Talk:Belgium/Archive 1

English spoken in Belgium

Can anyone help characterise the use of the English language in Belgium in such a way as to ensure it is not deleted by those who seem to be interested in bilingual "purity"?

Also, can anyone find any statistics or references that are not treated as POV by these people?

English is pretty limited in official Belgium - there are only 40,000 of us here, and it is forbidden for use in Government and associated institutions. As an example, no local government can create publications in English; instead, they ask the British Embassy to send out publications on events. Weird or what. And if anyone ever insists to you of bilingual "purity", tell them they're an idiot and that Beglium is a tri-lingual state... Although they have a point; no English and very little German (only around 600,000), so you can't really argue with them I'm afraid. David

I think that touristic municipalities can publish things in English or any other language, but not official documents.---Ganchelkas 16:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English is not forbidden for use in official publications (e.g. laws, royal decrees, etc.) by the Government and associated institutions (e.g. Regions, Communities, municipalities). It's simply that it is not an official language of the country. This means that no official document (e.g. income tax returns are available in English, even if non official translations - most of the time written by private companies for instance, may exist). Anyway, I am not sure that filing a income tax return drafted in English would be regarded as valid by the Belgian tax authorities. But I think the same would happen in English speaking countries like the UK or the USA if I tried to file a income tax return written in French or in Dutch. This being said, numerous official institution, including the federal government publish documents in English. But most of the time, these documents are merely informative and not legally binding. Please think that Belgium has to cope with 3 official languages, which is not easy and quite expensive. If one can of course discuss the fact that 60 000 (or 70 000 according to the sources) German speaking people in Belgium have the right to have the laws and the official documents translated into German while this is not the case for the 40 000 English speaking people living in Belgium. But one should keep in mind that these German speaking people are Belgian citizens while most of the English people aren't. And if Belgium had to translate offical documents into foreign (i.e. non official) languages, priority should then be given to the Arabian language which is the native language of much more people currently living in Belgium than those who speak English. --Lebob-BE 21:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch or Flemish

Pardon my language, but it is bullshit to say that we "minimize the differences" between Dutch as it is spoken in Holland and Belgium when we say it is still one and the same language. Any linguist can assure you that there is far more difference between the English spoken in Bristol and Brighton than between the Dutch of Antwerp and Amsterdam. And yet no-one would dare to imply that they speak more than one language in England.

The majority of the Dutch people here are rather inclined to minimise the differences between the two, but the majority of the Flemish people know all to well that what they speak is 'vlaams' (flemish), and not 'dutch' as it is used in the Netherlands, though historical tendencies have tried to unify it, even by using 'ABN' (General *Civilised* Dutch, for crying out loud). Because it was so blatantly denigatory of Flemish, they ultimately dropped the 'civilised' part. But the tendency and attitude of some elitist intellectuals (including some Belgians, I may add) remains the same. The fact there are Belgians striving for this language-unification too, is not surprising, seen the fact that some Belgians even want a (political) unification with the Netherlands (notably in the right wing Vlaams Belang).

Now, I can't say Flemish is an officially recognised language, simply because, well, it isn't recognised as such due to the historical tendencies I just mentionned, and thus I can accept this statement in the wikipedia. But trying to dilute Flemish as being 'only dialects' is absurd; it may not have official status as the language of a distinct country, but 'in the street' Flemings call what they speak 'Flemish'.

The fact that there are different flemish dialects does nothing to change that, whether a person speaks West-flemish or not; an east-fleming will still consider it Flemish (and vice versa).

So, no, Flemish can not be portrayed as an official language of it's own, but it STILL should be portrayed as the unnofficial language of the Flemings. This lies, in practise, nearer to the truth then pretending it's all one big happy unified language, certainly considering the reality of practical (and daily) use (and perception about it) of the majority of the Flemish people. Flemish is, in this sense, not regarded as being the same as Dutch, and neither are Flemings Dutchmen, even if some would like it to be so.

The difference between Dutch and Flemish is very simple: in general, both languages are the same, however, some pronouncements and words are different. Compare it with the difference between German (Germany) and Swiss-German (Switserland).

Is the language Dutch or Flemish? Even if Flemish is a Dutch dialect, shouldn't it be mentioned in the table?

Flemish is indeed just a dialect. Putting it in the table would also mean you'd have to 1) say Australian English, Canadian English, etc. 2) include other (major) dialects. The official language is Dutch, and is not different from the Dutch spoken in the Netherlands. In spoken language, the pronounciation is different, and there are different words, but it's rather like the English spoken in the UK vs. US . Jeronimo

Thanks. Danny

So what's your opinion on Afrikaans? --Brion VIBBER

Afrikaans is a completely different languages as it has its own grammar, a different vocabulary and its own literature. Afrikaans is clearly derived from Dutch and 'close'; speakers from one understand the other, more or less as German-speakers understand quite some Dutch and vice versa, or as the speakers of the various Scandinavian languages. Rudi

Now that's something different. When Dutch settled in South Africa in the 17th century, the kept their own language, Dutch. However, from that point, the two language evolved concurrently, and in different directions, especially after Dutch control in South Africa ended in 1806 or thereabouts. Calling Afrikaans a dialect now would not be true; it has become a language on its own. It is, however, still possible for Dutch speakers to comprehend the basic language, as many words and constructions are still the same. Jeronimo

Some more info: if you look at http://www.ethnologue.com , you'll find more linguistic details than I can offer you. You'll see that Flemish and Dutch are the same, though there is also a real language called Vlaams (=Flemish) spoken by only 200,000 people. But then again, several of the languages listed here would be classified by me as a dialect; then again I'm not a linguist. Jeronimo

The "Vlaams" Jeronimo speaks of here is more commonly known as "West-Vlaams" or West-Flemish. This is a Dutch dialect that is considered by many to have suficient different traits to be called a language separate from Dutch. AFAIK, it hasn't achieved any official status (yet). -Scipius

This won't change much to the core of the discussion, but to call Flemish a dialect is not really true in my opinion. It's rather a regional variety of Dutch. English speakers in the US, Australia, etc... would't think of English as they speak it in terms of a dialect either, would they? - Guy

Given all of this (and I am certainly no expert) and given that there is an article on Flemish, perhaps some way can be found to integrate it in some way. Danny

