Talk:Belgian Revolution

Untitled
I think the following text is now duplicative of more concrete statements, so I've removed it here. Anything you feel is missing, however, by all means work it back into the entry: "During this time, most of the United Provinces of the Netherlands were established to aid Dutch interests and most of these institutions flat out ignored Belgian demands. The Belgians saw this domination over these institutions as furthering Dutch domination in their own country." Wetman 20:22, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Refused"?
It's hard to tell, while sporadic fighting continued, what Willem I was "refusing" in the text:  (William I, king of the Netherlands, would refuse the Belgian state until 1839, when he had to yield under pressure by the Treaty of London). Perhaps more detail of 1830-39's events is required? --Wetman 17:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait! is this actually "refuse to recognize a Belgian state"? --Wetman 17:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be refuse to recognize a Belgian state ---moyogo 07:41, 2005 May 8 (UTC
 * Yup, fixed it. How could I be so thick?--Wetman 08:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC))

Fluent in Dutch?
You'd be lauded for incorporating into this article all the detail at the Dutch Wikipedia article noted in the flag at the top. The images might improve this article too. --Wetman 23:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Flanders
When Belgium became independent in 1830, why was Flanders, with its Dutch-speaking inhabitants included in its borders? This is especially puzzling as the main force behind the Belgian Revolution was the domination of the Dutch in the United Kingdom of Netherlands. How did so many Flemings ended up in Belgian territory?
 * Because the original split had occured in the 16th century... the protestant provinces had broken away and become independent whereas all southern provinces (both Flemish and Walloon) remained Catholic and under Spanish and later Austrian rule. The breakup of Netherlands and Belgium happened along those lines with the Netherlands keeping parts of Limburg, Northern Brabant, Luxemburg and Zeeland at the negotiating table although they were formerly an official part of the south. -- Fdewaele 19:02, 16 September 2005 (CET)

Thanks for that!


 * I came to the article with this same question. This topic should be addressed in the article. Your answer is helpful, but I still don't understand--the Netherlands is not all Protestant, is it? So why did it get some Catholic Dutch speakers but not all of them?Sylvain1972 (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

fdewaele is right that that division is very roughly also the later division line. But they also got large parts of the current Dutch southern provinces, because they already occupied large parts of these (since the wars against Spain in the 16th and early 17th century).

There are however many complicating factors. I mostly only know some of these for my province, Limburg, but it might give sb some pointers for research:

- e.g. the current Dutch Limburg was is a lot larger than the occupied territory (Generality land) before the French revolution. It could be that the added land - Limburg also remained part of the German Confederation for several decennia because some pieces (like iiirc the Thorn Abbey) had remained part of the German Holy Roman Empire. There are such historical problems in Brabant too, like Baarlo. - Afaik one of the main reasons why Dutch Limburg was kept occupied, is because while the populace revolted, the main garrisons (Venlo, Maastricht and Roermond?) didn't have the widespread desertion as on the Belgian side. I don't know the reasons for this difference.

In short, it was more than just bartering, there was a lot of historical bagage.

A point that I'm less sure about (some Belgian might want to correct me), but afaik the current Flemish-French language border is different from then. To my best knowledge it was more to the south, and Brussels had a significant Flemish populace. In the West the Flemish extended into France. (French Flanders, reduced to a handful of speakers now)

On the other hand, nobility and the merchant class often spoke French. (e.g. many secondary schools and boarding schools in Dutch Limburg were strictly French speaking well into the 1930s) 88.159.74.54 (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Luxembourg
The article also neglects the major role of the German/Luxemburgish speaking peoples of Luxembourg in the Belgian Revolution. The treaty of 1839 split up Luxembourg. Perhaps if there were three peoples allowed to be in the Belgian State, the combination of any two could counteract the predominance of any one people. Laburke (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Netherlands shook off their Napoleonic "Batavian Republic" in 1813."?
The Batavian republic ceased to exist in 1806. I think 'Napoleonic rule' would be better. 212.123.206.71 10:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Possibly POV sentence
"In a sense, the Belgian Revolution was a revolution of a French-speaking upper and middle class that exchanged Dutch hegemony for French-speaking hegemony." I believe that this sentence is quite possibly POV. The Flemish lower classes also revolted against Dutch rule, perhaps not for the same reasons but they did revolt.--Ganchelkas 10:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted a few things
I just deleted these lines

