant to elaborate and to provide more History to this section. Any thoughts???-- Buster7 ( talk) 12:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
One other issue that needs to be expanded on is the transition of Flemish {the true language of Belgium) into Nederlanse via ABN. When and Why did this happen? Why did we abdicate our past? As can be seen on talk pages of the many articles on the Low Countries regions, the "labels" used are ambiguous at best. I know Ive read, somewhere other than Wikipedia, that many of the early sailors on board the Early exlorations to America were from the region that is now Belgium. Also, many of the early settlers of America were from the region that is now Belgium. But....ALL history refers to them as "Dutch." As a Belgian-American, I really know almost nothing about the history involved in the language shift to Dutch. But, when editors/readers go to the Dutch sites, Flemish and Belgium are diminished in character, in history, in almost every category. There must be some remedy for this illness.-- Buster7 ( talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Dutch(ethnic group) for further discussion/info. Also http://www.hermanboel.eu/vlaanderen-vl-warrom.htm Buster7 ( talk) 12:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Could someone explain me since when is Brussels the centre of Flanders ? This is only a renewed try to give Flanders more power than it really has. "Flanders with Brussels as its main multilingual and multi-ethnic centre" !
It gets too hard to read stuff about Belgium. There is Soooo much Flemish propaganda. As a Brit that lives here I am amazed that there is so little tolerance from the Dutch speakers. There needs to be more common sense and politeness on both sides.
The Belgian elite in the 19th century was not necessarily francophile, but certainly francophone. When, for instance, in the 1860s, Napoléon III of France wanted to annex Belgium as a compensation to the unifying Germany of Bismark, this elite was not francophile. The liberal politicians don't like the French Emperor who was very clerical and at the head of a not so democratic Empire. Incidentally I red a book (but I have forgotten the title), where it is explained that Napoléon III made promises to Flemish people (concerning the respect of their language). There is in Belgium in the 19th century or now people who are Francophone but not necessarily Francophone. French is their language but France is not their country. There are also in French speaking Belgium an actual Francophoby. That does exist really, for instance in the Belgian historiography. There are references for this distinction Francophone/Francophile and the Belgian feelings toward France... José Fontaine ( talk) 20:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:MagrittePipe.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 23:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed this section. I believe it gives a really undue weight to this topic. All countries have a particular numismatic. They don't need such a section. A section about military of Belgium would be much more usefull. Vb ( talk) 10:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the section was originally there and you guys remove it without asking for consensus. Fram, we are ok with the facts right now, and my last sentence to you sayd "feel free to reduce now that the information is correct". Reduce to me does not mean remove the whole section like Vb is doing. Let's look for consensus, but removing this section is like me removing the history section for example and not givign a reason. You will find several people in favour of keeping it. Miguel.mateo ( talk) 12:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As a historian, I have to say that I cannot regard numismatics as *just* a "hobby". A general overview of a country should preferably include some information not only on the currency in the abstract, but also on its concrete expressions. Whether that should include mintings of (collectable) commemorative coins I'll stay neutral on. It's a topic of interest for a number of reasons (of which collectibility is the least), but perhaps too specific for such a general overview. -- Paularblaster ( talk) 00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe a discussion should be opened on which sections should be reduced. I suggest to remove the table in "Communities and regions". The third and fourth paragraphs of the "Languages" section should be made simpler and drastically shorter. The section "Fine arts" and "Sports" should be made shorter and less list-like. I am awaiting your suggestion before making the job. Vb ( talk) 10:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a Yahoo source that claimed that the Belgium Government has fallen. This is due to the ongoing financial situation. Powerzilla ( talk) 16:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Surely the simplest and least clumsy translation from the Flemish, French and German is, "Unity strengthens"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.171.212 ( talk) 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
81.243.25.190 ( talk) 11:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
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.
gas stations get vandalized and mugged, with police being late most of the time.
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.