No, it's not a real dialect (per ethnologue), you're right. And neither are Australian English, etc. But then again, one would probably call the language spoken in North Brabant (where I live) a dialect, while it is really something between Dutch and Flemish. So it is just a matter of what to call it. Anyway, it would be fair to say that Dutch is an official language of Belgium. Jeronimo

I agree entirely. We just call it "Vlaams", partly to identify ourselves as being Flemings and thus different from the Dutch people. - Guy

The definition given in Netherlandic language is pretty accurate: "Flemish" in terms of language is a collective name for the Netherlandic dialects in Belgium. There is really no uniform Flemish dialect, as the dialect of Limburg can differ significantly from that of West Flanders, even though they may share traits that are not found in northern Dutch. Anyway, nice to see a Belgian show up, how do you like the new layout? -Scipius

It's a big improvement to have the same layout for articles in a "collection", such as countries. The same idea could be followed for other articles with a comparable "status" such as cities, famous people, etc... but I'm aware that's a hell of a job! - [user:G_from_B|Guy]]

On this topic, it s probalby enlightening to know that on the news, they have to subtitle more or less 50% of the "average people" interviewed. If a journalist interviews someone from West-Vlaanderen, most Flemish people would have a hard time understanding him.

There are two meanings of the word dialect, one is the official linguistic meaning, something like 'a child node in a family tree of languages'. In that sense, English is a dialect of Germanic, which is in turn a dialect of the Indo-European language. In that sense, Afrikaans is a dialect of Dutch.

I beg to disagree. This is only a rather theoretic definition. A much more pragmatic definition is that dialects are not formally defined; they don't have a proper grammar + vocabulary + literature. As such, dialects tend to gradually fade over in neighbouring dialects. There are no clear boundaries for the areas of each dialect. As such, dialects are basically mainly different in their spoken expression. Most people speaking a dialect will write 100% of the time in the standard language. As someone said below, a dialect is something ambiguous by nature. Rudi Dierick, 31 July 2004

The other meaning is an informal one, something like 'an un-language, a derivative of the "real" language'. Rudi Dierick

Both meanings of 'dialect' are useless and I would suggest that we refrain from using them, not from the POV of being politically correct (I personally hate PCness), but for the practical reason that the use of the word 'dialect' is ambiguous and that both meanings are not really useful in this discussion.--user:Branko

I guess the correct definition of dialect is "geographical variation of language" - then, everybody speaks a dialect: what happens is that some dialects assume the status of standard languages and so people start saying that who speaks the standard language doesn't speak a dialect and everybody else speaks a dialect, which assumes a degoratory sense then. Flemish is the group of dialects of the Neerlandese language spoken in Belgium. Both Belgium and Netherlands accept the unity of the Neerlandese language spoken in both sides of the border. The dialects of the language are a continuum which does not present a clear limit between what is Flemish and what is Dutch, I guess. The situation is similar to Catalan, which is called Valencian in Valencia, despite the fact that the language is the same and dialectal variation is also a continuum. Marco NevesMarco Neves

Are you sure about this? As far as I understood, Catalan as an idiom is clearly well defined, normalised and standardise"d, and, as a result, quite widely used in education. Flemish, on the contrary, is not used at all in education. Moreover, catalan has a vocabulary which in terms of its linguistic roots is quite different from Spanish; Catalan words having latin roots for 99%, whereas Spanish has some 60% latin roots, some 30% arab, and some 10% visigothic.

E.g.: 'city hall' is in Spanish 'ayuntamiento' (Arab roots) whereas in Catana it becomes 'casa de commu' (strictly latin roots). Rudi

In Flanders, or the Northern part of Belgium, there are linguistically four groups of Dutch dialects. The first one is the dialect West-Vlaams (mainly spoken in West-Vlaanderen). Then you have Oost-Vlaams (spoken in Oost-Vlaanderen). The third dialect is Brabants (spoken in both Brabant and Antwerp). The fourth is Limburgs (spoken in Limburg). The use of the word Flemish for all the Dutch dialects is linguistically incorrect, but is widely used. The official language as you all know is Dutch. The use of these dialects is nowadays declining among youngsters (mainly the vocabulary). But you can still hear trough the accent from which region a person is originating.

Contributed by a non-user, Bert.

Flemish is barely different enough from Dutch to be called a dialect. Afrikaans is only just different enough to be called a separate language. Tony 10:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flemish (Vlaams) is a group of dialects spoken in the belgian provinces West -and Oost Vlaanderen, the dutch province Zeeland, and the french region Nord-pas de Calais. Other dialectgroups in the Flemish region are Brabandic (Brabants) and Limburgish (Limburgs) these are all dutch dialects.

I haven't read all the comments here, so sorry if I'm repeating something, but it absolutely should be referred to as Flemish. It is a minor language in it's own right; it has varied grammar, different pronunciations and entirely different idioms to Dutch. Whilst I realise this could also be said for Australian/Canadian/whatever else English, I never see those as the same. Also, the Flemish have quite a strong identity which is contained in their language (I live here, so I'm not just making it up), so I think it definitely should be changed - in fact, I have changed it several times, but it's always been changed back. And yes, there are four main dialects of FLEMISH (not Dutch, there are far more). If you want to picky, Flemish is a dialect of Dutch itself, but is more recognised and established than "normal" dialects might be. If that makes any sense. David

Motto

I changed the english translation of Belgium's motto from "Strength lies in unity" to "Unity provides strength", but I wonder if that's a good move. PRO: my translation is closer to the originals (both dutch & french) and is not logically equivalent to the old english translation. CON: the old translation sounds better. -- FvdP 18:20 Sep 13, 2002 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally added the Dutch and English versions of the motto and I took it verbatim from a page on the first site listed under external links, you can find that page here. Make of that what you will, but I would certainly leave it up to a Belgian, if you are indeed one ;) Scipius 14:26 Sep 14, 2002 (UTC)

Being Belgian makes me no expert in translating mottos to english ;-) The link you provide is to the Belgian government's official site, so it's quite authoritative. But this does not mean that the translation it gives is the official translation -- there is perhaps no truly official translation. A bit of search on the web gives a large choice of alternatives: strength lies in unity - strength in unity - strength through union - union (unity) makes strength - in union (unity) there is strength - union (unity) is strength. Why not union makes strength ? (Union looks slightly more relevant than unity; makes is simpler than provides and is a litteral translation of fait/maakt.) -- FvdP 22:58 Sep 17, 2002 (UTC)

Like I said, I'd leave it up to a full Belgian ;). If you want my vote, I would say that the authority of the Belgian government should be enough, but if you insist on something more fitting, then I would go for "Strength through union". It just sound better than "Union makes strength" to my ears. Scipius 20:44 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)

I'm also Belgian, and beleive that the first one lies closer to what ours is, but the second one on the otherhand, sounds better. But sounding, doesn't really make the content better. Lets keep the first one. And no, I don't like 'union', it sounds like a union from a company :-/

The topic has rested for a few years, but may I suggest "From Unity, Strength" ?

