Talk:Belgium/Archive 2

message: I think in the history section, at least a sentence shall be added about the Belgium's responsibility in Rwandan genocide. The criteria used by Belgiums to differentiate the tall and short people of Ruanda, created two artificial nations "Hutus and Tutsis". They initiated the hatred and anger between innocent people. Belgium shall be judged by United Nations for apology and indemnity..
:Not NPOV. Every country has had troubles with its colonies. All countries (and all its human beings within it) are inherently racist. Face it. -- Lord Snoeckx 10:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Rwanda and Belgium 

message: I was wondering - since Belgium is a bilingual country, why were the African colonies of Belgium automatically French-speaking? Especially since Rwanda and Burundi had previously been German colonies, surely using Dutch would have been easier? Joziboy 4 May 2006, 17:24 (UTC)
:Because of the historical bias Belgian authorities had in the past against the Dutch language. They considered French better suited as official language in the Belgian Congo (and before that in the Congo Free State) and in Ruanda and Urundi (as these countries were called in those times). On the other hand, the Dutch government used the Dutch language as official language in its colonies, (it is still spoken now in Suriname and Aruba and the Dutch Antilles). JoJan 18:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Belgium is predominantly Dutch-speaking. But, until recently, the Dutch language was suppressed by the authorities in Flanders and French was enforced upon the Flemish population (and therefore also in the colonies). The complete history of the Flemish struggle for emancipation hasn't been explained properly yet in the en.wikipedia. This subject has been barely touched in the articles Flanders and Flemish movement. A good external link in English is Flemish Movement, even if it doesn't go all the way back into the historical causes of the oppression of the Flemish language, dating back to the 15th-16th century (Burgundy rulers, Hapsburg rulers - first Spanish, later Austrian - French revolutionaries ...). This is a very complex matter. JoJan 09:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: predominantly Dutch-speaking is a fallacy. The truth is we don't know. There hasn't been a linguistic census in years. The current statistics are based on what side of Belgium people live in, but as we all know not everybody speaks the language of their region as their first language. Saying that, it is probably certain there is a majority of Dutch speaker in Belgium. Even if it were 60%, 60/40 ration is not predominant. The historical discrimination against the Dutch language variants in Belgium has marked Belgium and its colony. ---moyogo 10:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, that appears a bit 'very cautious'.  I have the impression that 99,00% of all French-speaking politicians and journalists very much insist on maintaining all the special double majorities and special alarm bell procedures BECAUSE otherwise the lemish minority would be able to dictate them all 'national' decisions. So, from their point of view, there is not the slightest doubt on the fact that a numeric majority of the belgians are Flemish. So, altough theoretically (given the absence of linguistic census), you're right, that appears excessively far-fetched, given the common understanding.  --Lucas Richards 14:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Mmuch of the Bourgeoisie was French speaking and since they had the power, the did what they wanted. At that time I don't think we can talk about a majority/minority of linguistic groups, but we can talk of influence of groups. Again 60/40 is not really a majority/minority ratio, at least not to me. A lot of this was majorly influence by the French era in Belgium, the Bourgeoisie was heavily turned francophone. ---moyogo 10:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. --Lucas Richards 14:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (no title) 

message: I've thrown out the Environment section as it made the article worse. I have put some of the information and the link to Environment of Belgium under the Geography section, which is now Geography, climate, and environment. Feel free to expand the section and maybe recreate the environment section, but without compromising the quality of the article. Don't just insert crap into a featured article and hope for someone to cleanup after you. Piet 12:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environment section 

message: Much material has been recently added to the article (culture, history, etc...).  This article is going down hill and some sections are looking more like lists.  In contrast, many article like history of Belgium, culture of Belgium etc... are urgently needing more material and rephrasing.  Please have a look at those before adding too much material.  User:Vb 08:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much material 

message: Hi,
I just started Wikipedia:WikiProject_Belgium (for real this time, after it was previously hijacked by some guys writing articles about Plofbroekstraat...
Everyone interested is very much invited to join over there, and think together about the project. Hope to see you soon!
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Belgium 

message: The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.
Please support me in maitaining Belguim's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. Belgium deserves no less! Please also feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location Maps for European countries. JamesAVD 16:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the old map should be maintained untill consensus is achieved. Arnoutf 14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted 

message: The area given as 30,528 km² - is taken from CIA factbook (and looks to be outdated). The Belgian Federal Government website gives it as 32,545 km² (2,000 m2 were granted by the Netherlands to Belgium on 29 May 2000). Also the area rank is 139th not 140th (see List of countries and outlying territories by total area). I have entered the data to the article and corrected the rank.
Relevant links:
*CIA factbook
*Belgian Federal Government website - geography
*sizeofbelgium.com comparison
feydey 12:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: See that Official statistics of Belgium website gives it as 33 990 km2 (2006). So 30,528 --> 33,990? feydey 13:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link above gives the solution: 30,528 equals the total land area; 33,990 equals the total area including the are of the Nord Sea claimed by Belgium. --Donar Reiskoffer 15:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total area of Belgium 

message: I find some text in the second paragraph (beginning "Straddling the cultural boundary...") very difficult to follow. In particular, the sentence beginning "It has two main languages..." should surely be divided up into three or four separate ones. I would do this myself, but I'm not even quite sure about what the author(s) is trying to say here. Stevvers
*I also don't agree with this paragraph.  It is nuch too detailed for a paragraph of the lead.  Detailed info which has to be correctly referred and are subject of frequent update should be moved to paragraph "demographics".  However SomeHuman and I visibly disagree.  Vb 09:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph is unclear