Talk:Belgian colonial empire

message: (From Gsd2000's talk page) You removed the reference and while it should be better explained couldn't it fall under corporate colonialism?   While its not owned by the state, its generally still considered part of the colonial empire. The Dutch and the English were known to have used this early on. 12.220.94.199 01:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that the English and Dutch empires grew from commercial ventures... however that is completely different to the Belgians in Guatemala who were allowed to operate there as a private enterprise by permission of the actual colonial masters.  The Belgian government/monarch did not have a "colony" in Central America, and it would be highly misleading to even mention it in this article.  Gsd2000 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Belgian colonialism

message: "Belgium's major modern day vestige of colonialism is its “universal jurisdiction” law which, it asserts, allows it prosecute human rights abuses no matter where in the world or by whom they were committed. Due to conflicts with the European Court of Human Rights, Belgium amended the law in 2003 in order to reduce its scope."
I believe that the above sentence is POV, and unless anyone objects I'd like to remove it. There is absolutely no objective link between the universal jurisdiction law of 1993 and any form of Belgian colonialism that may have ever existed. And if there is, I'd like to ask the person who added that sentence to cite some sources for that.--Ganchelkas 13:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Universal jurisdiction law

message: From about 1844 until about 1845, Belgium had a small colony in the New World, known as "St. Thomas", or "Santo Thomas de Guatemala"
.
In itself it was small and transient enough not to be worth mentioning; but the fact that Belgium did have a colony in the New World is interesting. Maproom (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just noticed Gsd2000's mention above of "Belgians in Guatemala". Maproom (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Also there was an 1843 contract with Ladd & Co. to colonize the Kingdom of Hawaii but it fell apart. DYK on March 20. Not sure that would be removed however if I aded it, given above. W Nowicki (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Belgium's American colony

message: I don't see anything in this article, or any other for that matter, mentioning that French was the sole official language of the Belgian colonies. In fact, I don't know this to be accurate, but it would seem that the former Belgian Congo had only French as an official language. Assuming my presumptions to be correct, does anyone know why Dutch was not given an official status? AnthroGael (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some years since this was posted, but it seems that both French and Dutch were official languages if the stamps and coins of the country are anything to go by.---Brigade Piron (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if there really were official languages (in Belgium itself, both were de jure equal), but French was (and still is in these present-day countries) in any case the de facto sole official language and lingua franca in Belgian colonies, since French had always been the language of those in power in Belgium. SPQRobin (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonial Official Languages 

message: The artical is incomplete its leaving out a cardinal Key fact the exact amount of Territory control by this empire either land and inland area or total area such as land plus sea based territory in a certain radius of the land which would be the largest extent of the territory if oceanic territory near there coasts are included. 76.244.151.164 (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: This artical is Incomplete

message: This in regards to the now lengthy section about the accuracy of population statistics in the Congo Free State. I think this material belongs under the Congo Free State article, and not in the overarching Belgian Colonial Empire article. It is too detailed to go into the accuracy of population estimates in the Congo Free State in what should be a short summary here. As it is, the summary is unbalanced. Ottawakismet (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Census accuracy in the Congo Free State 

message: "The regime in the Congo was responsible for using forced labour, murder and mutilation to force indigenous Congolese who did not fulfill quotas for rubber collections. It is estimated that millions of Congolese died during this time". Why not to mention a lot of it was exaggerated by the British who wanted to get Congo for themselves? Congo was again mentioned during the second world war when the UK wanted it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.128.193 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  British propaganda 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Data analysis in attempts to find the most common name proved inconclusive. Other arguments are also deadlocked between precision opposing with concision and consistency supporting. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Belgian colonial empire →  – There were no other Belgian empires. And in such cases, it is customary to name articles like this: British Empire, Dutch Empire, Italian Empire, Omani Empire, Portuguese Empire, Spanish Empire etc. The word "colonial" is needed when there were non-colonial empires with the same name, for example: French Empire, Danish Empire, German Empire, Swedish Empire etc. BlackBony (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

text: *Oppose -  Regardless of what Wikipedia article titles are at present -- thankfully, Wikipedia is not a reference... -- it is customary to say French colonial empire, Portuguese colonial empire, Dutch colonial empire, Italian colonial empire, German colonial empire, Belgian colonial empire, Danish colonial empire.  "British Empire" is a well-established exception that confirms the rule. --Lubiesque (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

text: *Support - There is no other Belgian Empire. Charles Essie (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

text: "Belgian colonial empire": 35,800 hits; "Belgian empire": 22,500 hits. "Empire colonial belge": 9,700 hits; "Empire belge": 3,000 hits. That there are no other Belgian empire is irrelevant. That is not a determining  factor--Lubiesque (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

text: *Oppose per Lubiesque's statistics. ITBF (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide any evidence to support its use as a WP:COMMONNAME. None has yet been presented, and it appears directly contradicted by Lubiesque's statistics. I also note that key specialist texts on the subject like Vanthemsche's Belgium and the Congo use the term "Belgian colonial empire". —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to "The consistency argument therefore misses the point.", it should be noted that, although English Wikipedia follows forms used within WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, it also follows its own WP:MOS. Since British colonial empire redirects to British Empire, Dutch colonial empire redirects to Dutch Empire, Italian colonial empire redirects to Italian Empire, Portuguese colonial empire redirects to Portuguese Empire and Spanish colonial empire redirects to Spanish Empire, it appears to be counterintuitive that here, Belgian Empire redirects to Belgian colonial empire, instead of the other way around. The consistency argument is thus very much the point. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 June 2022