Fenrus 23:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels-Capital Region vs Brussels Capital-Region

Dhum Dhum (no "-" between capital and region in English)

I have used that because it is so on the site the Brussels capital(-)region. Can be wrong of cource. http://www.brussels.irisnet.be/En/Homeen.htm giskart 11:03 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC)

On the site, I read "Brussels-Capital region" rather than "Brussels capital-region"... It's not a capital-region, it's a region called "Brussels-Capital". (Same in french, I don't know in dutch). FvdP 14:12 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC)

It is confusing. I have looked for the English name here; http://www.brussels.irisnet.be When you put you're pointer on "Brussels" and do not click on it and wait 2 secondes you see "Brussels Capital-Region". I you click on it you go to http://www.brussels.irisnet.be/EN/Homeen.htm and there it is "Brussels-Capital Region". I think "Brussels-Capital Region" is the good one. giskart 15:12 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC)

In fact, in Dutch it is "Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest", i.e. the capital-region of Brussels. The slight difference between the Dutch and French name is an indication of the disagreement on the exact status of the Brussels Region: is it a third region just like Flanders and Wallonia (French speaking view) or a special region which is not on an equal footing with the two other ones (Dutch speaking view). MaartenVidal 23:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restore page, see talk Talk:Fleming ~~Giskart~~ Walter 15:13, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Inquisition

The paragraph about the Inquisition in Belgium is irrelevant and misleading. At the time, both the Netherlands and Belgium were one country under Spanish rule, which is not mentioned, and quite what effect the Inquisition had is not explained ("And, since Belgium was part of Spain at the time, it also had an effect on the local religion there") .. Yes, but WHAT effect?! "This led to the massacre of thousands of Jews, Protestants, and Muslims." - well, in Spain perhaps but not in Belgium/Netherlands, so why's it relevant? Spellbinder 07:51, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Small?

Is "small" POV? Should it be qualified by its area in bracket or rank in terms of area...? - Hemanshu 03:08, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Right, not NPOV according to me as well. Changed it. -- Edcolins 12:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

__________

I think that this remark is not true : "For example, a school building in Brussels would be regulated by the regional government of Brussels. The school as an institution however would fall under the regulations of either the Flemish government, if the primary language of teaching is Dutch, or the French Community government, if the primary language is French".

The "French" school buildings are not regulated by the bilingual (French-Dutch) Brussels-Capital Region's Government itself but are regulated by the Société Publique d'Administration des Bâtiments Scolaires, which is a public office dependent of the French-Speaking Community Commission (Commission Communautaire Française) at a time when the school herself as education service is regulated by the French Community Wallonia-Brussels (the French Community is the community of all french-speaking people, Brussels people and Walloon people together). I don't know about the "Flemish" school buildings in Brussels (regulated by the Flemish Community Commission - VGC-Vlaams Gemeenschapscommissie - or by the Flemish Community-Vlaams Gemenschap ?)

Note that the name of 'French Community Wallonia-Brussels' is only a very recent invention which, moreover, is unconstitutional. The proper, official name is 'Communauté française de Belgique' or its English translation (see also all legal texts on this).

The term 'French Community Wallonia-Brussels' is hotly contested by all Flemings (within and outside Brussels) and German-speakers as the term gives the erronuous impression that it refers to the community of all Walloons and all Brussels people, and, related with that, the equally wrong both Wallonia and Brussels are both French-speaking, whereas in fact it only refers to the French-speakers in Brussels and in Wallonia. Anyway, the German-speakers clearly don't feel Walloon at all; they deeply resent being 'dumped' in the Walloon region, and often put forward proposals to get out of it. One might conclude that the term 'French Community Wallonia-Brussels' carries a strongly political, partisan, and slightly imperialistic suggestion.

For or all these reasons, I feel this confusing and non-constitutional term is not appropriate for an encyclopedia as Wikipedia.

"hotly contested" "all flemings" "they deeply resent" imperialistic" all seem a bit exaggerated to me. The reality is that most Belgians don't give a danm about the nationalist mumbo-jumbo. Most don't even know the state works, let alone have an opinion on it. When such emotional terminology regarding a Belgian institution is used , it can only mean one thing : the text above was written by a (in this case flemish) nationalist.

Belgium is a curse word

Belgium is a curse word in the radio series and US version of the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. A famous fictional work.

It seems to be true but I am not very sure of this belongs in the article. Does anybody use the word "Belgium" in the US for a curse word? Walter 14:15, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC) (from Belgium)

Moved to a separate section. -- Edcolins 21:49, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

FYI, see List_of_fictional_curse_words and Fuck. Peak Freak 22:22, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Belgium is a curse word in the radio series and US version of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Yes, but only as a joke, Users; as a joke..! -- Picapica 15:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers Nitpick

The river Maas should be called by both its Dutch and French names in an article on Belgium, and only in Dutch in an article on Holland or Limburg, and only in French in an article on France or Liege.

Also, it is actually better to say Schelde than Scheldt in English, since there is a tendency to use real names (Aachen, Torino, Brugge, Vlissingen, Hoek van Holland) rather than names copied from the French (Aix la Chapelle, Turin, Bruges) or obsolete English names (Flushing, Hook of Holland).

As the major rivers Maas and Schelde are given, however these are the Dutch names. To my knowledge Scheldt is the official English name for the river, while the French name Meuse is used in English according to VanDaele. Anyone mind if I edit the right names in. (Also: Sinterklaasdag should be written as one word) First post here, so I thought it might be better if I didn't just barge in and change the main page. -- Jeroen H, 4 May 2004 (Belgium)

What you say is true, so it should be changed. Of course the Dutch and French names should be mentioned. Oh, BTW it's Van Dale. D.D. 20:40, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

Edits by Edcolins are highlighted in black and edits by 81.242.233.251 in blue (in order to be able to read through it).