I always thought Dutch in Belgium was classed as Flemish, can somebidy clarify? Speedboy Salesman ( talk) 11:20, 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)
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)
Hello Belgium/Archive 5! 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)
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)
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.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drachenfyre ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
While I feel that the early history of the area now known as Belgium is too short (0 to 1500 AD in one paragraph) I'm also proud of the article's classification as one of the best articles by the wiki community. So...I'm reluctant to elaborate and to provide more History to this section. Any thoughts???-- Buster7 ( talk) 12:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
One other issue that needs to be expanded on is the transition of Flemish {the true language of Belgium) into Nederlanse via ABN. When and Why did this happen? Why did we abdicate our past? As can be seen on talk pages of the many articles on the Low Countries regions, the "labels" used are ambiguous at best. I know Ive read, somewhere other than Wikipedia, that many of the early sailors on board the Early exlorations to America were from the region that is now Belgium. Also, many of the early settlers of America were from the region that is now Belgium. But....ALL history refers to them as "Dutch." As a Belgian-American, I really know almost nothing about the history involved in the language shift to Dutch. But, when editors/readers go to the Dutch sites, Flemish and Belgium are diminished in character, in history, in almost every category. There must be some remedy for this illness.-- Buster7 ( talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Dutch(ethnic group) for further discussion/info. Also http://www.hermanboel.eu/vlaanderen-vl-warrom.htm Buster7 ( talk) 12:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Could someone explain me since when is Brussels the centre of Flanders ? This is only a renewed try to give Flanders more power than it really has. "Flanders with Brussels as its main multilingual and multi-ethnic centre" !
It gets too hard to read stuff about Belgium. There is Soooo much Flemish propaganda. As a Brit that lives here I am amazed that there is so little tolerance from the Dutch speakers. There needs to be more common sense and politeness on both sides.
The Belgian elite in the 19th century was not necessarily francophile, but certainly francophone. When, for instance, in the 1860s, Napoléon III of France wanted to annex Belgium as a compensation to the unifying Germany of Bismark, this elite was not francophile. The liberal politicians don't like the French Emperor who was very clerical and at the head of a not so democratic Empire. Incidentally I red a book (but I have forgotten the title), where it is explained that Napoléon III made promises to Flemish people (concerning the respect of their language). There is in Belgium in the 19th century or now people who are Francophone but not necessarily Francophone. French is their language but France is not their country. There are also in French speaking Belgium an actual Francophoby. That does exist really, for instance in the Belgian historiography. There are references for this distinction Francophone/Francophile and the Belgian feelings toward France... José Fontaine ( talk) 20:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:MagrittePipe.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 23:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed this section. I believe it gives a really undue weight to this topic. All countries have a particular numismatic. They don't need such a section. A section about military of Belgium would be much more usefull. Vb ( talk) 10:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the section was originally there and you guys remove it without asking for consensus. Fram, we are ok with the facts right now, and my last sentence to you sayd "feel free to reduce now that the information is correct". Reduce to me does not mean remove the whole section like Vb is doing. Let's look for consensus, but removing this section is like me removing the history section for example and not givign a reason. You will find several people in favour of keeping it. Miguel.mateo ( talk) 12:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As a historian, I have to say that I cannot regard numismatics as *just* a "hobby". A general overview of a country should preferably include some information not only on the currency in the abstract, but also on its concrete expressions. Whether that should include mintings of (collectable) commemorative coins I'll stay neutral on. It's a topic of interest for a number of reasons (of which collectibility is the least), but perhaps too specific for such a general overview. -- Paularblaster ( talk) 00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe a discussion should be opened on which sections should be reduced. I suggest to remove the table in "Communities and regions". The third and fourth paragraphs of the "Languages" section should be made simpler and drastically shorter. The section "Fine arts" and "Sports" should be made shorter and less list-like. I am awaiting your suggestion before making the job. Vb ( talk) 10:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a Yahoo source that claimed that the Belgium Government has fallen. This is due to the ongoing financial situation. Powerzilla ( talk) 16:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)