Talk:Belgium/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Translation of Belgian anthem into English

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 vs Kingdom of Belgium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dutch/Flemish

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

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

81.243.25.190 (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• The nothern part of Belgium is called Flanders and that's where the Flemish people live. Their official language is Dutch (stated so, by law). There are of course small differences between their Dutch and Dutch spoken in the Netherlands. (just like there are differences between American and British English) In practice Flemings refer to their language both as `Dutch' and `Flemish' (often considered as synonyms). Sometimes they refer to it explicitly as `Flemish' to differentiate their Dutch from Dutch spoken in the Netherlands, at the same time referring to Dutch in the Netherlands as (free translation of mine) `Hollandic'. Bdkock (talk) 19:15, 19 June 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)

The inclusion of Kosovo

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

Latin Europe

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)

Date of formation of Belgium?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please contribute to the discussion, here:

• Talk:List_of_countries_by_formation_dates#Belgium

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

Two map optional display

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

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drachenfyre (talk • contribs) 18:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

World Wars

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

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

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

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

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

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

A numismatic sub-section

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

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

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

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

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

Early History

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)

Flemish is the true langague of a part of Belgium and not of Belgium. It has never been the case in what whas the Principlaity of Liège, a.o. where the true language was walloon. The resons substitution of Dutch to Flemish are quite easy to understand: since an inhabitant of Sint-Truiden cannot understand an inhabitant of Kortrijk and vice-versa when they speak their own local dialect there was a need to have an common language that everyone could speak and understand. Dutch has been chosen by the Flemish as it was the most obvious and easy solution. The same also happened in the south where French has been subsituted to the multiple Walloon dualiects used by the population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebob-BE (talk • contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, LeBob. I did not mean to exclude the Walloons or their Language when I talked about the "true" language of Belgium. My eyes (and ears) were focussed on Holland.. I did not mean to draw the conversation into the Flemish/Walloon conflict. I apologize. Algameen Beschaafd Nederlands was implemented some time in the 1960's, I believe (but I don't know). And, that is my point. Such a major core decision as sacrifycing the "dialect" of one's forefathers for the common good should be worthy of an explanation...or a mention. I know that Flemish is NOT considered a language but is a conglomeration of many and varied dialects. (My Mother and Father lived 5 miles apart and had different "taals".) I realize that ABN solved the dialect situation by unifying the every-day language spoken by the Flemish. I guess it is a personal POV kind of thing for me. MY Flemish, MY 'taal", the dialect I think with, has not been effected, at all, by ABN. I lived outside the umbrella of The Dutch Union (whatever that is). It is as tho my language has been in a time warp. Anyway..back to the article. I wish it provided much more information about the Language shift to ABN. This article is the obvious place for someone to look. Look up ABN and you go to Dutch Language. No history of the transition, the decisions, etc. It's my own little pick-a-dillo...I'll get over it!!! Bedankt, eh!--Buster7 (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No problems. It's just that these languages issues (taalkwestie - problèmes linguistiques) are quite a hot issue in Belgium these days. :) From what i know, but I am not a specialist, I think that there has been a need at some point in time to normalise and harmonise the language that was used in the Netherlands and in the Flemish Region. Even when sometime quite different, I think that most of the languages spoken in the Netherland and in Flanders share the same common roots, which justifies in some way the fact to have to chose for one standardised official language. Furthermore, I think that in Belgium this started years before 1960. Once in Belgium Flemish has been accepted as an official language, this meant that laws had to be drafted in Flemish (or Dutch), that the documents written by the administration had also to be drafted in a language that could be read and understandable for all Flemish speaking citizens. That afterwards this languages has been called "Dutch" does not necessarily means that it is not Flemish. What is clear is that this language is now regulated by a Treaty between the Netherlands, Belgium and Suriname[2]. --Lebob-BE (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of your questions are explained in the article Flemish (linguistics). JoJan (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your question about Flemish is a recurrent one which has been discussed many times on the Belgium-related pages. Please read and discuss this on the article Flemish (linguistics). About history: please have a look at history of Belgium. This section used to be much longer. I have had a fight with the referees for getting this article featured. The most important part of it was to reduce the weight of the history section. This section is very difficult to write. It must not be longer than the economy section or the culture section. It must be objective and well reference. Making it longer leads to the discussion about which subsection of it should be longer. The paragraph presented here is the result of long and difficult discussion. Please read them before changing this! Vb 09:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.230.138 (talk)

See Talk:Dutch(ethnic group) for further discussion/info. Also http://www.hermanboel.eu/vlaanderen-vl-warrom.htmBuster7 (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Brussels Status

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" !