"Public dissatisfaction and heightening tensions between the Flemish and Walloon peoples during the 2007 political crisis have resulted in the popularity of calls for the partition of Belgium; public opinion polls have shown that approximately 46% of Flemish people support secession from Belgium.[2] and that more than 66% of all Belgians believe that Belgium will have ceased to exist in 10 years.[3]"

Because: Source 3 doesn't mention anything about '66% of all Belgians believe that Belgium will have ceased to exist in 10 years' and many polls have been done with different outcomes about what the Flemish people want. I also think it's better to use different newspapers from Belgium (De Standaard, Het Laatste Nieuws, De Morgen, Het Nieuwsblad, GVA, De tijd, het Belang Van Limburg,... ) as sources instead of some vague Englisch source which only quotes 'Het Laatste Nieuws'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.144.244 (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Question to User:Buster7
Hi there. You just changed a portion of the text to "... also fanned the fires of revolt.(see references) " ... what reference are you referring to? Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The references at the end of the article...and also in the edit summary.--Buster7 (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Does it make sense the change I just did? Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Message to JasonB007
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JasonB007"
 * Your recent edits to the article are appreciated. However, you have considerably extended and over-blown the lead. It should be a concise and brief overview of the article. It may have been better to work your edits into the body of the article rather than "swell" the lead to unwelcome proportions. From WP:Lead.... The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.--Buster7 (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)retrieved at --Buster7 (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Please take the extra bit of time to fill in the summary field. You seem like a knowledgable editor. Edit summaries help everyone understand the changes that you make. The edit summary appears in MANY places (at least 7) that assist you and your fellow editors in the future to find a specific change. It is extremely difficult to scan the history page and find a specific edit....Thank You...--Buster7 (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Belgian victory
The info box says that it was an Belgian victory. But the Rebels where defeated several times in the ten day campaign and the Dutch army retreated only because a French army crossed the border. This can hardly be called a victory.Pindanl (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The info box states:Belgian victory; the main European powers recognized Belgium's de facto independence from the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The statement does not refer to the battlefield: the victory was the creation of the Belgian kingdom. --Buster7 (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Generality provinces
As in many Belgian revolution articles, the definition of Southern Netherlands and current Belgium is used interchangeably, while in reality the Southern Netherlands are formed by the Austrian Netherlands plus the so called Generality Lands. (the current South of the Dutch state, the Dutch provinces of Brabant and Limburg, and Zeelandic Flanders accounting for around 25% of the populace of the Netherlands, and more in the past). I do know there were at least serious revolts in Dutch Limburg too.

The ten days campaign article hints on this difference a bit in its conclusion that this campaign highlighted the fragility of the Southern state, and lead to a more favourable split for the Dutch. 88.159.74.54 (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

When was the modern Dutch-Belgian border officially accepted?
"The Dutch army, however, held onto Maastricht, and as a result the Netherlands kept the eastern half of Limburg and its large coalfields."

As those are the modern borders but not those stipulated under the Treaty Of London there must have been some other treaty, or at least a proclamation by both countries to accept their borders, at some point afterwards. Otherwise Belgium could still claim Maastricht.

When was that? It should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.210.221 (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, this article seems to be wrong. The Treaty Of London article states that it did indeed recognize East Limburg as Dutch territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.210.221 (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries - Main page
Hi, just highlighting that if the yellow tagged issue with the empty section can be resolved, this article would be eligible for the selected anniversaries on October 4, which features on the main page. Whizz40 (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

casualties
these casualties are most likely fake i cant find these numbers anywhere Fxzeds (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Have you found other numbers or a range? If so, we might as replace them with those numbers as it would be referenced. The numbers are somewhat suspicious as they are rather exact. .  Meanderingbartender (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, i havent been able to find anything that talks about casualties what do you think, should we delete it? Fxzeds (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Casualties again
Why does @2a02:1811:2401:5e00:837:9547:46e4:e8e0 keep adding these numbers without a source? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No idea he put a source now but it doesn't work. GlobalReference221 (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Uprising of Brussels
An editor has created Draft:Uprising of Brussels - is this an appropriate split? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes. The Revolution was more than just the fighting in Brussel I would think. This page should be deleted however: Siege of Brussels (1830) DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Curb Safe Charmer DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with a sub-page on the September Days (23-26 September 1830) or even Outbreak of the Belgian Revolution but this draft is confused in its scope and not very useful, in my view.—Brigade Piron (talk) 08:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)