I've just reverted edits by 80.200.12.186 who wrote that Dutch-speakers made +/-60% of the population while French-speakers made +/-40% of it. According to the Belgian National Institute of Statistics [1] (in Dutch) or [2] (in French), in 2000, there were 10.280.670 inhabitants in Belgium: 9,4% of them in the Brussels-Capital region, 58,0% in Flanders and 32,6% in Wallonia. It is however impossible to find exactly how many inhabitants of these three regions speak which language (there is no linguistic census anymore in Belgium).

You are correct in that it is impossible to known the exact percentages for French and Dutch-speakers in brussels. However, given that Dutch and French are the official languages in Brussels, it is scientifically fully correct to take into account the widely shared estimates when discussing the languages spoken in belgium. That's why I expressly said '+/- 60' and '+/' 40'. Please, note that that estimate remain well below the official claims of the Flemish authorities. Of course, you will also appreciate that my approach does respect all scientific requirements, as well as the sensitivities of both groups involved. I really don't see why those carefully worded figures (as estimates) should be removed. That would only make the game of the French-speaking nationalists who radically want to remove all reference to the existence of Flemongs in brussels, and all links between them and the other Flemings.

Rudi Dierick, Etterbeek, 31 july 2004

I am from Brussels and French-speaking. Just because the Brussels region is regarded as 'bilingual' this does not mean you can label all Brussels citizens as speaking both languages. There is nothing scientific in your claim. Brussels is a predominantly French-speaking region (and this irritates the Flemish community since they claim the city as their capital). As for French-speaking nationalists, there isn't much of French-speaking nationalism anymore. Flemish nationalists (Vlaams Blok/Vlaams Belang) are more virulent. (Chris 20/10/05)

So, any hint about the following questions? (with my guesses in brackets):

How many inhabitants in the Brussels-Capital Region do speak French (85% ?), Dutch (10% ?) or another language (5% ?) as their first language?

Scientific estimates speak of over 20% other languages, between 15 and 18% Dutch speaking and the rest French-speaking. However, more importantly, the notion of 'native tongue' is, as all scientists who studied this problem in general, extremely difficult for migrant populations in varying stages of integration.

Compare that with the 'biased' estimates from political sides: French-speaking nationalists setting the number of French-speakers at up to 90%, Dutch at 10% and all migrants being forcibly assimilated into French-speakers, compared with Flemish nationalists setting the number of Dutch speakers as high as 30% and even more.

How many inhabitants in Flanders do speak Dutch (92% ?), French (5% ? - inter alia in the municipalities with facilities) or another language (3% ?) as their first language?

Again horribly difficult to figure in a scientifically justifiable way. Please do note that the oldest minority language in Flanders is Juddisch (still spoken), followed by ladino (disappeared); other important minority languages (as far as still dominant for private use) are Italian, Polish, Turkish, Amazigh, Arab, Spanish.

As a second remark, one should insist on a more rigourous wording of the question: 'How many inhabitants in Flanders do speak ...' is completely useless. linguists and socio-linguists distinguish following dimensions:

1. Languages spoken with parents and/or brothers and sisters;

2. Languages spoken with other relatives and friends;

3. Languages spoken generally in public life (in casu: in Flanders, 99% of those speaking Polish, italian or Spanish at home use Ducth most of the time in public life);

...

on top of that, scientists also estimate mixed language use, e.g. how many percent of second versus third generation migrants from North-Africa speak their language of origing with their parents versus with their brothers and sisters. Even in these close family circles, the percentages are already significantly different (--> language most commonly used with older people versus with people of similar age or younger).

Rudi Dierick, Etterbeek, 31 july 2004

How many inhabitants in Wallonia do speak French (95% ?) Dutch (1% ?), German (1% ?), or another language (3% ?)?
(Bonus) How many inhabitants do have their father and mother speaking a different language (e.g. a French-speaking father and Dutch-speaking mother or the other way around)?

So (after combination) my guess for first language spoken is 54-55% Dutch-speakers, 38-39% French-speakers and 6-7% other (incl. German).

Here again, your figures are rather worthless as they mix up different categories. As such, I wonder what might be the relevance of your approach in the context of an encyclopaedic work as Wikipedia, given that encyclopaedia always want to respect minimum standards in terms of scientific validity of assertions. Rudi

-- Edcolins 10:34, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dehaye talking: If I can just make a comment on this discussion, it is on the lack of effort on Rudi's part to answer an essential question. It is very relevant to the history, the present and the future to know what percentage of the population considers themselves French-speaking or Flemish-speaking. Edcolins tried to answer this scientifically, dividing the problem into subproblems and estimating for each. Rudi opposed some valid points and some of bad faith. Before he says it, it is also unclear what it means to 'live in Belgium', etc... His number of 18% Dutch-speaking inhabitants of Brussels is ludicrous. I have lived in Brussels for 20 years. I know how it works. Some areas of Brussels are overly French-speaking some others overly Dutch-speaking. But I don t _think_ it sums up to 18% (if it does, cite a _source_). I suspect there is more Dutch spoken in Brussels by federal workers (who _live_ outside of Brussels, and are only there between 8 and 5 on weekdays) than by locals.

Dear, if yoy really want to contribute to a neutral and scientifically correct Wikipedia, why then insist on using the wrong word for the language spoken by the Flemings? This language is, as recognised in all relevant legal texts and in science, Dutch, and nothing else, and certainly not Flemish (being a global category of ideoms and dialects spoken in Flanders). --Rudi Dierick 12:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You correctly assume that there is more Dutch spoken in Brussels by federal workers than by locals, however, altough many of these live outside Brussels, many other do NOT. --Rudi Dierick 12:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal anecdotical evidence is clearly 1. non-scientific, 2. biased by th fact that many Flemings from Brussels oftern speak French against people they don't know yet because of the regular hostile reactions from certain more natinalistic French-speakers. This second phenomen is widely discussed in scientific articles, both on language, as on Brussels. It is also widely resented by many non-Ducth-speakers who claim the eagernessof many Flemings to speak other languages renders it more difficult for them to practice Dutch.--Rudi Dierick 12:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest another scientific way of counting: look at the result of the last elections, available here. If I sum up Dutch-speaking parties against French-speaking parties, I get 62% - 38%. Of course this doesn't account for people voting for the 'other lannguage'. But in any case, the most likely occurence for this is French-speaking people voting for Vlaams Blok (at the time), because it is the main far right party.

