Talk:History of Belgium

message: Ctrl+V by 172 Nobody does it better !
Does the Dutroux scandal really need to take up this much space? The article is about the entire history of the country, but a significant portion of it is dedicated to a single scandal. --Sesel 07:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly deserves a paragraph. The issue is not so much how long this paragraph is, but how short the other ones are... --Edcolins 19:59, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Through a policy of deliberate lack of military spending since the latter half of the 19th century, the Netherlands were in no position to annex any part of a European country. Belgium did try to annex parts of the Netherlands after WWI as retalliation for the perceived Dutch support for the German side during the war and to improve Belgium's strategic position. In the absence of strong allied support for this plan, it was abandoned. --Mzzl (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: This article seem to suggest that the belgae are viewed as almost perfectly Gauls. This isn't true. They were more of a melting pot between German and Celtic culture. With certain tribes claiming to have german blood, and originating from Germanic lands. At least thats what Caesar says in his Bello Galllico. If noone minds I'll go do some reading and expand (and possibly correct some mistake) in this section. When I find more time and have good sources at hand. Need spelling, grammar and opinions afterwards. Titirius (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgae 

message: The process that lead to the stablisment of the federalised institutions (Flemish, Walloon, ... governements) is not discussed at all in this section.  Quite strange.
:: Yes indeed.  Be bold : do it!
I'll have a go at it when I find some time. Though I could use someone proofreading spelling and grammar. Titirius (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federalisation process +/- ignored! 

message: What is the last country that Belgium was at war with before the two World Wars?  The answer I hear most often is .. Germany, during the Franco-Prussian war.  This article doesn't mention it all.  However, I am far from an expert on that war, and not a native speaker of English either...  So I must resort to asking for help.Evilbu 14:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Belgium was neutral until WWI, and di not declare war on any party in the war of 1870. See e.g. here (in Dutch) for a short mention of this, or here for an indirect testimony to this in English. Fram 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franco-Prussian war 

message: Hi. In looking at :Category:Military history of Belgium during World War II it appears that there is no lead article for this. Belgium was a key state in the beginning of the Second World War. If anyone can assist by starting Military history of Belgium during World War II it would fill an important gap. There are many good and reliable sources for this topic. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed: Military history of Belgium during World War II  

message: :Image:Taal Aktie Komitee.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Taal Aktie Komitee.jpg

message: The image :Image:Atomium-sm.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. --09:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Atomium-sm.jpg

message: Aside from political sympathy, a key objective for both the British and the French governments was to keep the harbors of Antwerp and Rotterdam in two separate, hostile countries.
Are there any independent sources for this claim? It seems unlikely that Britain, which was at the apex of its economic and military power at that time, would have felt remotely threatened by a united Netherlands. In fact, the united kingdom of the Netherlands was a British creation. Furthermore, in the absence of a land route,  cargo for the European mainland couldn't have gone to London instead, and cargo for the UK couldn't be unloaded in Antwerp, even if one harbor was much "better" than the other. It seems more likely that Britain recognized and guaranteed the Belgian independence and its borders to prevent it from joining France, so shortly after Napoleon, and very shortly after the French july revolution.
--Mzzl (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key Objective? 

message: The comment that Belgium recieved no war reperations is incorrect. During the 1920's when the German Government could not pay, a Franco-Belgian force invaded the Saar land to collect what was owed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.173.253 (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Reperations 

message: I read this sentence: Although he narrowly won the referendum, the militant socialist movement in Liège, Hainaut and other urban centres incited major protests and strikes. Many people said, long before (in 1945) the strike of July will occur (Gillon, Van den Dungen, Frans Van Cauwelaert... In General strike against Leopold III of Belgium, there are evidences   the Socialist party didn't incite. I think it is difficult to say that a party would be able to incite or to order a General strike, which is always rather uncontrollable. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Did the Socialist Party ''incite''?

message: I did a pretty big revert of content added by Andrew Lancaster, so I would like to explain my concerns. 
*General phrasing
*There was too much detail on Caesar, and what he said and thought.
*Missed mention of the independent status of the smaller Medieval entities. 
*Habsburg rule is important to mention.
*The revolution should be explicitly mentioned, not just as a vague "series of steps".
I did end up putting a lot of his stuff back in too. My version was certainly not perfect, and nor was his, so I'm hoping that my edits turn out to move the introduction closer to something that gets to the gist of it. Oreo Priest talk 00:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Most academic works which discuss the origin of the word "Belgium" really do mention Caesar. This is not just pointing to a famous person. He really does seem to be the origin of the word "Belgium" in the written record. He also did this before there was any such thing as a province of "Gallia Belgica". You have reversed this, which is actually wrong. Belgium was first, and Gallia Belgica came later. We also have to be careful about implying that Belgium is in the same place as Gallia Belgica or classical Belgium, and we need to be careful to avoid taking any non-neutral position concerning how Celtic, Germanic or "other" that the Belgae were.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Made an edit, but keep up the good work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead and my reversion 

