Talk:Belgian government in exile

Belgian government in exile has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Belgian government in exile is part of the Belgium in World War II series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 24, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
February 25, 2014	Good topic candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 18, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Belgian Government in London* during World War II was described as a "rump"?*
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 22, 2016, October 22, 2019, October 22, 2020, and October 22, 2021.
Current status: Good article

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Belgium Mid‑importance

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	World War II task force

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[V sign#The V for Victory campaign and the victory-freedom sign|V for Victory]] The anchor (#The V for Victory campaign and the victory-freedom sign) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Composition/ministers

Does anyone know where this list is from? I've found a couple of minor inaccuracies, but I cannot find a comparable list in any of the material I've looked at... Also, any idea what date the table shows the government at? --Brigade Piron (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I've just removed the infobox from the article. This isn't just some page-ownership vendetta (please be assured ;) - it's just that it when I wrote the GA, I deliberately avoided using one, mostly because:

The Belgian government in exile is not just a simple cabinet. The article certainly covers what is generally termed the Pierlot IV government (Oct '40-Sept '44), but can refer to several Belgian governments (including the "July Government" from May-Oct '44) in exile during WWII. This complexity is lost in the confined nature of an infobox. Basically, it's a long process of evolving cabinets that get lumped together because they often have the same Prime Minister. To be honest, the Pierlot III cabinet has more in common with the Pierlot IV government of 1941 than than the early P. IV government has with its 1944 reality...
There are all sorts of ambiguities (Leopold III isn't really the head of state at the time, having been declared incompetent to reign for instance) There just isn't really any useful info that can go in the box, so doesn't really meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes

Brigade Piron (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Former Country infoboxes are standard for historic Governments in Exile. While I can understand the lack of an infobox for the World War I Beligian government, as the country was never completely occupied and the King remained on the front lines at Yser, World War II saw the complete occupation of the country. It was more than just a government in exile, as well, as it governed the Belgian Congo, the way Free France governed some French territories. I see no reason why this article shouldn’t follow standard procedure for articles relating to governments-in-exile, especially internationally recognized governments-in-exile of World War II. Anasaitis (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, it would be nice to get a consensus here per WP:BRD before adding the infobox which you have attempted multiple times. Your argument about the legitimacy of the government is pretty normative. A government is still a government, whatever it controls - though I admit you might have a better argument on Free France which, rightly or not, self-consciously framed itself as a polity. This is not relevant here. Your second argument about this being standard on government-in-exile pages is blatantly wrong, as Talk:Yugoslav government-in-exile#Use of infobox former country for this article makes clear. If any other articles have one, past experience would suggest it is because you added it! —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not single handedly adding all the infoboxes to these pages. I do not appreciate your accusations. Your argument that “a government is still a government, whatever it controls” could be used to argue against infoboxes for ANY government, regardless of whether it is in exile or not. The fact that it actually controlled territory makes it more than “just a government” in the same manner as Free France was more than just a government. Anasaitis (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Government-in-exile

I feel that the article should be Belgian government-in-exile rather than Belgian government in exile because look at these:

They all have hypens between government-in-exile. Mr Hall of England (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is an official and formal title so you are correct. Perhaps someone will rename/move it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.135.170 (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all the others are wrong. A decent description of why is here (p.16). Grammatically a "government-in-exile" only makes sense if there is another recognised government (not in exile) to distinguish it from - here there is not, so it is simply a "government in exile". There is no other grammatical reason for which th hyphenation would be necessary (though it would correctly be "in-exile government"). Would you move government in exile to government-in-exile too? —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belgian government in exile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521023602/http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour/issues-109-to-144/no-138/898-feeding-the-crocodile-was-leopold-guilty to http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour/issues-109-to-144/no-138/898-feeding-the-crocodile-was-leopold-guilty

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]