This appears, at first sight, a good suggestion, however, reality shows hat this method is not reliable. E.g. in Voeren/Fourons, there have been, untill some years ago, at the same time French-speaking majorities for the municipal elections, and clear Duth-speaking majorities for European elections! Similar differences occur for the different elections in Brussels. --Rudi Dierick 12:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I am French speaking Paul Dehaye 22:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I am Vlaams, Vlaams is not only a language (recognized or not) it is also a culture and an ethnicity. Any attempts to disgrace this by political arguments is contrary to the purposes of wikipedia. Brussels is a funny region because it is historically Vlaams but many people have spoken french over the years for historical reasons, but they are still Vlaams, only they don't practice their language. Please consider including a bit about the fact that Vlaams is an unrecognized language, because it is. More so, the official Nederlands that is used in Belgium in different in usage than in Holland. The words are different and sentance structure is different. Many phrases may have a different meaning in the end to either populations. Confer US and UK English: Have you got children vs Do you have children.

As for Voeren I think it is funny to note that clientalism influences local politics more so than language. The elected officials ensure they are liked.

Link to Brabançonne

The link to Brabançonne doesn't show up normally in the infobox. Help needed... --Edcolins 19:42, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

It's a problem with the Template function in Mediawiki, that used to work. Possibly/hopefully/likely/probably it will be fixed some day (see Template talk:Infobox Countries). -- User:Docu

Excellent.. thanks --Edcolins 20:14, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Question

If I click on the link "In detail" in the infobox, I jump to the editing page of Flag of Belgium and not to the article itself. Does anyone know how to fix this? RonaldW 20:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Esoteric Belgium? - Sources needed.

quote: Between World War I and World War II the centre of occult and mystical activity in Western Europe was shifted from France to Belgium. Belgium became the main centre for many esoteric brotherhoods and secret societies of which many branches still exist today.

Being a Belgian myself, this is quote is a mystery to me. It's certainly something I haven't learned in my national history lessons. Could the author possibly refer to appropriate sources of information on this? Fortinbras 10:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've provisionally removed the paragraph you're talking about until someone provide some external sources for this. --Edcolins 13:25, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Does anybody else believe that Belgium may not exist and that the biggest cover up in the history of humanity has yet to be found out?

Crossroad or crossroads

Request for comment: Should we write: "Belgium is at a cultural crossroad between (...)" or "Belgium is at a cultural crossroads between (...)"? It is not clear to me. --Edcolins 09:33, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster online states: usually plural but singular or plural in construction (not that I fully understand what that means ;-) --FvdP 21:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's own examples contradict this! It is "a crossroads" (a place where roads meet), singular (= carrefour) -- though of course there can be several such crossroads (places where roads meet), i.e. usually singular, but can be used as a singular or a plural. The other point is that "a crossroad" is something else (= route transversale). So, to answer Edcolins's original question (somewhat late!), it should be "Belgium is at a cultural crossroads". -- Picapica 15:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with ...

What's wrong withy the sentence "For the next century and a half, the Flemish culture was subsequently severely suppressed." As far as I can see it, AND as is being acknowledged by as good as all contemporary French historians, ... (as prof. Hasquin, also a prominent French-speaking liberal who does knows both 'sides' very well), this is FACT. I would rherefore invite the person who removed it, to provide at least a good explanation why both ma and all those historians (incl. the French-speakers) would be wrong. Many thanks in advance, --Rudi Dierick 14:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Order of the languages

Order of the languages

My opinion is, that in the whole article, but for sure under the head "languages spoken in Belgium" Dutch should comes first, not French. Now it says "French, Dutch, German" and it should say "Dutch, French, German". This should also be done for the national moto and in the article of the national anthem. As it is now, it sounds to me like "languages spoken in U.S.A. Spanisch, English". It is correct but it gives the wrong impression.

- I agree. --FvdP 18:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- - Absolutely.

well french is a langage way more important than dutch in the world

That is an extremely dumb argument. If you don't know the customs of a country, you shouldn't have such an outspoken opinion of it. It just doesn't make you look very intelligent. The order of languages should be "Dutch, French, German".

Besides, what do you mean by "more important"? Spoken more often? More influential? Please, use the correct wording when you are going to annoy people anyway.

Broken Interwiki link

The interlanguage link to os: seems to be broken. Anyone have any idea what's going on or how to fix it? -- Beland 06:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since fixed. -- Beland 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 19:35, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Flemish" --> No! Should be "Dutch".

"Flemish" is NO language. Apart from a difference in the pronunciation and apart from some variations in vocabulary, there is NO difference between the Dutch spoken in The Netherlands and the Dutch spoken in Flanders; the language spoken by the Flemish people in Belgium is Dutch. (E.g: the official language of Australia is English. Not "Australian English", but plainly "English".) The official languages of Belgium are Dutch, French and German. Not "Flemish", but "Dutch". Everyone who keeps insisting there is a "Flemish language", is making a fool of himself.

Flemish (Vlaams) was actually the name the French speaking minority in Belgium used in order to try and loosen the bond between the Dutch speaking population of Belgium and that of Netherlands. Speaking Dutch (Flemish) was for years not allowed in official circles. --Marcel1975 21:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the article text, there is little to clear this confusion up for the casual reader. I put in a reference to 'Flemish' in parentheses after 'Dutch', only to have it instantly retracted by a keen-eyed sysop. However, I wasn't suggesting that Flemish is a language, but trying to make it clearer to the reader that, while they may think Flemish is an official language of Belgium, it is in fact the same as Dutch. Suggestion: should be insert a reference explaining the links between Flemish and Dutch? This would acknowledge the wide misconception about the language. At the moment the discussion here smacks of intellectual snobbery, which is not really what Wikipedia is about in my view. Peeper 12:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph of Demographics, language, literacy and religion makes the point you are pointing at. Maybe can you improve this paragraph. But in my opinion you should not introduce such details in the intro.--147.231.28.83 11:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but not everybody who uses the page will necessarily read all of what is a pretty lengthy article. I appreciate that this is a sensitive point, but it is for that very reason that I felt something should be flagged up early on. How about an additional sentence in parentheses along the lines of " (for more information on official languages in Belgium including the relationship between Dutch and Flemish, see below) after the introductory mention of language? I don't feel at all strongly about the language issue itself, I'm just trying to make the article user-friendly for lay people like myself. Peeper 12:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way you made it now I think unofficially makes this clear. I removed by Flemings because all Belgians commonly do that even if they are sometimes qualified as racist for doing that. What is less clear to me is the mess done about it in WP. The word unofficially should appear also elsewhere and more clearly in Flemish (linguistic), Flemish (disambig), and in Demography, etc. --147.231.28.83 15:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OtherUses template

Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.

For a sample use of this template refer to the articles Alabama or Algiers--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talk • contribs) .

Note that that functionality is now at {{otheruses1}}. {{OtherUses}} redirects to {{otheruses}}, and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda?

Put the article about 175 years Belgium back in. I do not see how this is propaganda. This is truly a feast for the Belgians and , finally, an occasion where Walloons, Flemish and other Belgian entities can all be proud of their country together.

"175 years Belgium On the 21st of July 2005 Belgium will have a great feast to remeber 25 years of federalism and 175 years Belgium. ( *Belgium is celebrating the 175th anniversary of its independence and the 25th anniversary of the federal state - in French, Dutch, English, German )

Belgium is celebrating the 175th anniversary of its independence and the 25th anniversary of the federal state. The various entities of this country, i.e. the federal government and the Communities and Regions, are all involved in the organisation of these exceptional celebrations. This festive year, which is dedicated to looking forward to the future, encourages and provides many opportunities for coming together. It's all about exchanging ideas between cultures, between generations, between the political, economic and social worlds, and between citizens."

Are you a politician? I don't think such sentences belong to an objective article. Of course it is interesting to state that Belgium is celebrating its 175th birthday but this paragraph is definetively too long. Moreover for me sentences like "looking forward to the future" or "exchanging ideas between cultures" belong to sentimental governmental propaganda and are reducing the objectiveness of this very well written article. I had also replaced the word "today" for "however" because the word "today" provides the false impression that today all Belgians are friends and have forgotten about their old quarrels. So I make my changes back again. I suggest you to wait a while before reverting them back again. Maybe someone else will provides his/her advice in this talk page and help us resolve this very small conflict. 131.220.68.177 08:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Should have read this first. My personal opinion (as a Belgian living abroad, so maybe with a slightly different point of view): this is really a triviality that, in the grand scheme of things, is really not important. I have already changed it to the past tense, but I suggest removing it completely...

many Flemish actually desire independence over unity with the Walloons so to suggest that it is a celebration for everyone is very much a POV. --Marcel1975 21:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lie. An overwhelming majority does not want independence. By the way: tehre are not only 'flemish' and 'walloons', there are also one million people in the thrid region of Belgium : Brussels.

I agree with this. The support for independance among Flemings varies between 20 aqnd 30%. Only recently, in January 2006, one single opinion poll ended up just above 50%. That was probably heavily influenced by a major anti-Flemish declaration by the King (or was it his son?). So, it needs to be seen how those support figures might change over the next years. And anyway, opinion polls are to be trated with great care (as no binding referendums exist in belgium, what a pity). --Lucas Richards 17:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from brussels the 3rd region and i think it would be fake to say that it is a celebration and stuff. a lot of french-belgian from bruxelles would like to have a break from flemish institutions who wants to keep bruxelles as theirs. but only 1% of people speaks flemish in brussels. and i wouldn mind to be finally separate from flanders so we can have a break of those people tryin to force us learning a langage that nobody in the world want to hear about.

FASCIST ! Dionysos1 10:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, Leterme was right when he said the Walloons were too lazy or incompetent to learn a different language apparently. Anyhow, it's not about forcing people. We are a trilingual country, and hence should be capable of speaking all three languages. I agree that in your own half of the country (I'm only taking Flemish and French into account here) you have the right to speak your own language and not have to adapt to foreigners. However, it's mostly the Flemish who speak French when they visit the Ardennes, and it's mostly the Flemish who speak French when the Walloons visit the coast (And I'd know, I work in a restaurant). The main reason Brussels is so French is that the PS specifically and the Walloons generally pressured Flanders to make concessions as far as language facilities are concerned. E.g., every policeman should be bi/trilingual, as he works for the federal government. In Brussels however, you're lucky to find someone who even understands Flemish. Moreover Flanders could do with the separation from the French-speaking parts, Brussels is more and more becoming a moneypit than anything else. Only problem is there'd be an enclave and that would create some political difficulties (but hey, then again, Brussels is in Flanders).

Anyhoo, you're right on saying that it's not a celebration here rather than something trying to be shoved down our throats by the media. L'union fait la farce. 84.197.145.92 14:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and er, speaking this language that no-one wants to hear about as well as speaking French has basically granted Flanders a linguistic and thus an economic advantage in the world. Maybe if you followed suit the Walloons' economy wouldn't be so underdeveloped and corruption-infested. 84.197.145.92 14:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, this is not a forum. Thanks for you enlightening comment, surely things are this simple. --moyogo 08:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Politics

I don't understand why Energy Politics is more important than other topics like Foreign Politics or Military Politics and so on. The problem is that, if each of this subparagraphs of Politics were expanded as much as Energy Politics, I think the Belgium would get much too big. I think this topic is interesting enough and important to discuss but in Politics of Belgium or History of Belgium and not here. A revert edit war has irrupted on this topic. I have added a frame inspired of the Indian one. I think, if we want to make out of this article a featured article we really have to observe those simple rules. --131.220.68.177 13:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that adding something about politics in Belgium makes the articles worse, you are mistaken. Look at USA, e.g. It mentions shortly several issues in US politics. It doesn't makes this article worse to have a few information about politics. Size is not an argument in this case. If you have a problem with adding other issues like foreign policy than some other people will do it but don't block. An edit war could have been avoided if you had followed the conventions in wikipedia and had discussed it instead of mass reverting my edits. --Ben ^T/_C 06:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and please be so kind as to explain me which of your nice "simple rules" may possibly pertain to my contributions? And don't tell me you mean size again. If you feel like mentioning size, please, really I beg you, read some country articles and then compare the size here with the wikipedia policy I pointed out to you ealier. It have still hope it could be helpful. --Ben ^T/_C 06:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well I agree with you on one point. Some discussions of Belgian current politics are missing. Both in Belgium and in Politics of Belgium. Up to now, the focus has been put on generalities (which are in the case of Belgium) complicated enough. But I think one should put in the main Belgium article only short summaries or overviews of information already discussed in more detailed articles (as stands in the frame I added). Moreover I think the info you introduce is strongly not NPOV (from your contribution it seems that only the Flemish parties were for stopping the nuclear plants -- what about ecolo?). One could/should in this article treat all politics in Belgium on an equal footing. Not only those important to the Green parties are relevant but also those to other parties. If you really want to introduce such a discussion I am really keen on it and support you but that's a huge job. I think the best way to proceed is to improve first the article History of Belgium or Politics of Belgium and then summarize the improvements when they reach a balanced NPOV status into the Belgium article. Both articles are far from being ripe for being featured. Introducing some stub in them is not a problem. As other politics of Belgium which could be listed I see: same-sex marriage in Belgium, Marc Dutroux and the reform of Justice, the polemic of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, the problem of the Belgian debt and the politics of the eurozone, the foreign politics with respect to the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi, the relationship with the United States and the Iraq disarmament crisis, the rise of the Vlaams Belang, the Belgian point of view on the Kyoto protocol, and so on, and so on. If everybody who thinks one of these topics is important would do like you do, the size of the Belgium article would explode very fast and would be all the time risking conflict with respect to the NPOV. I think the Belgium article is close to get featured. If we want to introduce a NPOV discussion of current Belgian politics directly within it (and not first within one subarticle), I have the feeling it will be a never ending story. --131.220.68.177 08:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see your point. That's something completely different from what you stated before, like size or whatever. The information on Belgian energy politics is in Nuclear energy policy and Nuclear power phase-out, but you helped me understand that it needs to be included in separate regional articles in order to make it perfect from all sides. I will introduce it on Politics of Belgium and I ask you to help me on NPOVing it, e.g. ecolo - in the news article I read it said about "the Belgian Green party" but not which. I checked the article on ecolo, there was next to nothing and in Groen! it said they were part of the government so I included them... Please add to nuclear power phase-out and later Politics of Belgium. And later sometime we put it in the Belgium article as have to be same-sex marriage, Kyoto protocol, etc. All of this is just too interesting to be missing, at least it has to be mentioned. BTW, why don't you log in? --Ben ^T/_C 15:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Intro by Rudi

Rudi has changed the intro in this way:

The country has two main ethnic groups, the Flemings, Dutch speakers living in the northern part and in brussels, and the Walloons and French speakers, mainly in the south and in Brussels.

I don't agree with this change because, though I understand Belgium is composed of two main ethnic groups (this is also stated in the CIA World Fact Book), I think this issue is for many Belgians still controversial. Some people may be hurt because they don't feel Walloons nor Flemish but simply Belgian or European or citizen of a particular Belgian city or subregion. We should stick to the fact that two main languages are used in Belgium. Saying that those both languages are linked with the appartenance to an ethinc group is a controversial issue and should not appear in this article or at least not directly in the introduction. --131.220.68.177 13:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rudi introducing Belgium by its two major language/cultural groups. But "ethnic" gives an me impression of difference in race. Instead of ethnic, maybe another word could be used.

linguistic groups perhaps? That seems to cover it. Of course, there is an official third linguistic group - the german speaking - but those are a 60.000 person minority group. --fdewaele 15 May 2006, 10:20 (CET)

There has been quite some discussion about this. Is the difference between Flemings and their French-speaking belgian neighbours 'only' linguistic' or is it rather ethnic? I recently read a nice history that might clarify a bit: it was about French-speakers who claimed that, when driving in Flanders, they would pretend being French when speaking with Flemings, in order to avoid any animosity. Once, I heard something similar from a Fleming who explained he prefers to suggest he's Ducth. So, even when not denying their mother tongue, attitudes are often much more friendly when Walloons and Flemings pretend their ethnicity is different. In addition, I've also seen very hostile reaction from certain French-speakers here in brussels towards migrants who use Dutch, or who participate in Flemish political parties. For these reasons, I guess the real issue is ethnicity and not language. That, of course, is just my, anecdorical, feeling. --Lucas Richards 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though recent international research of the genes did actually show that Flemings are genetically different from Walloons in general. Flemings clearly belonged to the Germanic people in contrary to the Walloons. I read this in the paper and some article on the internet. It would be interesting to mention this but maybe not in an introduction as mentioned above.

walloons and flemish are ethniticly the same people ---) CAUCASIAN, or communly white people. They just from 2 completely different cultures and have 2 different langages.

Let me just say this:

"An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1986).Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioral, linguistic, or religious practices. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community."

Note the presumed part. Rex 09:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would qualify the difference between the two groups as linguistic rather then etnic. In fact the 'etnical' aspect and of is mainly a political card that politicians like to play. The juxtaposition between the two groups at the base is far smaller than at the top. From the aspects of etnicity germanus posted, I think that only the linguistic difference is a difference felt with a large portion of the society. The cultural difference is in my huble oppinion, as stated above a 'political retoric', and not so great. Unfortunaltly, comming to 'Lucas Richards' point that retoric leads to friction between the two communities, hence that behaviour (although I don't think, or like to believe, it's not that widespread) + we don't expect French ppl to know Dutch, and Dutch ppl to know French. I can also not deny that the two communities are growing apart, politically and mentally. So ironicly, Belgium itself is creating two etnicities, based on the will of the linguistic groups to stand on their own two feet.- Wout semi-unsigned comment by User:84.197.184.249

You're not suggesting that Belgium is basicly composed of Dutch and French people right? Because although that is a defendable (and even logical) assumption, a lot of Belgians would oppose that. Rex 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Lucas Richards piece, I was trying to give the reason why Waloon ppl pose as French and Flemish ppl pose as being Dutch. I believe the belgium population consists of French speaking Belgains and Dutch speaking Belgians, although the divide is starting to grow. Wout semi-unsigned comment by User:84.197.184.249

Exact numbers in Demographics

I removed the precise numbers displayed previously in demographics. I don't doubt about them but they are difficult to check without any provided references. If you can provide more precise numbers please give them together with a reliable source. These numbers are changing each year and must be regularly updated. I even doubt whether we can let the percents about the religions in Belgium like that without reference. I wonder whether we should simply suppress them. --131.220.68.177 13:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Romanesque?

In History: Middle Ages, the term "Romanesque" is used to describe the historical period. However, this seems like it is mostly an architectural term with little crossover (see Romanesque). Or is it an appropriate term for both categories (like Victorian)?

For me yes. I have always used this term like this, just as Pre-Romanesque, Gothic, Pre-Resnaissance, Renaissance and, Baroque. But I am no historian. --147.231.28.83 08:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to [3], Romanesque period:5th to 12th century. [4] speak about Romanesque period for dress, architecture and art in early middle ages. [5] : Romanesque period : 1000 years ago. [6]: 11th–12th cent. in art. So I think it should be good as an era of European history. --147.231.28.83 08:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the Romanesque period corresponds to the rise of feudalism and the monks the feudal heirs supported. In contrast to the Gothic period which corresponds to the rise of more or less independent cities and the construction of the gothic cathedrals and city halls. --147.231.28.83 09:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article?

Dear editors, This article has recently failed to get featured. Is someone interested in creating a to-do list for attaining this aim? I have the feeling we were very close to get featured but the comments of the voters were so negative that I have the feeling this is untrue. What do you think about that? What should be the priority improvements? --147.231.28.83 13:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Devolution

Belgium is officially a federal state, but not actually in a continuous state of devolution. I will agree that since the beginning of federalisation 25 years ago, many things have devolved to the Flemish/Walloon government, but things are not constantly devolving. Not officially anyways. Devolution is only possible by law, and so far no new laws promoting devolution have been passed. I therefore removed this small passage from the text.

I have restored this because politicians are still negotiating many points of the federal system (see Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde) and many are calling for new reforms (the 25% of the Vlaams Blok show how high the pressure is). Moreover this is a short NPOV comment about the country which makes clearly the point about why Belgium politics is so special and maybe interesting. Vb 09:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have remove the POV assertion "in a continuous process of devolution" which implicitly implies that devolution is irremediable in the future. This looks like a wishful claim. The article should not try to predict the future. Future devolution in Belgium might be likely but should not be presented as irremediable. Moreover, "continous" would have implied that the process of devolution is "uninterrupted in time, sequence, substance, or extent". Discontinuous would have been more appropriate, but the introduction should be kept factual and neutral IMHO. --Edcolins 15:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New edits by JoJan and others

I agree with all the info added recently by JoJan and others. All of this is correct and important: Status od the Congo, temporary government in 1830, Leopold I, etc... I also personaly agree with the splitting of the paragraph about Belgian current policies in three. But I am affraid people commenting at the FAC page don't like that and will prevent the page to be featured for such reasons. On the one hand I agree with them too. The page must not be lenghty-boring for someone not familiar with Belgium and citing Leopold as first king is a bit sad for all the other important persons which are not cited (the other kings, important Prime Minister, Charles V, Phillip II, Clovis, etc...). Other events are also important (United States of Belgium,...) and are not listed in order to keep a short history section and a NPOV. It seems also as a criteria for featured article that there should be no list-like or too short paragraphs. Cutting a pragraph into three is therefore negative from this point of view. Putting all current policies issues seems to help readers which are not interested in this aspect of Belgium. I hope these editors will understand this and make the changes by themself or conter argue. If they won't, I will. Tell me your mind about this but read before the comments left by the editors at the peer review and trial to get featured. Vb 18:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph

which for the last thirty years has been in a continuous process of devolution

This should be reworded :

last thirty years : this statement won't be valid anymore in a couple of years. I suggest : since 1980
continuous : I prefer discontinuous or unfinished (or perhaps on and off). JoJan 17:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. However one editor simply suppressed this sentence. I liked this phrasing and your suggested modification is an improvement. However perhaps was this editor right to do so. The lead paragraph must not really mention this. Does this really interest someone outside of Belgium. The complex institutions a already mentioned in the lead. Keep in mind we are trying to reach the FA status and should always read this as non Belgians do. What do you think about this? Vb 20:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right too, it's better to suppress this expression. The institutions of Belgium are too complex to be mentioned in an opening paragraph. But if we do, let's omit vague formulations as 'last thirty years'. So, I would suggest : strike that expression. JoJan 13:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History

Following the Berlin Conference in 1885, King Leopold II obtained sovereignty over Belgium's primary foreign colony, the Congo Free State, later called the Belgian Congo.

Leopold II obtained sovereignty over Belgium's primary foreign colony : at that time Belgium did not have a colony. The Berlin Conference gave the Congo Free State to the Congo Society and not to Belgium. Essentially, the Congo Free State was the private property of king Leopold II. In 1908, only after much public pressure and diplomatic manoeuvres, Leopold II handed over the Congo as a colony to Belgium, known from then on as the Belgian Congo.
So I would rephrase this sentence as : The Berlin Conference of 1885 agreed to hand over Congo to King Leopold II as his private possession, called the Congo Free State. In 1908, due to mounting public pressure and diplomatic manoeuvres, it was ceded by Leopold II to Belgium as a colony, from then on called the Belgian Congo.

In my opinion such wording is closer to historical truth. JoJan 18:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course what you suggest is closer to the historical truth. The problem is that we have to keep the history section short and not include too many details which would seem really odd to non Belgians. I suggest a digest version to your suggestion:

The Berlin Conference of 1885 agreed to hand over Congo to King Leopold II as his private possession, called the Congo Free State. In 1908, it was ceded to Belgium as a colony, from then on called the Belgian Congo. Vb 20:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~::I agree with your formulation. JoJan 13:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the map

Vb, I wonder whether you can make the boundary between the language regions more distinct. And can you insert the names of the neighbouring countries roughly in their position, without making the map look crowded? Just suggestions. Tony 05:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT ARE BELGIUMS MAJOR HOLIDAYS

For students from July 1 to August 31 or to September 15. Julien Tuerlinckx 13:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Parker

May I point out that Tony Parker, a basketball player with the San Antonio Spurs, was born in Bruges and therefore he should be added to the list of Belgians this page links to.

I think a lot of french people are born in Belgium, despite of that there are not belgians. European people who born in Japan are not Japanese I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.134.203.89 (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]