message: Can we take this a read? Quite frankly it would be surprising if it didn't. Though I don't have a better suggestion off the top of my head, the first sentance is really important and, in its present form, it really does not add anything. --Brigade Piron (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: good point; I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The history of Belgium stretches from pre-history to the present day" 

message: I'm starting a new article on Belgium in World War I that will include excerpts from here and from the articles on the Rape of Belgium etc. We can decide later if this article can be shortened accordingly. Rjensen (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea, it makes a pretty good article already! I've done something similar with History of Belgium (1939-1945) (though the article's title is really bad) so that section can be cut also. --Brigade Piron (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Great War

message: Here is a list of (sub) articles which have been from the text from this article. Please link to them instead of providing long descriptions:
*History of Belgium (1939-1945)
*First Schools' War
*Second Schools' War
*Belgium and the Franco-Prussian War
Please update this list as they are created. --Brigade Piron (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to confirm: I notice there are many articles named "Economic history of...". It seems a good idea to me to have one for Belgium, given that you are working on this subject already. I have done this sort of thing before: you can efficiently work on two articles at once in such a situation, main and specialist, moving long stuff from one to the other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sub-articles 

message: Historiography can be worth discussing in WP of course, but is it a notable part of History itself?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: oh yes--when you get to graduate school in history it's mostly about historiography.  That is how different historians have given different interpretations to the same historical data and events. People ignorant of historiography falsely assume that there is one and only one "true" history and it's a matter of memorizing the official facts.   Rjensen (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Rjensen has done an excellent job of that section, but I do agree that it should be moved to a different page, say Belgian historiography. This article is after all mainly for a basic, impartial and chronological history of the topic; few "real" historians would consider writing like this but nevertheless this article should serve as an introduction alone. ---Brigade Piron (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, no criticism of the work done is intended by me. Of course I also understand that historiography might be a valid and important part of university courses about Belgian history, but not every part of a study course is part of what should be in a WP article about the same subject. Indeed, no University course will ever fit in one WP article, but we can hope to fit such material into lots of different articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Brigade Piron says "article is after all mainly for a basic, impartial and chronological history" -- yes indeed. the obvious question is how we know it's "basic, impartial and chronological" -- and the answer is historiography tells us. There's no secret book somewhere that has all this impartial history that we just copy. Rjensen (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've tried to keep the sections I have written as free of interpretation as possible, just sticking to facts and "significance" rather than "interpretation". However, I'd also point out thathe historians you mention (indeed, the Great Belgian historians) like Henri Pirenne remain almost totally un-cited in the article. In this light, I'd just question how relevant it was. --Brigade Piron (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is no place for historiography in this article. It should be forked in its entirety to another article. I have not seen a single other history article on wikipedia mention historiography. Once again, I'd like to reiterate that this article is NOT to be written for graduate students or at the graduate level. No article in any encyclopedia is; encyclopedias are meant to be accessible to the general public. Oreo Priest talk 17:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the entire article, including historiography section, is fully accessible to the general public.  There are no fancy technical terms, for example.  To assume the general public is uninterested in how we know so much about Belgium is a poor argument--I am assuming instead that lots of people are seriously interested in the history of Belgium. The articles on History of the Netherlands and History of Germany have much longer sections on historiography. Rjensen (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: History of Germany has no historiography section, but History of the Netherlands does, you're right. The concern about accessibility is once again a question of length. I have never encountered historiography (about subjects that are not highly disputed) outside of university; as a result, I think that historiography is the most easily dispensable section if this article is to be made an appropriate length. Oreo Priest talk 19:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people go to university these days including tens of millions of our users. They deserve help from Wikipedia too. (on the History of  Germany article, the historiography is under #13 "Historians" and #12 "Sonderweg debate"). Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this article has still got to show the chronology and outline the most important aspects of the topic. What I'm afraid you seem to be doing is sawing through vast sections of article in order to justify the historiography section, which is, in my opinion wrong in an article of this scope. I notice you have deleted all mention of Belgian territory in China, Women's suffrage, the Belgian Congo in WW1 and The Fusilade of Mons all in a series of edits within a few hours. In my humble opinion, those deserve the place (albeit in a trimmed form) in a much-squeezed article more than this section, which deserves a separate one. --Brigade Piron (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

text: people want it shorter and so I'm trimming away. The Belgium did not control any significant territory in China so I dropped two sentences that do not claim that anything important happened there (The section was mostly about selling trams to one city in China--that does not make the cut for importance to the history of Belgium) The Fusilade of Mons is still there and even has a picture. World War I in Belgium now has a detailed article with the Congo covered (there was no fighting in the Congo & I did not reduce the coverage of the colony--indeed I think it should be expanded)  Women's suffrage is still there. Rjensen (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need a section on the Historiography of Belgium in ''this'' article? 