You are right. This is just Flemish propaganda. I suppressed the sentence. Vb 10:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.220.24 (talk)

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.

Brussels is the main centre of government of the Flemish Community. That is not propaganda, it just needs to be expressed in a way that does not suggest that Brussels is somehow the social or cultural centre of Flemish life. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Francophone, not Francophile

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)

Image copyright problem with Image:MagrittePipe.jpg

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

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

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)

Rm section on Belgian numismatic

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)

No problem with that. The Euro asnational currency is still mentioned (in the Economy section), and the rest was rather to specialized for a general article on Belgium which needs shortening anyway. If people feel that we need a section on the currency anyway, then I prefer my version (left)above the older one (right)[3], since mine is more correct, shorter, has a better illustration for teh Belgium article (showing the Atomium, which is more relevant for Belgium), and doesn't give WP:UNDUE weight to a specialized subject like commemorative coins, which has limited interest for a general audience (it is not really a defining factor of Belgium, unlike its history, arts, sport, politics, ...). Fram (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. Do you really believe that everyone knows that Belgium uses the euro and that it mints its own coins? As I have said in the past, it is just a small section and has two points to two articles about it, one of them a FL. I think is relevant enough to stay. I do not mind to reduce the section as long as it is correct. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would focus into putting a restriction to an editor that is constantly introducing errors, putting data that are estimates and it is not official. Let's focus on the quality of the article, not on removing information just for reducing it. Again, I do not mind reducing the section, let's just keep it right. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That Belgium uses the Euro is said in the infobox and in the Economy section, so there is no need to explain it a third time. And why the commemorative coins are important is completely unclear. The fact that it is a Featured List does not make the article Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) any more or less relevant for this general article about Belgium. The fact that you are the major editor of that list does mean though that you are not an objective judge of the need for its inclusion here. As for other problems with the article: these can be discussed separately and have no influence on this discussion. If consensus would be that the information you want to include is correct and necessary, then the sectin will be included; otherwise it will be changed or removed. Fram (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As discussed, I have changed the texts, I hope your point and my point are clear now. Feel free to reduce or change if needed. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll let other people decide, but the section, while slightly better, if still either completely unwanted or unwanted in this form. Commemorative coins are an obscure aspect of Belgium, and should not be given a paragraph. The image also conevys nothing, and I don't understand why we would prefer it above the one showing the Atomium (which is relevant for Belgium). Anyway, you should not have reverted without waiting for further discussion. Fram (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with Miguel Mateo. This paragraph about numismatic does not belong to this general article. I also believe an editor stating "On the other hand, I would focus into putting a restriction to an editor that is constantly introducing errors, putting data that are estimates and it is not official." should think a bit before writing and explain which editor he is talking about as well as which particular edits are either errors or not offical. Vb (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Vb: the section was reduced today after Fram and I reached an agreement, and once again, you are putting your WP:POV saying that this is not needed. Why? what will it be next? Why not removing the cousine section? Or the history maybe? What makes a section worth to be in the article. Please do not remove it anymore, let's reach an agreement.

With regards to my other comment, check the history of the article (instead of focusing on removing content without any specific reason) there have been a series of edits done that me and others have been fighting against. Those edits were related to incorrect information in the GDP stats.

If you really want to remove this section, then let's go for consensus on it. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did we reach an agreement? Please don't put words in mymouth. We more or less agreed on the factual correctness of a number of statements. We did definitely not have an agreement on how the section should look. I thought that would be clear from my statement here from 07.30UTC today. I also stated there that you should not have reverted. You have now reverted in the last weekme three times and Vb two times, while simultaneously asking us not to edit war. I'm sorry, but at the moment you are the main edit warrior here. While there is no agreement yet on what the end result should be, for the moment you are the only one supporting the inclusion of your version. If it gets removed or changed again, please don't revert yet again. 09:08, 30 September 2008

According to me, numismatic is a kind of hobby. Do you think we need a paragraph about "modelism in Belgium" or "philatelie in Belgium". Maybe there are a lot more users interested in Belgian stamps than in Belgian coins! We may need a section about military in Belgium, union trades or healthcare system in Belgium but definitively no sections about numismatic in Belgium. Vb 09:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Money is just a hobby to you? Admirable detachment from worldly cares! --Paularblaster (talk) 11:21, 30 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)

This is simply not true. Miguel is the editor who introduced this section. I raised directly objections to this but was opposed by Buster7. Now I let the time pass, and realize this section does not make sense. Vb 12:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.246.5 (talk)

Your post here gave the impression that I agreed with the version you reverted to (and/or the reversion itself), which was definitely not the case. While the current version is slightly better than the original one, it still is to me unacceptable, though less erroneous. I just hope that more, previously uninvolved people will chime in with their opinion, so we can more easily move forward. Three or four people is not ideal to reach a consensus when the initial opinins are so wide apart. Fram (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fram, based on the conversation in my talk page, I did think we reached an agreement on content. But again, as I said, feel free to reduce it now that the information is correct. I will just be against of complete removal. On the other hand, there are so many places to reduce in this article, why do you want to remove and/or reduce such a small section? But anyways, be my guest to reduce if needed. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I see from your last edit that I am free to reduce it, as long as the article mentions thecollector's coins and links to the article about them, which you created. Why? What is so special about these that they have to be mentioned and linked? Fram (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fram, I will reply you with a question: what is wrong about it? Those belong to current Belgian currency, and in other countries like Austria, Germany and France, you can even find them in circulation. It is just one sentence in the whole article, what is the problem with that? Miguel.mateo (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with it? It is wrong in that of the thousands of articles related to Belgium which could be mentioned, this is really one of lesser importance. The insistence on including this seems not done with the intention of making the article "Belgium" any better, but with the intention of providing maximal exposure for the list of commemorative coins. The Belgian currency is an important part of what BElgium is, nad should be mentioned. Commemorative coins however are really not an important part of Belgium as a whole, just like FDC covers or statuettes of comics characters or Delacre tin cans with photographs of the royal family are not important enough to be mentioned here. Having a good article or list on something does not make that something suddenly more important or worthy of inclusion. Fram (talk) 07:06, 1 October 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)

Making this article smaller

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)

Yes, one would expect it to be larger than, say, The Netherlands, given the complexity of cultures and governments; but almost twice the size is too much of a good thing. This should be kept as brief an overview as possible, with links to separate articles on each topic that is worth a heading here. I wouldn't cut anything until being sure it was already covered in the relevant artice (Belgian Art, Belgian Sport, whatever), but once sure of that, this can be vastly reduced in size. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the changes to communities & regions and languages. Nothing appropriate to this article that exists in another was cut. I agree that the fine arts and esp sports sections are in poor shape, but I am less comfortable making those changes, and will leave it to others. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Carl! I utterly support all the changes you introduced. These sections are much clearer now. Thank you also for deleting this useless "gibberish" table! Vb (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Govt. Fell

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 not exactly true. The prime-minister has offered his resignation (together with the government) to the king, who is still considering (but has not yet accepted) it at the moment. Lycaon (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Powerzilla, please define "fallen". Belgium is part of the EU, and as such, can not simply "fall" ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict:Glitch shut down access.)The Yahoo source claimed that the gov. literally ran out of money and that foreign money was pledged. Powerzilla (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sad that you didn't provide us with a link to that source. So according to it the government ran out of money. How reliable this source must be. This shows again that Web sourceS should be considered very carefully as valuable sources for Wikipedia. While some might indeed be very good, others are just mere garbage. --Lebob-BE (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lebob. In a sense the Belgian State is a strong State as you take it as a whole with its communities and regions.The latter have about 50 % of the powers : more than yesterday and less than to-morrow. But on the other hand it becomes very hard (almost impossible?), to form a Belgian federal government. Belgium is becomming a Confederation#Belgium (is already a Confederation), with Wallonia, Brussels, Flanders (and also the little German speaking Community) more powerfull than Belgium wich is not paradoxically in danger to be fragmented because each Federating units need peace and agreement. Don't forgett also that Belgium is a "démocratie parlementaire" (as The Netherlands for instance or Denmark ) not a "démocratie présidentielle" (as France, the USA and in a sense the UK).José Fontaine (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)