Talk:Belgium/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  English spoken in Belgium 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dutch or Flemish 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Motto 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brussels-Capital Region vs Brussels Capital-Region 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inquisition 

message: 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)
replies: text: Moved to a separate section. -- Edcolins 21:49, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, see List_of_fictional_curse_words and Fuck. Peak Freak 22:22, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Belgium is a curse word 

message: 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)
thread_title: Rivers Nitpick

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Crossroad or crossroads 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What's wrong with ... 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Order of the languages 

message: 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)
replies: text: Since fixed. -- Beland 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Interwiki link 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Flemish" --> No! Should be "Dutch". 

message: 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 .  redirects to , and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OtherUses template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Exact numbers in Demographics 

message: 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)
replies: text: According to , Romanesque period:5th to 12th century.   speak about Romanesque period for dress, architecture and art in early middle ages.   : Romanesque period : 1000 years ago. : 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Romanesque? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Featured article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Devolution 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New edits by JoJan and others 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the map 

message: For students from July 1 to August 31 or to September 15. Julien Tuerlinckx 13:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT ARE BELGIUMS MAJOR HOLIDAYS 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tony Parker