message: This map is presented as a language map. However, the file is called "File:Dutch religion map.png" which is also what it is to my knowledge. It shows the catholic south and the protestant north in the Dutch language area (which is the whole area). Some mistake must have happened here. Can someone replace it with a correct map? --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: it's actually the language (Dutch north and French south) map, which historicallly had a sharp line of division. The religion map is much more complicated--lots of Catholics lived in the North .  The person who drew the map misnamed it--that is the mistake.Rjensen (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Are you sure? I've seen plenty of language maps that put the language border roughly where it is today; this one shows almost all of modern 'Flanders' as predominantly French, in addition to some regions firmly in the modern Netherlands. -Oreo Priest talk 16:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definitely not a language map. Whatever the file name, this is a map of the entire Dutch-speaking area, apparently around 1830, since it also includes Brussels plus French Flanders (Dutch-speaking) in the west. Note that Wallonia is not included in the map at all. The red/green divide does not represent any language border: it shows all of Flanders plus the present Dutch provinces of Noord-Brabant, Limburg and part of Zeeuws-Vlaanderen (in Zeeland) and Gelderland and even a section of Overijssel(!) as French-speaking (German should have another colour). The French language never reached that far north. As a religion map I agree that it is crude, but as a language map it is grossly flawed and misleading. I still believe in the intention behind the file name "File:Dutch religion map.png", but if it is not a crude religion map, I propose to delete it altogether since, as a language map it is so massively erroneous that it has no place on Wikipedia. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: it also seems that the map has somehow been projected upon a map with the modern coastlines which would explain the green dot on the coast of Noordoost-Polder in Flevoland. It's the (now former) island of Urk --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree this not a language mapbfor any period. I also doubt that it is a useful religion map?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I will delete it. Rjensen (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this is an odd map of The Netherlands and Flanders, as if they were one unit without the rest of Belgium, and showing red over the entirety of Flanders, which has long been vastly Dutch speaking.  Louvain, which was French in name before WWI and is now almost entirely Dutch speaking, lies at the southern border of the red area.  The map probably does represent religion in the historically Dutch speaking areas, but is too confused to be of any use. μηδείς (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Louvain/Leuven has always been Dutch speaking since late antiquity. French has however been used in the University until recent decades. The existence of a French name Louvain does not mean anything. There are also old French names for places like Londres. This is a well-studied subject, and basically the language border of Belgium and northern France has moved in the opposite direction to what is shown in this map. There are special exceptions, but quite small, and nothing like this map.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly won't argue.  I am going from a memory that had the Dutch speaking area expanding to include Louvain, that may have been the surrounding countryside, with Dutch expanding at the expense of French.  In any case, I know where Louvain is, and the language border was much closer to it than the religious border here.  Be nice if I could remember where I saw that map! μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

text:   I am from Belgium and I can tell you for an absolutely definite fact this is not the language map. This is the map showing the religious division. Reformed (Protestant Calvinist) in Green and Catholics in Red. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 16:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

text:   Here is a map of the language areas. Compare with the map above where "French" supposedly extends far into the Netherlands. Again: the first map is the religious map, not the linguistics map. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 22:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I do not think it is easy to create a map of religions for this section either. Modern Belgium is basically entirely Catholic (whether or not people are even still serious about religion) and it has been for some time. And even though Flanders once contained many hotspots of very early Protestantism, this was during a period of change, and long ago.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the more I look at the religion map, the more problematic it's beginning to seem to me. Wallonia (catholic) is not even shown. I have no idea then what that map purports to show. However it's definitely not a language map. Ok Brigade Piron, let's drop it and leave it at that. But you seem to believe that this may have been a language map a few hundred of years ago. But no, this can't have been the language map ever since the Franks (who brought the Germanic language into the Low Countries, which were then a part of the Roman Empire) crossed the Rhine, which happened around 400 or 500 AD. Since then the language boundaries have changed but only very little. The most important change is that Brussels that is now bilingual was a wholly Dutch (Flemish) speaking city (this is why in today's language map you see Brussels surrounded by a Dutch area). Dutch was extending as far down south as Waterloo (hence the Germanic place name) which is now wholly French speaking. In general French had been gaining a little bit the ground lost since the great invastions of 400 or 500 AD. It's not a usual situation if you look at the boundaries between Romance and Germanic through Belgium, France, Switzerland and the Austrian-Italian border. A final word of caution regarding the Belgian language map: actually the "language" map that I posted is the "official" language map (it's also the only map you will ever find because the Flemish authorities prevent any further census). This is the language map such as it was frozen around 1960 based on data from around 1935. Since then French has continued to expand around Brussels so that in fact Brussels is now more than 80 percent French-speaking and the officially bilingual region of Brussels which on the map is surrounded by Dutch in fact now touches the French speaking region. That the language map has now been frozen means that even if the majority in a region changes (say French speakers start outnumbering Dutch speakers in some commune) that commune remains forever officially Dutch-speaking. So this language map is an artificial construct used for political purposes, that does not reflect and will reflect less and less (until Belgium splits) the actual linguistic reality. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 14:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

text: there is a much more sophisticated map of religion in 1849 online -- perhaps it could be used to draw a more simple and accurate map of religion. the caption of the map says that is based on the 1849 census of Belgium (which is online)....however why then would it include the Netherlands? In any case statistical maps of census data were not invented until the 1860s -- and so this map seems to be from a later atlas. Can anyone identify it?  how can we tell if the map in question is copyright or not?   This comment was by Rjensen yet there is no signature and SineBot did not do its job! (Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 15:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The map you have indicated is a religion map but only for the Netherlands. Belgium lies wholly outside the area covered by the map. You could use it though to draw a religion map by adding the whole of Belgium as a catholic area (since Belgium is essentially wholly Catholic) but don't forget the French-speaking part of Belgium which had disappeared from the initial purported religion map. For the Netherlands the data of 1849 should be close enough to the 1830 data. Combining all of this you would get a reasonably accurate map for religions in the Kingdom of the Netherlands (1815-1830) established by the Congress of Vienna, which included the Netherlands, Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and which ended in that form when Belgium split from the Netherlands in 1830. (To recount what happened to Luxembourg would take us to far. Look up this article if interested). Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 15:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

text: The comment I responded to was by Rjensen. How come that the comment is not signed and has not been supplied with information about its author by SineBot. A SineBot bug? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 15:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for confusing SineBot and for being confused myself on the maps! Rjensen (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to apologize. I was just wondering what had happened. Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 16:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Presently the map is shown in Dutch people with a correct description and in Wikimedia commons, here and in History of the Netherlands with a false and misleading description. Best to copy the correct description from Dutch people to Wikimedia commons, hither, and to History of the Netherlands article. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it accordingly. Rjensen had previously altered the original description of the map everywhere (see , ). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The map in the "Unrest in the southern provinces" section

message: The flag of Flanders normally has a red tongue. If the black-tongued flag is to be called "flag of Flanders", a citation would be needed that it has indeed ever been the official Flemish flag.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.110.29.67 (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. Oreo Priest talk 20:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag of Flanders 

message: I rmoved the citation request dated 2010  for 13 the century cities and replaced it with a link to the appropriate Wikipeida Article--DerekvG (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation request  

message: The heading is misleading, it kids the reading into thinking some kind of French population or French traders were present and then massacred. The heading or underheading should instead read something like: 'garrisoned' French troops routed/massacred
Anyway, it is the lefthandsided boxed inset image showing some kind of 'battlescape' and it reads: "Massacre of the French in Bruges" the 'Massacre of the French' is bluelinked to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruges_Matins_%28massacre%29 which is clear about it being garrisoned French troops NOT civilians/traders.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.32.34 (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think it implies that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Massacre of the French in Bruges" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Belgium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614025223/http://www.unrisd.org/UNRISD/website/document.nsf/ab82a6805797760f80256b4f005da1ab/ec506a59176be044c1256e9e003077c3/%24FILE/Deschou.pdf to http://www.unrisd.org/UNRISD/website/document.nsf/ab82a6805797760f80256b4f005da1ab/ec506a59176be044c1256e9e003077c3/%24FILE/Deschou.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on History of Belgium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402172007/http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf34/DPVanmontfort34.pdf to http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf34/DPVanmontfort34.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070726054327/https://www.openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/2799/1/171_027.pdf to https://www.openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/2799/1/171_027.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130104154116/http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/belgian_congo/index.html to http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/belgian_congo/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110226071856/http://www.cicb.be/ to http://www.cicb.be/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110226071856/http://www.cicb.be/ to http://www.cicb.be/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130115041000/http://www.klm-mra.be/klm-new/frans/main01.php?id=../BSD-FBA/fba-fr to http://www.klm-mra.be/klm-new/frans/main01.php?id=..%2FBSD-FBA%2Ffba-fr
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130812093826/http://hendrik.atspace.com/eng/Bunc.html to http://hendrik.atspace.com/eng/Bunc.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516024352/http://www.belgiansandthekoreanwar.co.uk/ to http://www.belgiansandthekoreanwar.co.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050905210619/http://www.scientific-alliance.org/pdf/essential_programme_to_underpin_government_policy_on_nuclear_power.pdf to http://www.scientific-alliance.org/pdf/essential_programme_to_underpin_government_policy_on_nuclear_power.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified