Talk:Belgium/Archive 6

Belgium "most globalized" country in the world.
For years now Belgium has always stood at the top spot of the Globalization Index, the 2009 index has just been released and Belgium is once again in the top spot of 156 countries. More info can be found here I think it could be interesting to include in the article since it illustrates an important aspect of Belgian society. But I wasn't sure where to put it so I'm just mentioning it here. --Lamadude (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Very important for Wikipedia articles on Belgium
- SSJ ☎ 22:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Dear all, I have recorded this file: with the Standard Belgian Dutch pronunciation of "Koninkrijk België". I just don't now where to put it in the article, anybody an idea? --Hooiwind (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe this does not belong to this article. This is Wikipedia English!  However it could be maybe possible together with the corresponding French and German pronounciation in order to avoid a POVed impression. Vb 08:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.14.222.93 (talk)
 * I thought it would be interesting for non-Dutch-speakers of this article to know how the native name is pronounced. I doubt inserting this file would give a POV impression; native speakers of French and German are invited to record a file as well. (I would be willing to do French, but I'm afraid it'd have too much of a Brussels accent...) --Hooiwind (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OECD
The OECD HQ is in Paris, not Brussels as stated in the first paragraph.86.165.67.134 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding relevant extra info on communities
Often, general statements are made on 'Belgium' whereas a much more accurate presentation of the facts would be to distinguish according to the communities (as for Pisa-rankings on education, where Flanders is appreciated in the top-5 of the ranking, whereas the French-speaking educations is in the 2nd half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudi Dierick (talk • contribs) 21:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Cite objective sources supporting this. Vb (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Local language
"Its local language until shortly before Belgium's independence used to be Dutch, (...)" — that is simply not true. Dutch was till the first half of the 20th century the most spoken language, only after Belgian independance Brussels became a bilingual city and only after the 50s French overtook Dutch in which is now the Capital Region. Hooiwind (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

81.243.25.190 (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC) false the capital (brussels) is both Dutch and French, with about equal numbers. the French speaking part is the southern part (wallonie), and the Dutch speaking part is the northern part (Vlaanderen). Dutch being used a bit more then French. on the eastern part there is a small piece that used to be Germany (the "oostkantons"), where the language is German there are in fact 3 official languages Dutch French German

Nicht ganz klar. Was ist mit Deutsch ? Ist das wörklich eine Statssprache /Amtssprache in Brussel oder ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.5.206 (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you use German here in the English Wikipedia ? And then with two mistakes in one sentence (wirklich; Staatssprache).--136.8.152.12 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * no, not in Brussels proper. only as an official language for certain governing purposes and for common purposes in a region in the eastern part of Belgium . Auf Deutsch, bitte: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschsprachige_Gemeinschaft_Belgiens --Keffertje08 (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it necessary to add België, Belgique, Belgien' in the first sentence as well, or is that going to be too long? To my opinion it is a wikipedia convention to implement this anyway. Secondly, I'd like to suggest that we start the article with the following: Belgium(België, Belgique, Belgien), officially the Kingdom of Belgium, ... This way of writing has been used as well in equivalent articles such as those of the United Kingdom, France or any other country. I suppose nobody solely uses 'Kingdom of Belgium' to address this country in common language. --Keffertje08 (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All that is in the infobox on the right, so it's not included in the prose.  Oreo Priest  talk 01:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Walloon langauge
Why isn't Walloon an official language of Belgium, or even of Wallonia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefatboy (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See Walloon language. The official language in Wallonia is French. JoJan (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Cockpit of Europe
It says that Belgium has been called the "cockpit of Europe". The problem is that while he meant the place where cocks fight, most people will understand it to mean cockpit, the place where a pilot sits in an airplane. We either have to rephrase this or get rid of it, because it's misleading in its current form.  Oreo Priest  talk 14:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also didn't agree with this phrase when it was first introduced in the article but the editors convinced me directly it was a good faith edit with many references which are all cited in ref. 11 (incl "Nuttall Encyclopaedia"). If modern English speakers do not associate the word cockpit with the place where the cocks fight anymore it not a reason change the correct wording cockpit with battleground which is not supported by the references. Vb (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the quotation marks, because it's true that's not exactly what he said and they don't mean exactly the same thing. It's obvious though that "cockpit" was a metaphor for a place where all the great powers fight their battles, so I figured "battleground" would preserve the sentiment while not misleading readers. The actual quotation and wording are more or less explained in the footnote, so I figured it's the lesser of two evils.  Oreo Priest  talk 22:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are utterly right but it is simply wromg to say that Belgium was dubbed battleground of Europe: I think cockpit is better because it is the correct quote and moreover BTW it is more fun and therefore more interresting. The alternative you propose is just boring. 195.14.206.171 (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is more colourful and more fun, and it would be nice if we could properly use the quotes. But again, it will just mislead people; even if we link it, nobody will click, because cockpit pretty much automatically means "place a pilot sits" in English. It's also probably not worth the effort or space to explain what is meant by cockpit in the prose. It would be great to include it, but I think this unfortunate coincidence of English vocabulary makes an elegant solution impossible.  Oreo Priest  talk 09:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it is a good reason (but why not?) but in French the word cockpit means also "place a pilot sits" and abolutely not "battle ground"...José Fontaine (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Flag
Why does this article display the 13:15 version of the flag? It is effectively never used (see discussion at FOTW). I think we should put the "civil" flag at the top as it is basically the ubiquitous version.  Oreo Priest  talk 21:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More importantly, the Belgian federal government lists the 2:3 version as the national flag of Belgium. See Flags of Belgium. Given the lack of any substantial evidence in favour of the 13:15 version, we really should be using what the government of Belgium itself says is the national flag.  Oreo Priest  talk 14:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it upstream at Commons, so we are now.  Oreo Priest  talk 15:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong proportions?
A second issue is that I think FOTW might have the proportions wrong; it seems to be 15 tall : 13 wide, whereas FOTW's image (and ours) is 15 wide : 13 tall. Look these images: (,, , and File:Paleis brussel2.jpg). They are all from government buildings and they all seem (to me at least) to be taller than they are wide. On the FOTW page, the Consul General of Belgium in Jerusalem insists that the 2:3 one is normally flown but that the official one is always used on the Royal Palace of Brussels, which is what is shown in the last two photos. Thoughts?  Oreo Priest  talk 21:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The image needs to be fixed. The French, Dutch and German articles on the flag give it a 13:15 ratio. About the civil ensign be more used, that can be subjective. I'd stick to the official flag of the nation. If it's official, it's unquestionable. --Bluedenim (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One is the official state flag, meaning only the government can use it. (And in practice only a few do). That's the squarish one which is currently in the article. The official civil flag of Belgium is the one that is for use by everyone but the government, and in practice even by most of the government. On top of that, I can't see any reason we're insisting the state flag is more appropriate than the civil one.  Oreo Priest  talk 04:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. But note that the French, Dutch and German articles use the squarish version, the three official languages of the country. I think that sould be taken into account. --Bluedenim (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't reliable sources and the use of the state flag is exceedingly rare, so I would think they just took FOTW's word for it. It's also the file called "Flag of Belgium.svg" so it would seem like the official one.  Oreo Priest  talk 12:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The current flag contradicts what's on the Dutch version of Wikipedia. Moreover anybody who has ever been to the Royal Palace knows that the king waves the 13:15 flag. Also, the official Belgian Federal Site shows the 13:15 flag (Thomas Van de Velde) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.50.166.2 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Wow. Actually, that flag is 17:21 which is about 12:15, compared with 10:15 for 2:3 and 13:15, which looks much more square. More troublesome is that it's neither of the two that FOTW suggests. As the pictures above show, the Royal Palace clearly flies a flag that is taller than it is wide, which was not the file we had earlier either. I'll keep looking into this.  Oreo Priest  talk 05:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So after a huge amount of time and research, I think I finally got everything straightened out. See flag of Belgium (which I just did), which hopefully explains everything you need.  Oreo Priest  talk 09:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And, for the record, the king doesn't wave the 13:15 flag, he waves a flag of his very own that really is taller than it is wide. Again, see flag of Belgium.  Oreo Priest  talk 09:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistakable explanations
In the aftermath of the first World War, the Prussian districts of Eupen and Malmedy were annexed by Belgium in 1925, thereby causing the presence of a German-speaking minority. It is true, that these districts have been annexed by Belgium after a plebescite, but: 1. The area of Malmédy, Stavelot and Waismes is French-speaking. 2. The annexation of the districts of Eupen-Malmédy is not the reason for the existence of a "German"-speaking minority (Whether Luxembourgish and Ripuarian can be considered "German" is a different topic). The city of Arlon and the area along the Luxembourgish border is Luxembourgish-speaking (as is the district of St. Vith in the annexed "German"-speaking region, which is about half of the "German"-speaking region) - these areas belonged to Belgium since it's independence from the Netherlands, meaning there has always been a "German" speaking (or at least "writing") minority. (By the way: If Luxembourgish is not considered German, almost half of the present-day German speaking community/area is not German-speaking).Johnny2323 (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this comment. However I don't believe the quote is false.  The German-speaking minority would not exists if Eupen-Malmedy had not been annexed.  Hence this annexation caused the presence of the minority.  This is true that this may be misleading because 1. the whole districts were not German speaking, and 2. at the times the region got annexed (and till now in the private sphere) the people there were not speaking High German but dialects of it which form a dialect continuum linking the territories of the Duchies of Limburg and Luxemburg.  I don't see how to change the quoted sentence in order to get rid of the ambiguity you pointed out and keep the readability of the whole text.  I suggest you to add a footnote with references if possible.  Moreover please consider contributing to the partition of Belgium article. Vb 08:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading the guidelines
I read the initial guidelines of the article. I am including this file since it bears the name of Belgium in a non-official insignia. This file relates to the concept of relationship of Belgium with the world as a whole.Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you suggest using this image in the "Belgium" article or anywhere else outside your userspace? Please don't. Some home-invented mix of images without clear relation to Belgium has no place on any encyclopedic article about (an aspect of) Belgium. Fram (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Next Prime Minister
Is it already know who will take Van Rompuy's seat as the Prime Minister of Belgium and when? The article makes no mention of a succession. Tomea s y T C 15:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At this time, it is most likely that former prime minister Yves Leterme will take up Van Rompuy's seat. But this is the prerogative of the King to decide. According to the Flemish newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws, Yves Leterme will be sworn in by the King tomorrow on 25 November 2009 . JoJan (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Belgian Colonies in the 19th century?
The article states in its introduction that Belgium at the end of the 19th century possessed several colonies. To my knowledge Belgium has only had one, being The Belgian Congo and this as of 1908 when the previously "Congo Free State" who was supposedly independant but in fact private property of King Leopold II of Belgium was taken over / handed over to the state. Other than the Congo, Belgium has been mandated by the League of Nations in 1926 to control the former German Colonies Rwanda-Urundi after World War I, (similar to South Africa for Namibia I think), but they were only in an administrative union with the Congo until 1960, and in they 1946 became the status of UN Trust Territory. Boerkevitz (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed this phrase into "during the course of the twentieth century". JoJan (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflict between Flemish and French-speakers
The reasons given for the conflict are only a very small part of what the conflict is about. The main reasons has to do with how dutch speaking people have been treated since before the existence of Belgium. To explain this matter so one can fully understand is very difficult. You must know that originally the only official language of Belgium was french. Bert9 (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The conflict has always been a relationship between unequals. Years and years of legal inequality and maltreatment has lead to resentment, strife and harsh feelings toward the "former master".--Buster7 (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that it wasn't the Walloons that held all the power, it was the Flemish nobility, which spoke French by choice. Now, of course, the situation is different.  Oreo Priest  talk 07:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Oreo Priest. It is interesting to see Partition of Belgium and the paragraph ///Walloon/francophone movement//// with the citation of a Flemish historian writing the Walloons (between 1884 end 1902) were (almost) excluded from all Belgian governments. And most important the table of these governments. But what is more, it is the fact that the Flemish ministers were speaking French into these governments. Belgium was dominated by French but not (and never) by the Walloons. I think also that the Walloons were excluded from the Belgian governments during a longer period than 1884-1902. Im my opinin (but I am able to give sources of that), betweeen 1884 and 1939 (and after). If French was the dominating language, Walloons were never the dominating people. I think also that there is a minority in Flanders who is for ages a french-speaking minority  [and perhaps were not speaking French by choice but by familial tradition] and which does exist now. If the Walloon people were  dominating Belgium how is it possible they have between 1885 and 1961 six general strikes. Certainly I do recognize that the Flemish language was also excluded... José Fontaine (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Belgium was ruled by a French-speaking upper class - not just the Flemish nobility. It's absolutely correct though that the Walloons were not the ones in power (although it was to a certain extent socially and economically favorable to them that French was the official language). I think the core problem is that in mainstream public opinion the Flemish have generalised their historic frustration to all that is Belgian French (including the Walloons), and that the Walloons openly identify themselves with the Belgium of that era (unitary, French-speaking and with an economically dominant south and an irrelevant albeit majoritarian north), which in turn doesn't help to make themselves popular with the Flemish. This is the modern re-incarnation of a 19th century problem. --Hooiwind (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with Hooiwind. Very paradoxically, some Walloons who are radical (as me?), have the same interpretation of the History of Belgium as radical Flemings. It is very interesting that the last great book about that History is writen by a Walloon (Destatte) and a Fleming (Beyen), and that they are not in favour of the "Belgique de papa" ("Old unitary Belgium" "Belgium of dady"). In the Angle-Saxon world a man as Martin Conway (Professor in Cambridge), does understand that very well and he is writing a book about Belgium after the World War II. Hartelijk Hooiwind, José Fontaine (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)(It is a pity  it is not easy to make it clear on fr.Wp).

Picture Of Van Rompuy Should Be Replaced By A Picture Of Yves Leterme
Yves Leterme is now the PM of Belgium so it would make sense if the picture of Van Rompuy Was Replaced By Yves Leterme´s picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigzomack (talk • contribs) 20:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Flemish Vs. Dutch speakers
There's an inconsistency in this article where it says in the second paragraph that Belgium is divided into two linguistic groups, Flemish and French speakers. The Wikipedia article that 'Flemish' links to defines Flemings as those living in Flanders. There are, of course, also Dutch speakers outside of Flanders, particularly in Brussels.

As a Dutch speaker in Brussels I'd prefer to see the mention of 'Flemish' in the second paragraph changed to 'Dutch speakers' as we often don't think of ourselves as Flemish in Brussels (even though the Flemish government and French speakers try to tell us we are, all the time!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.73.175 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand this remark very well but it seems that usually the Flemish declare themselves as Flemish and not as Dutch-speakers. Which is not true of the Walloons which usually call themselves French-speakers (Francophones).  We have already had this discussion long ago and decided to call the Dutch-speakers in Belgium Flemish or Flemings and the Walloons French-speakers.  Vb 16:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.168.109.201 (talk)

Images of Mercator, etc.
Per WP.....Gerardus Mercator was born Gerard de Kremer or de Cremer in the Flemish town of Rupelmonde to parents from Gangelt in the Duchy of Jülich. He was not German. Suggestion:Rather than deleting appropriate images from this article, and thereby lessening the articles value, editors should consider adding informational images to Belarus and Hungary and, thereby, improving their value.Buster7 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please excuse today's error in edit summary on Main Page. It should read Gerardus Mercator rather than Germanus Mercodor (Whomever that is?) Buster7 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

References and FA status
Several sections of the article, most notably the History and Science and technology sections, are lacking in references. I think that this needs to be addressed so as not to endanger the article's featured article status. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Economy
A map of the Eurozone (Belgium is a member) has been added. It seems to be a standard useful information. Obviously, the introduction informs the reader about the EU membership (second sentence). I believe the high priority which is credited here needs support in the article. Seniorfox (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Must all countries belonging to the zone have such a picture? Why not a map of the NATO countries, the Francophonie, Benelux or the Belgian-Luxembourgian-Union?  We have a map which shows Belgium in the EU.  Isn't that enough? 93.193.121.107 (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason that so many Eurozone countries have/had them is that Seniorfox put them in himself. The map is not informative so it should be left out, as it currently is.  Oreo Priest  talk 19:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Eurozone is internationally recognized as an economy itself, it is highly integrated and an important information. It does not compare with Nato. BTW, this is a topic of Economy and nothing else. Oreo, you are wrong, I have put some few (3) maps on other articles after realizing that it was the case in many EU/Country articles. Belgium is a core country in the Eurozone, there is space in the Economy part, so everything seems to be accurate. I wonder why not one picture illustrates Belgium (or Brussels) as a host of the EU institutions here. I don´t hope ideological reasons prevent this . Seniorfox (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting the importance of the Eurozone or Belgium's connections to Europe for its economy. I'm saying that the map is not a useful graphic in the context of this article. It should be replaced with a better image, but I suppose because there's space, it's fine to leave it in place until then.  Oreo Priest  talk 13:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am neither doubting the Eurozone is something important for Belgium. However this is not worth a picture.  Why? Because this picture is almost the same as the one in the lead which shows Belgium within the EU.  The EU is of course something distinct of the Eurozone.  I however think that in this case less is more. Vb (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I also wonder why we should not put a map of the Schengen Area. I bielieve this is at least just as important. Vb 08:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought about it a bit yesterday, and I thought something representing Belgium (Antwerp) being the centre of the world diamond trade would be good. I thought this image or something like it would be great, but unfortunately there's no free image that's any good.  Oreo Priest  talk 11:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate
User:Fmph has claimed in an edit that the climate of Belgium is like that of much of northwest Europe. I suggest use of the "northwest Europe" label is not a good idea. The definition of Northwest Europe is vague and can include Scandinavia. I wonder if use of the highly technical Koppen classification (its use is mentioned in the article) to draw such a broad conclusion is correct. I've reverted per WP:BRD for the moment. LemonMonday  Talk   11:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it. This is not a contentious edit. Koppen is widely used across wikipedia. It is THE standard. The map is very clear. Even including Scandanavia, the "most of NW Europe" terminology is accurate. If you need another reference I guess this would do. If LM haa an alternative contextual description, I'd be most happy to discuss it. Fmph (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put it back to maintain the status quo. The problem is this; the map you cite does indeed show a large area of Europe with a similar climate based on vegetation. However, the map does not describe the area of Europe which has a common climate in terms of position. It's your interpretation that it's NW Europe. If you look at Northwest Europe you'll see the usage of that term is ambiguous, and quote "may include Scandinavia". Now, your map shows the bulk of Scandinavia with a different climate. SO I'm saying your statement is very likely incorrect and certainly unreferenced. Maybe we can agree on an alternative? The second ref' you give is a Wikipedia article. LemonMonday  Talk   20:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no 'status quo'. Lets not pretend there is. This is not a battleground. It's a wikipedia article about the country of Belgium. There is nothing contentious going on here. The edit is referenced. You may think that it doesn't quite show what I (and others) think it shows. Why don't you find a reference which supports your contention? Can you point out which ref you think is a wikipedia article? Because it's not. I am more than willing to listen to alternatives, providing they too improve the article by adding context to the climate classification. Fmph (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You revert first and listen afterwards (if indeed you listen at all). Your latest reference mentions neither Belgium nor Northwest Europe. It shows a map - that's about it, as far as its use here is concerned. It does not define northwest Europe. You are attempting to do that and have not backed it up with a reference. The status quo is what we had before your edit which placed an unreferenced assertion in the text. Please find a reference that states categorically the point you are trying to make. If you can't do so maybe we should try reworking it - I'm happy with a description such as Western Europe or some other geographic entity, provided it's referenced to a reputable source and not just a coloured world map. The onus is on you to do this. My revert is to remove unreferenced conjecture. Before reverting me again I suggest you put an argument here first, which is what I requested in the first place. I'll get back in a moment on the ref you're contesting LemonMonday  Talk   21:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your ref noted above; it sourced a map from Wikipedia, maybe not a problem. In the article you link to it mentions Belgium in northwest Europe. The problem though, is that it's is written by this guy;, and I wonder where he got his material from? Incidentally, here's an extract from it The Mediterranean climate is experienced around the Mediterranean Sea in Spain, Portugal, southern France, Italy. Clearly the guy is an amateur in these matters. LemonMonday  Talk   21:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Belgium in northwest Europe? if so, is the climate the same? GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with this revert. Indeed, neither Belgium, nor the definition of Northwest Europe is mentioned in the source, and thus deriving the statement from a little map in the source is a classic example of wp:SYNT, and thus wp:OR. Besides, we all know that Belgium's climate is significantly different from that of, say, Scotland. Good call, LemonMonday. - DVdm (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If we all 'know' that, then surely there would be a reference or 2 out there mentioning it. Perhaps you'd like to help by pointing one or 2 of them out to us? I fear you may well be confusing weather with climate. They are very different beasts. The 'weather' in Scotland may well be a little different from that in Belgium, but the 'climate' is the same. They are both classified as having a maritime or oceanic climate.
 * It is described slightly differently here, but personally I think my wording is more succinct. To suggest that I am somehow concluding something new (aka WP:SYNTH), is tosh and nonsense. If I was drawing a conclusion, for instance saying something like " ... and therefore the maritime climate is the predominant climate of northwest Europe.", then yes, that would be WP:SYNTH. But I'm not. All I'm doing is pointing out the extent of the common shared contiguous climate zone. Might there be a better way to word it? Undoubtedly. I'm open to suggestions, if anyone would care to make some. The use of climatic comparisons to provide location-based contextual information to readers, is widespread across wikipedia. It is an extremely useful construct for imparting information to readers. Some examples: Geography of Cambodia, Mequon, Wisconsin, Kottayam district, Middleton, Greater Manchester. Are you suggesting that all these (and many more) need to go? Fmph (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A few remarks:
 * This is a talk page. Talk page assertions like the one I made about Belgium vs. Scotland don't need references. The assertion is not present in the article, nor should it be.
 * If you want to mention "Northwest Europe" together with "Belgium" and "climate" in one statement, then apparently you need a source. If your assertion is indeed correct and notable, then you should have no problem finding a solid source for it.
 * Having potential OR- or SYNTH-flaws in some articles is not a reason to allow such a flaw being introduced in this article. If there is something wrong with some article, then feel free to go fix it — but watch out for wp:POINT.
 * DVdm (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that references are not required on talk pages, but they often help to boost an otherwise weak argument. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by mentioning WP:POINT. Perhaps you could elucidate? These are not potential OR or synth flaws. They are common english language constructs in wide usage. Editors are allowed to summarise or paraphrase. In fact it is encourgaed to avoid copyright problems. There is no requirement that northwest Europe, Belgium and climate need to be mentioned in a single source. Fmph (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a requirement to provide a source when challenged to do so — see wp:BURDEN. The source you provided does not support the statement. Again, if it is true and notable, finding a source should be very easy. The point I was trying to make was in response to your asking me if I am "suggesting that all these (and many more) need to go." If you think that there is something wrong with some article against my interpretation of wp:OR and/or wp:SYNTH, then feel free to go fix it, but in doing so, watch out for wp:POINT. If that needs more elucidation, then look at bullet#4 of the Examples (to which I added someting):
 * If you think someone unjustifiably removed "unsourced" content...
 * do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source
 * do not remove all apparently unsourced content on the page (or perhaps similar unsourced content on other pages).
 * DVdm (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. However, to be frank, that seems to say (to me at least) that I have done everything by the book, so I'm still unsure what point you are making. Are you happy that the climate of Scotland and Belgium are the same? Or do you feel that point needs more clarification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmph (talk • contribs)
 * It looks like you have not done everything by the book: this edit inserts exactly the same content in a different article after that content was removed here. I think that this qualifies as a case of wp:POINT. You also made a similar edit here. I noticed that you opened a help request about this, but you did not mention that the discussion is mainly about whether the countries belong to Northwest Europe or not. I have left a note at the help request page. DVdm (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think it qualifies as a case wp:POINT then by all means feel free to bring it to the attention of someone who has the authority to do something about it. I do not believe it does and would be willing to answer for my actions if necessary. WRT your edit summary, is it safe to assume that you now see your comparison between Scotland and Belgium as off-topic? If so, perhaps you could strike it? If not then could you at least confirm that you understand the difference between climate and weather? Fmph (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had left a note at the edit warring ANI. If nobody objects to that kind of behaviour (— and I suspect that nobody will —), then so be it. I will not lose any sleep over it. DVdm (talk)

Why is it important, to know the climate is the same across northwest Europe? GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's important as it provides context to the bald statement of which Koppen climate classification a particular place/region/country has. When a climatically-inexperienced reader reads that Belgium has a maritime climate, it may not mean much too them. Adding a simple statement such as "... like most of northwest Europe ..." very simply qualifies the preceding statement and puts in context. If the Belgian climate was unique amongst its neighbours, it would be equally useful to add " ... unlike the rest of Northwest Europe ..." or whatever. Is it a life and death situation? No. Does it help the reader? Yes it does. Fmph (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it helps the readers (which is our stated goal), its addition is prefferd. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a new discussion in relation to this dispute at Reliables Sources NB. Fmph (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC) The climate of Belgium, a country clearly in Northwest Europe, obtains a moderating influence and rainfall in each month, by the near presence of sea or ocean surface - like that of Scotland and of Scandinavian countries, here above apparently having been seen as if those had a significantly different climate. The more northernly positions of those areas however, neither excludes those from the general climate of northwestern Europe, nor does it solely define that general climate. This general article about 'Belgium' should not describe 'climate' in great detail. I agree with Fmph and GoodDay about the informative addition: More people will have an idea of the climate in Northwest Europe than about meteorological descriptions. The discussion on proper sources and how these should be presented appears to be far too legalistic for a relatively trivial general statement. ▲ SomeHuman 2010-12-15 13:22 (UTC)
 * I've tried to add a bit of detail, what do you think?  Oreo Priest  talk 10:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds pretty OK with me. DVdm (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

language
I just want to point out that in Flanders, we are also billangue... We speak Dutch, but also French, German and English (and this is just the basic pack on school)... so not only the Brussels part is billangue. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.116.6.202 (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, not officially. Dutch is the official language. Mapar007 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapar007 (talk • contribs)

Official mono- or bilinguality in Belgium refers to a territory. The individuals may (learn to) speak whatever they like. Buth the language used for official education is available only in the territory's official language(s), and this goes as well for communication with official institutions. Each (language) Community decides which second, third or fourth languages are obligatory or optional in an education programme and is legally supposed to organise education within its territorial boundaries only. The latter however, has not been entirely respected throughout. &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-01 00:58 (UTC)

Antwerp
"It is estimated that the port of Antwerp was earning the Spanish crown seven times more revenues than the Americas.[24]"

What has this item to do with the rest of the section History? I really don't understand why editors refuse to remove this. There are so many important things that are as well important but are not there: the economic importance of Katanga, the production of coal and steal in the 19th century, the strategic importance of the Iron Rhine, the production of diamant in Antwerp, etc... Just to cite a few economic topics that are not discussed here. This story is very interesting but does not belong to this very general article. If it were to remain here, it should be at least in a style which does not break the reading flow as it does now. Vb (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. Looks like someone's already removed it though.  Oreo Priest  talk 18:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional description of Belgium
The edit of the constitutional description of Belgium was reverted by Oreo Priest. Hisa argumentthat is was "legalese" and not wikified, is probably valid. So I invite Oreo to wikify the new description, however his argument is imho not a reason to remove an edit which is based on the unique source (the actual text of the constitution) of the statement and provides a references that source. The original prose it was reverted to was imho. an approximation of the official description of Belgium but being nearly correct is not the same as being entirely correct, the prose didn't have a link to the source because it doesn't rely on the source document. Despite it being legalese, the new description has the merit of being encyclopedically correct, and its up to us belgians to explain what it means. And I've seen that a lot of effort has been put in to explain Belgium's complex structure. that explanation merits an accurate point of departure --DerekvG (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked over your edit, and it seems to have nearly exactly the same information as was there before, plus an uncited bit about it being pyramid-like. Would you care to point out any inaccuracies that bother you in the version you changed it from? I can't spot any.  Oreo Priest  talk 00:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I utterly support Oreo's point of view. Vb (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oreo Priest : your argument ignores all what was said above :
 * - the current content is a narrative, i.e. not an encyclopedic representation of the official description of the Belgian federal structure
 * - an argument that's underlined by the fact that the narrative has no reference (source}, furthermore if the source of my text was used as a reference for the narrative, the narrative would be an encyclopedically incorrect representation of that source content
 * - the first line of your enumeration in your narrative is wrong it's equivalent to [lion, savannah, desert, tropical rain forest, tundra]
 * - and despite your personal evaluation of my edit being "legalese" and "shit" the description has the merit to be objective (it being a correct transalation of the dutch and french version of the belgian Constitution, which is the only document that contains - and that can contain - the actual description of the Belgian federal structure), and a description devoid of subjective appreciation and irrefutable for any contributor whatever his personal political preference or his linguistic apartenance.
 * Therefore I repeat my remark if its format was not wikified (which I doubt) that doesn't change its merit is being more accurate, and more encyclopedic --DerekvG (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That "pyramid-structure of governments with the federal government [...] at the top" defied the Constitution: Each government has full authority for its own matters. In sharp contrast to many or even all other countries with regional governments, the Belgian federal government (or even parliament) can not stop the existence of regional ones, neither revoke their authorities, nor rebuke their decisions. What top? Aztec pyramid?&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-02-03 20:53-21:04 (UTC)
 * "In sharp contrast to many or even all other countries with regional governments, the Belgian federal government ... can not stop the existence of regional ones, neither revoke their authorities..." You might be surprised to know that it's really not uncommon at all. See Federation. This of course has nothing to do with the article, just FYI :)  Oreo Priest  talk 00:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Oreo Priest. I should read WP more often. I'm not quite used to find myself having been that badly informed. I had assumed that very few constitutions had warranted that degree of autonomy for decisions by, as well as continued existence of, elements of federations (as opposed to confederations). Looking further for some countries convinced me. This was a good day.&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-02-06 14:22 (UTC)
 * How would SomeHuman describe a the object ( that looks like a triangle from any direction you look at it) in which there is a structure that consist of [a parliamentary assemblee, an executive government, and a judicial court] which we will call a territorial tripod of political power, A TTPP for short, of which there is 1 TTPP at the federal level, 3 TTPP's at the regional level and 3 TTPP's at the level of linguistic communities, 10 at the provincial level and approx 500 at the communal level,...
 * Afaik what I just described is a pyramid, I know it's actually a tetrahaedron (but the term "pyramid" is more commonly known), and the fact how competences are distributed or how independant or interdependant (of each other) these tripod-structures are doesn't make it less of a pyramid...--DerekvG (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * what bothers me about that narrative that's in place is that it compares apples and with elephants. the narrative attempts to talk about the structure of belgium as a nation state. It talks about 3 georgraphically delimited communities, finally, then it talks about 3 geographically delimited regions. And according to the narrative on top of those geographically determined units is a federal government (which is an organ of the powerstructure) which is not at all geographically determined . On top is the federal state a geographical entity determined by our state borders. that is what the constituion says and the n arraitve doesn't reflect that . it's wrong !--DerekvG (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-01 00:41 (UTC)
 * It is not a pyramid because your assumption of the 'federal government' being on top, is false: The regional governments make equally authoritative decisions. The 'federal state' is not on top, because that is the entire stucture.

Objection
Why do Americans have more right on their own page as a nation then Belgians? They are at least as much "made-up." ;)--Rastko Pocesta (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * could you please elaborate on your objection--DerekvG (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone redirected Belgians to Belgium arguing that there is no Belgian ethnicity, but that doesn't seem a valid reason for deletion to me. I restored the article pending a real consensus on the issue. mge o talk 08:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

largest metropolitan area
Changed largest settlement from "Brussels capital region" to "Antwerp" based on surface : Bcr=161.4 km2 against Antwerp = 204.51 km2--DerekvG (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, in this context 'largest' means 'largest population', so it should stay as Brussels. Cheers,  Oreo Priest  talk 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * first of all where is that convention outlined? "largest" refers to volume, surface or length or something measured and expressed in meters( or likewise units) not in number of people, if I applied your reasoning and would talk about what is the larger country belgium should be larger then sweden (actually sweden 15x surface of belgium but omly 9 mio inhabitants), it doesn't say most populated area, so it should say Antwerp --DerekvG (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but we don't speak about "largest settlemnt" but "largest metropolitan area". "A metropolitan area is a region consisting of a populous urban core with a high density of employment plus surrounding territory that is socio-economically linked to the urban core by commuting. A metropolitan area is also sometimes known as a commuter belt or a labor market area."  I personally think this concept is not relevant to Belgium because I believe it is quite difficult to decide where is the borderline of Antwerp's, Brussels', Liège's or Charleroi's metropolitan areas.  There are so many commuters from Namur or Leuven to Brussels that one can ask the question whether Namur and Leuven do not belong to the metropolitan area of Brussels.  Belgium is so small and with so many motorways and train lines that I think we can soundly ask whether Belgium is not a single metropolitan area.  I would simply suggest, in order to solve that eternal dispute between Antwerp and Brussels, to remove the largest metropolitan area entry from the infoox. Vb08:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.118.249 (talk)
 * One more comment. Look at New York metropolitan area or Tri-State Area.  You will see that metropolitan areas don't care about administrative divisions as so many Belgians believe. Vb 93.193.118.249 (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear Brussels is by far the largest city ("metropolitan area") in Belgium. No Belgian wil dispute that one. Le Fou (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Le Fou. Whether 'city' or 'metropolitan area', it's clear that Brussels is the biggest and most important in Belgium.  Oreo Priest  talk 22:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I of course agree with both of you. However it seems clear to me that we have to use a correct wording.  I have the feeling "metropolitan area" is not a relevant term to describe Brussels.  That's also the same by the way when it comes to the definition of the Walloon largest metropolitan area?  Is that Liège or Charleroi?  Do Seraing or Herstal belong to Liège's metropolitan area?  I believe the simplest thing to do is to ignore the metropolitan area concept which really doesn't fit to Belgium Vb 07:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.172.16 (talk)

Status
Belgium is not a country, but rather consists of the self-governing Flanders, Wallonia and Brussles, each of which being a sovereign country or city-state respectively. This has been official since 9 July 2011 and each has been recognised by the EU. 'Belgium' is merely short for 'the Kingdom of Belgium'. There is no government of Belgium other than that of Flanders, Wallonia and Brussles, nor any 'pan-Belgian' political insitution and all foreign affairs are subject to either Flanders, Wallonia and Brussles seperately, or the EU.


 * That is not correct. Flanders and Wallonia are not sovereign, they are under the jurisdiction of the government in Brussels. Just because there is only a caretaker government at the moment does not mean Belgium ceases to be a country under law. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless your grand father died invading the USSR, I can't understand why you say Belgium is not a country.


 * That is infact correct. Flanders and Wallonia are sovereign, they are under the jurisdiction of the EU in Brussels. There is no 'caretaker government' at the moment but this occured more than a year before on Belgium ceases to be a country under law on the 9 July 2011.


 * They are not sovereign. Please provide a WP:Reliable Source that states anything like that. Belgium remains a country, with or without a government. Furthermore, please stop moving the conversation to the top of the page. New conversations belong at the bottom. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not obstruct all contribution Chipmunkdavis and constructive collaboration is encouraged. I do not know exactly the current official status of Brussels and I expect it will be rather complex but that will be mainly for the 'Politics of Belgium' page, and not for this page on the Kingdom of Belgium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.67.117 (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This conversation has been moved the top of the page due to the precedence of its nature. [I've moved it back to the bottom because that's not how discussion pages work - Oreo Priest  talk 15:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)] Please read the news Chipmunkdavis to learn that both Flanders and Wallonia indeed became sovereign, albeit as members of the EU. Belgium ceased to be a country under law when resignation of the caretaker government was accepted by the King of Belgium. Henceforth, sovereignty was by law granted to Flanders and Wallonia. These are the facts and changes need to be made accordingly.


 * Belgium is not a state, but is rather a federation of constituent self-governing sovereign states, namely Flanders, Wallonia and the City of Brussles. 'Belgium' is a shortening of 'the Kingdom of Belgium'. There is no government of Belgium other than that of the autonomous parliaments of Flanders, Wallonia and Brussles; nor any pan-Belgian political insitution and all foreign affairs are subject to either Flanders, Wallonia and Brussles seperately, or the entire European Union.


 * IP, you're simply wrong. List of EU member states, with Belgium. No news reports call Flanders, Wallonia, or Brussels sovereign. The autonomous parliaments are called autonomous precisely because they are part of a greater state, and neither has any formal foreign relations with any other country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder
I wonder why this article does not extols the qualities of Belgium, while articles from other countries do. Look for articles on Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Holland, Iceland ... The Belgium is an amazing country and deserves much more than that.--189.104.31.149 (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please someone improve this article ??!!
Please someone improve this article ??!!

Please someone improve this article. Try to use: Belgium has very high life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living and income equality, and it ranks high among European nations in terms of education, health, quality of life and economic dynamism. The International Monetary Fund classified Belgium as a developed economy, and the World Bank identified it as a high income economy. Belgium is a member of the United Nations, the Council of Europe, NATO, and the World Trade Organization. The service sector dominates Belgium's economy, followed by the industrial sector and agriculture. Tourism is a significant source of revenue. The state controls a part of the economy, with substantial government expenditure. The European Union is Belgium's most important trading partner. Belgium government has invested in infrastructure, especially transport routes and facilities. Belgium provides a universal health care system and free primary and secondary education, while supporting culture through numerous public institutions and through corporate investments in media and publishing. The nation prides itself in its cultural, artistic and scientific contributions to the world, as well as in its cuisine, beers and sporting achievements.--189.104.31.149 (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article already covers much of that. However, everything added should be sourced, and is meant to be written neutrally and encyclopaedically, rather than in a touristy style. CMD (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although he was spamming a post and is commenting from an IP, he actually does have a point. Most countries' articles put forward the strengths of those countries, in many ways this article is focused on the problems with Belgium moreso than other countries' articles.  Oreo Priest  talk 23:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then those country articles are poorly written. Articles shouldn't be filled with boosterism (and this article isn't without it, "Contributions to the development of science and technology have appeared throughout the country's history" for example is a completely pointless sentence). The article doesn't seem to be unduly focused on problems to me, but if it is then specifics should be discussed, rather than a general and unhelpful "I wonder why this article does not extols the qualities of Belgium". CMD (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not know the reason for your rudeness, but I do not mean to offend, only to draw attention to some feature. I'm not registered but I am faithful user of Wikipedia, which I consider one of the best tools on the web, so I think I have a say. Thanks Anyway.--189.104.31.149 (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing that I found problematic was the emphasis on the government crisis. Then I remembered that rather than complaining, the better thing to do is be bold and fix it. - Oreo Priest  talk 20:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your lead removal. I disagree that a few words in the lead is giving undue emphasis on a crisis which was uniquely long, and highlighted the cultural conflicts within Belgium. I've removed the rather pointed series of sources after it though. CMD (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was uniquely long, but that doesn't mean that it was important enough to belong in the lead, which is the highest-level summary of the entire country. Westvleteren 12 is uniquely renowned, and Antwerp's diamond trade is the largest, but neither of those is mentioned in the lead; they are more appropriately expounded on in their own sections. I think that the place for a no longer current state of the government is the body of the text only; the fact that there are antagonism and state reform are sufficient detail for the lead.  Oreo Priest  talk 13:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of these impact the functioning of the state, and neither has received the widespread attention that the political crisis had. I don't even see how they are remotely comparable. The information is not just there to describe a former state of government, but to highlight how widespread and deep the contrasts of society area. Different sorts of reform happen fairly often. The extended lack of an elected government in a democracy on the other hand, is quite rare, which makes it a better indicator for how much the north/south division affects the country as a whole. CMD (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure it highlights that, but the expository example to highlight such a thing belongs in the body of the text, not the lead. The Battle of Waterloo is an excellent example of a conflict of foreign powers on Belgian soil, and it is rightly only mentioned in the body of the text, despite being much better known than the government crisis. - Oreo Priest  talk 18:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The functioning of the state is just one aspect of the country of Belgium. It has its place in the body of the article. It need not be so dominant in the lead. Mentioned? Yes. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  00:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Oreo Priest: If such examples belong in the body, why did you above say the example of state reform was good for the lead? The two examples seem like two sides of the same coin.
 * @Buster7: It is merely mentioned, as a 7 word sentence fragment, that links history to modern politics (although modern politics is covered in the first paragraph). CMD (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * indent:@Chip. PLease note I struck my comment prior to your message. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  19:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "This ongoing antagonism has caused far-reaching reforms, changing the formerly unitary Belgian state into a federal state, and a long period of political instability." I don't agree with the second part of this sentence as it now stands. "Long" doesn't mean anything.  It should be replaced with an objective period of time.  The problem is that Belgium experienced several quite long political crisis in the past.  The longest was the last one but the preceding weren't short either.  I think the chronical instability of the federal government is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead but one has to take care not to provide it an overdue weigth.  This instability is not necessarily due to a hypothetical forecoming collapse of the country but may be simply a consequence of the Belgian political system with at least 8 parties which claim to belong to the government.  A point which is often not understood outside of Belgium is that the Belgian governments are based on very detailed agreements between the parties building the government.  These agreements are usually discussed in deep detail and therefore need much longer negociations than in other countries where the crisis are simply postponed. Vb (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't supported it because I feel it's necessary to show some forecoming collapse (although if Belgium does break up, I'm sure it'd be through something much smoother than a collapse), but to show how the different communities affect federal politics. The long government-building process is no doubt part of this. How would you suggest wording it? "...federal state, and periods of political instability" would show there were multiple periods, but I don't think any had the same impact as the most recent one. CMD (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Demographics and religion
The section on demographics is incomplete (birth rates?). Too much stress is placed on foreigners, in an often shocking manner, eg, distinction between european descent and non-western descent. While it is orally used in Belgium, the term "new Belgian" should not get so much exposure on such an article. There is also bias in the section on religion. These two subchapters should be reorganized internally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maab77 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I utterly support Maab77's point of view. I have tried to restructure the demographics paragraphs by putting comments on ethnicity and "new Belgians" at the end of the section.  Author Anton88be reversed my changes because "The great majority of countries in the world have ethnicity statistics to reflect realities that nationality erases. Nationality doesn't show the reality. Acquiring a nationality doesn't change ethnicity."  May I oppose that according to article ethnicity "A number of European countries, including France,[58] and Switzerland do not collect information on the ethnicity of their resident population."  Among those countries is Belgium.  So we don't have any official statistics about ethnicity but only about people born abroad and nationalities.  The statistics which are presented here come from the blog http://www.npdata.be/BuG/155-Vreemde-afkomst/Vreemde-afkomst.htm.  What does mean "new Belgian"?  Are Elio Di Rupo, Salvatore Adamo and Émile Mpenza new Belgians?  This notion is quite sensitive and far from unambiguous.  Putting these notions in front of the paragraph mirrors a personal POV and a political agenda.  I therefore put the POV banner on the section. Vb (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'm not sure I have an opinion on which of the versions is better, I would like to say that ethnicity is a very important and pertinent matter, whether or not information on which is officially collected by the state. Even if we don't have flawless data, it's better to use the best estimates of the situation rather than abandoning coverage entirely.  Oreo Priest  talk 20:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with mentionning statistics on ethnicities but not at the first place. (The wording "new Belgians" appears in the first sentence!) While nationalities and birthplaces are official and therefore well defined, ethnicities are not always objective facts.  What about people with parents of mixed origins?  What about people who do not have contact to their homeland and even in Belgium do not have contact with persons of their ethnicities?  How many generations are required to be an old Belgian?  Ethnicities can be topic of research or statitics and those researches are therefore of course worth publishing on WP.  However, the source we have is titled "Bericht uit Gewisse"  (Rapport out of the concience) and starts with a poem.  Though I can't read Dutch - like most WP users -, it doesn't look really like a scientific nor an objective journalistic work.  Putting this source as the starting point of the paragraph about foreign population does not improve the quality of the article. Vb (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since author Anton88be does not respond, I applied the suggested changes and removed the POV-tag. However I still believe some improvements are required.  Do we really need the wording "New Belgian", which strangely smells like extreme-right flavour?  When happened the so-called "relaxation of the Belgian nationality law"?  Without a date are the last sentences meaningless. Vb (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

British or American English
The Belgium article has always been written in Oxford English. Look at this link : which dates from the first promotion of this article as featured article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.180.87 (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * agree I don't care deeply about the issue. However English is being taught in secondary schools in Belgium. While the classes usually point out the differences with American English, the correct answers on exams are typically British English. It makes sense to use the variant of english spoken most by those who can contribute, peer review, and promote the articles. Additionally the United Kingdom has played an instrumental role in the history of Belgium. Notably treaty of London (1839), which provides a compelling historical reason to use British english on top of the practical ones. Pinfix (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree: English seems more logical for an article on a European country than American English. Our colleagues in WP:LUXEMBOURG stipulate English-English and the same is true of the Germany article ---Brigade Piron (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not only is that assertion false; both the first/early and current versions of the article are in American English, I am also strongly against blanket painting all articles about anything in Europe to be in British English. WP:ENGVAR makes it clear that strong national ties must exist for a certain variety of English to be the preferred one; see that page for examples. When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. Also, the page stays in the English variant in which it was created. "With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for a change." Being on the same continent is not a strong national tie.  Oreo Priest  talk 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly see your concern, but Belgium and England have had strong ties since 1830, whereas to my knowledge, any US interest in Belgium began in 1917 and ended in 1945 only...Brigade Piron (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * International relations do not constitute a strong national tie to a topic. The topic must be directly and fundamentally related to the country in question; Belgium is not fundamentally linked to the UK in the same way that Usain Bolt is linked to Jamaica, for example.  Oreo Priest  talk 19:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Oreo Priest that the decision whether British or American should not be based on political reasoning. However the Oxford English banner has been on the talk page for years (at least since 2008). I therefore do not understand why this had to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.177.221 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, the banner had been there for years. But it only got there because someone placed it there with no discussion or even rationale. The page started in AmEng and is in AmEng now, so it's the banner itself that was the strange part.  Oreo Priest  talk 15:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Mercator
According to the Wikipedia article on him, Mercator was born in a place that is in either modern Germany or the Netherlands. Why is he mentioned as a famous Belgian so prominently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CWB001 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It says he was born in Rupelmonde, now Belgium. He also did a substantial portion of his mapmaking in Leuven.  Oreo Priest  talk 13:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The mystery of the missing map
Could someone perhaps explain why, among all the pictures and and other illustrations, there is no map of Belgium? Maps of language regions (extending into other countries), maps of this or that aspect of Belgium, but no map of Belgium. Why? Saintonge235 (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All those maps are maps of Belgium. Every map will show some aspects, and not others. What aspect do you think is missing? CMD (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am aware that there are several Belgian maps at this page, but indeed, a map with indication of the largest cities and rivers and depiction of (part of) the neighbouring countries and sea could be welcome. Is there anyone who has a good map including these aspects? Kareldorado (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Walloon
It is written : "Walloon, once the main regional language of Wallonia". Does someone know when ? It is so old that maybe it should be stated precisely. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be until it was replaced by more standard French. It was a long and gradual transition so it's hard to put an exact date on it.  Oreo Priest  talk 16:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Really not all that hard, or long ago. Orbilat has this to say "Though the bourgeoisie adopted the standard French in the 18th and 19th centuries, until 1900 most of the population used only Walloon in everyday life. But the number of speakers fell sharply between 1930-1960 and so has the functional and social range of the language." orbilat.com. So from around the 10th century until the start of the 20th. Similar and identical quotes can be found here by Laurent Hendschel. (presumably quoting from the same source)
 * For the record if you are really concerned with WP:WEIGHT you can probably ask yourself if enough weight is given in this article, let alone wikipedia as a whole, to the classical view calling Walloon a dialect, rather than a language. The latter of which is apparently mostly inspired by recent local conservationist efforts. Saving a language is a lot more jazzy that saving a dialect.Pinfix (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, if Walloon is a dialect, from which language is it ? Latine ? I learnt 10 words of Walloon when I was young and hear sometimes some speech : there is not a single link with French... Pluto2012 (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure a linguist would agree with your assumption that there is "not a single link with French". Just one example: the phrase "Je suis fier de ma petite patrie" (in French) becomes "Dji su fir de mè p'tite patreye" in Walloon. I don't think one needs to be a professor of linguistics to note the similarity, particularly considering the phonetic pronunciation of the French phrase... Rather like Picard.Brigade Piron (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "I am very proud of my little patry" is not much farther than the French translation...
 * I doubt very much that Walloon is considered as a French dialect but I am not at all an expert. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See fr:Langue d'oïl. For example, ethnologue.com classify Picard and Walloon as dialects of French, multitree.org classify 	Norman as dialect of French. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Vfp,
 * So it should be stated in the article as such and not as a language. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it should not. Only a few are claiming that Walloon is a dialect of French. See WP:UNDUE (Neutral point of view) or fr:WP:PROPORTION. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand.
 * Is Walloon considered to be a language or is it considered to be a dialect ? Pluto2012 (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was replying about Walloon being a dialect of French.
 * A language.
 * Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thx. :-) Pluto2012 (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Le Petit Larousse, Walloon is a dialect of the Langue d'Oil. According to the Meyers grosses Taschenlexikon, Walloon is the name collectively given to four French dialects spoken in Belgium. So that I believe the wording dialect should be used for Walloon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD0:AF06:FE6C:CD02:D455:CCE:79EE (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose the wording you just added is ok. Note, for example that there is an article on the Walloon language, and it has its own ISO language code. At the same time, we should not lose sight of its extensive similarities with French.  Oreo Priest  talk 12:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

champenois official language?
I found that champenois is a official language, there are only 3 official languages in Belgium (Dutch, French and German), I can't find any information about this, and if its recongnised as an official language (I guess not, because you can only get official paperwork in the 3 languages over here) Wildchild1992 (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is made quite clear in the article. Champenois, like Gaumais or Walloon, is spoken as a kind of minority dialect/local language in a certain tiny region but does not have the official status of French/Dutch/German - which would be absurd anyway. I doubt anyone speaks Champenois who does not speak French fluently. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Political crisis
The leads indicate : "This ongoing antagonism has caused far-reaching reforms, changing the formerly unitary Belgian state into a federal state, and several governmental crises, the most recent from 2007 to 2011 being the longest."

What does it refer to ? I assume it should be written from June 20 10 to December 2011 and we should precise the months. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. It refers to 2007–2011 Belgian political crisis Pinfix (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2007–2011 Belgian political crisis is a little bit WP:OR. It merges 2 crisis in 1.
 * Sources 2 and 4 in the article talk about a 18 months crisis in 2010-2011, ie what I refer to.
 * What are the WP:RS sources that make this crisis go back to 2007 ? Pluto2012 (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it's not ridiculous at all to claim WP:OR because it doesn't fit your argument. A crisis can be composed out of several smaller crisis. It's not original research if some of your sources only talk about parts. You're more at risk of WP:RECENT than that this is a WP:OR issue. From an encyclopaedic point of view, and since this is a general article it makes more sense to group it. It's right after eachother, it's the same people, arguing about the same thing. Pinfix (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the source that claim the crisis is 4 year long ?
 * Sources state claim it is 18 month long and refer to the period from June 2010 to December 2011.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There were 4 governments and 2 years of no government in 4 years time. You can not sanely claim that this Must be viewed as two seperate crisis. What exactly splits them up? The van rompuy 1 government lasting 11 months? Encyclopaedic it's the same "crisis" or "political instability". For example the Dutch wikipedia similarly groups the events in this article Regeringsformatie_België_2007. Just because you can't immediately google a source that calls it "The" crisis. Most likely because the word crisis has been used for everything this past half a decade. Does not mean it's not verifiable. In 10 years time. It is clear that we will remember the whole mess as one instable/crisis period. Making your obsession about this clearly WP:RECENT. If you have 4 governments in 2 years time. Where a term limit is 4 years, you by definition have a political crisis. Pinfix (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * and here is a source that calls it "the crisis" Now can we stop this ridiculous nonesense? or are you really insisting on pushing some moronic agenda?  Pinfix (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This will be my first and last warnning regarding WP:AGF.
 * Is this the only source ? I found this too from google. If it is the only one it is not enough because it is rather anecdotical. The time that was named crisis was from June 2010 to December 2011.
 * So, if there are no reliable sources s, this should be corrected. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I assumed good faith. You just keep insisting on pushing your agenda. Despite the fact that i refute all your arguments. WP:V Does NOT require it to be googleable. It is a fact that you have a political crisis if you have 4 governments in 2 years and no government for the following 2. There are googleable sources. And they are not anecdotal (which is how you spell it). You don't go splitting up the article about hamburgers buns in an article about the top bun and the bottom bun. WP:RECENT. It is one crisis with connected events, and about the same thing. ANd to be clear I did not write the article. And i did not link them. As you can see in the edit history. They are linked by causality, content, and actors. Their linkage is inherent. And not Original research. As observed by the published article i linked before. And more sources that you can't instantly google. I appreciate your threats on my talk page and i encourage you to go for it. You will never accept you are wrong no matter how much evidence i present. This article talks about the period from 2007-2010 but only names 18 month a "crisis" This article groups them as "crise nationale belge"  it does state that it consists out of 2 smaller crisis but it names the whole "crise nationale belge". Do you really need me to continue ? There is absolutely nothing wrong with naming the whole period a "political crisis". Or grouping the two. this article speaks of it in this way . Written in 2011 "since 2007 both sides have been quarrelling". There are ample sources. You can give up on this. Or you can desperately try to get your own. Resort to as many threats and as you want. It will not change anything.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinfix (talk • contribs) 13:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am also not alone in this as you can see in this edit Same people same topic, not WP:OR Pinfix (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You write : "I assumed good faith. You just keep insisting on pushing your agenda." Comply with WP:AGF. You also deleted my message on your talk page without answering. That is not the way wikipedia works.
 * What you provide are not sources for the claim that was added. The political crisis was from June 2010 to December 2011 as stated in the Figaro. Unless you can provide reliable sources, this will be corrected.
 * Is there any other mind ? Pluto2012 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can do on my talk page what i want. that is how wikipedia works. you accuse me of 3RR when i revert twice; you accuse me of AGF when you just ignore all my arguments and require more from me. This is not how wikipedia works. you are the one that lacks an open mind. i refuted your claims adequately. and posted on the talk page of the page in question all the arguments required. You ignore all my arguments and just keep claiming i need more. This is not how wikipedia works. Stop trying to pretetend you are the one who knows how wikipedia works and trying to educate me. And instead finally realise that you will need to give up on this point. I will not back down because you act like you own this place. Wikipedia requires you to be bold. You can accuse me all you want. The fact of the matter is that it is not WP:OR. that it was not 3RR and that there is nothing wrong with grouping the two. and the reference is not aneqdotal it's an article written by somebody from the KU Leuven. a top university in belgium and published in a respectable journal. so please stop harassing me and just try to find it in your ego to accept that you may be wrong. Pinfix (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Another source that groups the crisis is electoral language of the ROSSEM party stating "en de huidige crisis (2007-nu)" which translates as "the current crisis (2007-now)" written in 2012. I'll be the last one to defend their program, but as a source to back up the fact that several sources consider the 4 governments and other political instability between 2007 and 2011 it is valid. The crisis was never resolved and simmered on all the time between 2007-2011 you can distinguis periods of relative calm and extreme crisis but they are all part of a whole. And it is not wrong to name it as such. as proven by multiple sources. invalidating the WP:OR and negatively answering your question.Pinfix (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * More references that people consider the two crisis as a whole is when there was popular protest. The morgen for example published the rationale of academics to protest. "Reeds sinds 2007 wordt de politiek volledig" Since 2007 politics is dominated by .. failures. Again indicating that people protesting the impasse at the time even group all the failures into one "crisis". And not just protesting the crisis that started in 2010. The first crisis was never resolved, it was only pushed to the background a bit, the second was a continuation. It is far more accurate and honest to consider them as a whole of connected events. Pinfix (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Another source or reference is the book "Émulations n°10 : Belgique : sortir de crise(s) By Stéphane Baele" .Which has on page 89 "mot de clef" or keywords " Psychology, Belgium, politics, charisma, negotations, zayan, rosoux, Belgian political crisis (2007-2011)". if you're lucky you can catch the page in books.google.com If not i can provide a screenshot. or you can look at this page which has the text " la crise politique qu'a traversée l'État belge entre 2007 et 2011." .Pinfix (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll just add another for good measure. In an article named "belgique-en-bref" You would find the sentence "La popularité et l’influence de la NVA de Bart De Wever, qui fut au centre de la dernière crise politique belge (2007-2011)," which translates as. "the popularity and influence of Bart De Wever's NVA, which was at the center of the last belgian political crisis (2007-2011), ...  novopress] is not a personal blog but a press agency.Pinfix (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse you of 3RR but I informed you of 3RR.
 * I am sorry but I am not convinced by what you say and I am still convince that per WP:V and WP:NPoV (ie the majority of the sources on the topic) the merging of both period is WP:OR. The criis lasted from June 2010 to December 2012.
 * Other(s) mind(s) would be welcome ! Pluto2012 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be convinced. WP:OR only states that it isn't original work. You can't use it to get your way. And just always ask the other person to provide more proof. there is ample proof provided. You now have to prove that it is wrong to claim it as a crisis. else you are the one making NPOV chages and violating WP:OR. You can't seem to understand that "a period of consecutive crises" is known as a "crisis" and that it is perfectly correct to name it as such. And that it is more accurate and honest by the definietion of crisis. You provide me a source that says you can not consider them as the crisis. I provide you sources of universities publishing a hundred pages on the topic calling it "the crisis". i provide you with articles. i provide you with everything. You are being stubborn and that is not the wikipedia way. Not being able to accept that i refuted all your objections. and not providing any arguments. All you say is "i'm not convinced" this is just weak. No other word for it. It is weak and disruptive. There is nothing wrong with grouping the events. as evidenced by *BOTH* sides in several publications of the highest quality. Academics in respected publications, and valid news sources. Why don't you provide me equal quality references that state that it is wrong to consider it a political crisis. seriously. WP:OR is not a stopgap argument that you can use to win arguments. There are already other opinions. The people who created the article under this name, the thousands of people who read the article, which has been in this state grouping the events for 3 years, and well integrated and linked throughout wikipedia. From the moment i prove it's not WP:OR it is your task to provide evidence that it's wrong to name it a crisis. It isn't sufficient to point to sources that consider parts of the crisis to claim that it's wrong to label the whole thing a "political crisis". They are clearly connected. It is really really poor to just dismiss all my arguments.  All the proof is delivered. The president of the Flemish political institute calls it "the polical crisis" the Walloon university in louvain published a book calling it "the crisis" (over and over). There are press articles. There is absolutely nothing you can expect from me beyond this. Let me also point out that you are also wrongly using WP:OR here [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sexual_abuse_cases_in_Brooklyn's_Haredi_community] Let me suggest you reread the policy. After having milked the WP:OR and WP:V you seem to now accuse me of NPOV. They are inherently connected. There is no reason to pretend they are disjoint. It would be dishonest. inaccurate and wrong. Here is another reference of media  "Vier jaar politieke crisis is slopend geweest" Where the most important commentator (and co-editor-in-chief) of Het Laatste Nieuws refers to "the crisis" in an article titled "four years of political crisis have taken their toll". You can insist on trying to revise history. However i will not back down just because you accuse me of NPOV, AGF, OR, V. You can go through my edit history. This is the only argument that i advocate strongly, not because i enjoy it. but because your claims are wrong, as been amply proven, despite your stubbornness to accept this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinfix (talk • contribs) 19:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * more sources quatre ans d'une crise politique. UNE crise. So many sources. Pinfix (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I am another mind on the topic. First of all, you both need to start being civil, as of right now. Among other things, any explanation of policy need not be interpreted as talking down to you.

I'm not sure I will be able to cut the Gordian knot here. Pinfix has provided a number of sources grouping it as one crisis. This shows that it isn't absurd or OR. On the other hand, it may very well be that a majority of serious sources count them as two crises (I haven't checked), this would mean that the two crisis view is the appropriate one under WP:WEIGHT. Whether or not there is resolution or consensus, the other view should be mentioned in the article in proportion to its weight; for example a sentence saying "The crisis is often separated into two separate crises, one from 2007 to [whenever] and one from 2010-2011." or of course something similar if the page is changed. I'm a bit surprised that Pluto's changes haven't been anything more substantial than slapping an OR tag on the page and then protesting its removal. At the very least, you should be working towards acknowledgement of the two views on the page itself.  Oreo Priest  talk 21:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The 2007–2011 Belgian political crisis already clearly states that it consists of sub-crisis.(which made the WP:OR completely ridiculous) I do not appreciate that I am force to provide solid sources, and you accept pluto2012's claim at face value. His claim btw is false. None of the sources, zero, 0, nada, nobody ever claimed that the two crisis *have* to be considerate separate. There are articles that only deal with sub-crisis, especially news outlets, because people's attention span is short and people get fed up with the depressing word "crisis". Virtually all news outlets have summary articles that chronicle all the events as "a" or "the" crisis. Btw it doesn't really split up into two pieces nicely.To my knowledge there is no book published the "two political crises of Belgium." If you have a fight with your wife in the morning, go to work, come back and pick up where you left off at night. You will not consider this two fights. This is exactly what this was, the same people fighting over the same things, with only short (multiple)hiatuses.


 * I do not object to mentioning that the crisis can be split up, i would even argue that this goes without saying. And hence I don't see why this couldn't be accomplished with just a wikilink to the 2007-2011 article. Which already accurately explains the nuances.
 * I do strongly protest adding anything that insists that there is a different view on the events without any published reliable sources. Show me the WP:OR evidence of people stating that they have to be considered separate and disjoint. It is not sufficient to provide sources talking about parts of the crisis as a crisis. This in no way implies that they do not consider the whole period a crisis. See First-order logic
 * I however strongly object to the false WP:OR claim, which he insisted on post evidence.
 * I further object to your interpretation that he wasn't talking down to me.
 * But most of all I object strongly to any attempt to remove references to the entire event, and replacing them with only a mention of the 18 months of failure of forming a government post 2010 elections. This is a false betrayal of events. Which was his original request. and clearly not WP:NPOV.


 * Also note that i'm not defending my own work, all the current versions were edited and authored by other wikipedians. I am only safe guarding their efforts from revisionism. Meaning there are at least two people who agree on the current state of the text. In addition to the thousands who have read it and not made any WP:OR claims the 3 years that the article has been up in its current form. Pinfix (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

O, yes .Qdfr (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

[Gibberish comment by another user deleted —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)]
 * I don't understand a word of that, but from what I can see, you seem to have misunderstood a debate which took place 2 years ago...—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is gibberish. Just random talk. JoJan (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

New [cortisol] per thousand in the blood .Also due Political crisis. 10 more for population ordiner in year 2016th.Bonmerci (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Belgium. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.belgium.or.kr/page60.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.aber.ac.uk/cgi-bin/user/merwww/index.pl?rm=lang_detail;id=112;lang=1
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.euresisnet.eu/Pages/ReligionAndState/BELGIUM.aspx
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www2.resto.be/bib_new.cfm?langue=uk
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1435915.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 00:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

budget deficit
Budget deficit does not belong to the topic Political Crisis. Newspaper Meteotime: 95% of annual product of the State Belgium. Is comparable only to the US.Saving tests is also available. NVA thinks this State shall submit the police. An army is excessively overpriced .Cheap labor from Africa (only 850, - Euro / month). Come also into question.The friendship with the Muscovite Sponsor as final solution the problem-. Are also offered.But does not a long Default. State België abounds. Chimie industry, metallurgy and sw.DePaul SaintVincent (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Army and Molenbeek
Regarding this and previous similar edits, the claim that the Belgian army is "failed" (whatever that means) would need to be sourced. The material on Molenbeek does not belong here, but rather at Sint-Jans-Molenbeek and, to some extent, at Brussels. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of <Belgien> in German
There's a schwa in there... Wathiik (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 38 one external links on 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fh-kehl.de/zeitung/rezensionen/2003/cook,belgium.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.belgium.or.kr/page60.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArtTextonly.aspx?refid=781531490
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ncata.org/doc/Oct99.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArtTextonly.aspx?refid=781531490
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dglive.be/EN/Desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1263/2264_read-27181/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.args.k12.va.us/academics/history/Stoneking/chapters/world2/world27.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614025223/http://www.unrisd.org/UNRISD/website/document.nsf/ab82a6805797760f80256b4f005da1ab/ec506a59176be044c1256e9e003077c3/$FILE/Deschou.pdf to http://www.unrisd.org/UNRISD/website/document.nsf/ab82a6805797760f80256b4f005da1ab/ec506a59176be044c1256e9e003077c3/$FILE/Deschou.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dekamer.be/kvvcr/pdf_sections/publications/constitution/grondwetEN.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lachambre.be/kvvcr/pdf_sections/pri/fiche/10F.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0019846.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/16/sprj.irq.nato.belgium.ap/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/7982892/Fears-over-break-up-of-Belgium.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dekamer.be/kvvcr/pdf_sections/publications/constitution/grondwetEN.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eda.europa.eu/DefenceData/Belgium?DDYear=2010
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mil.be/def/index.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britishcouncil.org/eumd-information-background-belgium.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dglive.be/EN/Desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1408/2267_read-27184/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aber.ac.uk/cgi-bin/user/merwww/index.pl?rm=lang_detail;id=112;lang=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.euresisnet.eu/Pages/ReligionAndState/BELGIUM.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2000/en/pdf/hdr_2000_back1.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ec.europa.eu/culture/portal/sites/members/belgium_en.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/07/euwl/ht07euwl.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/08/euwl/ht08euwl.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/09/euwl/ht09euwl.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.uol.com.br/bienal/23bienal/universa/iueopa.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.belgianexperts.com/rock.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ledoux.be/nl/dvdmain.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.resto.be/bib_new.cfm?langue=uk
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.visitbelgium.com/mussels.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1435915.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.briobrussel.be/ned/webpage4.asp?WebpageId=39
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fed-parl.be/constitution_uk.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.statbel.fgov.be/port/cou_eu_en.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geogr.uni-goettingen.de/kus/personen/euregio/emr99-21.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/lowcountries/xbelgium.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.briobrussel.be/assets/bt8download.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2006/12/20_mnookin.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 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/20070927000202/http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?vID=67647&vLang=E&vHR=1&vUR=3&vUUR=4&vNoHB=True to http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?vID=67647&vLang=E&vHR=1&vUR=3&vUUR=4&vNoHB=True

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fh-kehl.de/zeitung/rezensionen/2003/cook%2Cbelgium.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArtTextonly.aspx?refid=781531490
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0025631/pdf/RANDBRUS.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070530023348/http://www.dglive.be/EN/Desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1263/2264_read-27181/ to http://www.dglive.be/EN/Desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1263/2264_read-27181/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unrisd.org/UNRISD/website/document.nsf/ab82a6805797760f80256b4f005da1ab/ec506a59176be044c1256e9e003077c3/%24FILE/Deschou.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160710084134/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/be.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/be.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706134014/http://www.dekamer.be/kvvcr/pdf_sections/publications/constitution/grondwetEN.pdf to http://www.dekamer.be/kvvcr/pdf_sections/publications/constitution/grondwetEN.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626185804/http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/023/0036/jmmd0230036.pdf to http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/023/0036/jmmd0230036.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706134014/http://www.dekamer.be/kvvcr/pdf_sections/publications/constitution/grondwetEN.pdf to http://www.dekamer.be/kvvcr/pdf_sections/publications/constitution/grondwetEN.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130731024244/http://en.erih.net/index.php?pageId=114 to http://en.erih.net/index.php?pageId=114
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613005546/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117044852/http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html to http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aber.ac.uk/cgi-bin/user/merwww/index.pl?rm=lang_detail%3Bid%3D112%3Blang%3D1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430163128/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121202023700/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160626094459/http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/news/y%3D2015/m%3D11/news%3Dbelgium-go-top-chile-and-austria-soar-2730157.html to http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/news/y%3D2015/m%3D11/news%3Dbelgium-go-top-chile-and-austria-soar-2730157.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608172452/http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/belgiqueacc.htm to http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/belgiqueacc.htm

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) 23:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Population Density Ranking - edit request on 1 June 2017
The population density ranking in the info box is incorrect. The ranking should be 36th (according to the linked article.) Jrgonzalez183 (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  16:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 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/20070609152931/http://www.fh-kehl.de/zeitung/rezensionen/2003/cook%2Cbelgium.htm to http://www.fh-kehl.de/zeitung/rezensionen/2003/cook%2Cbelgium.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511040638/http://www2.napier.ac.uk/warpoets/Hydraissues/Hyn01/hyn01a03.html to http://www.napier.ac.uk/warpoets/Hydraissues/Hyn01/hyn01a03.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609031824/http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/AXL/EtatsNsouverains/bruxelles-capitale.htm to http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/EtatsNsouverains/bruxelles-capitale.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925221249/http://www.args.k12.va.us/academics/history/Stoneking/chapters/world2/world27.pdf to http://www.args.k12.va.us/academics/history/Stoneking/chapters/world2/world27.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071122233056/http://www.britishcouncil.org/eumd-information-background-belgium.htm to http://www.britishcouncil.org/eumd-information-background-belgium.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628233901/http://www.dglive.be/EN/Desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1408/2267_read-27184/ to http://www.dglive.be/EN/Desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1408/2267_read-27184/

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) 09:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on 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/20131217183818/https://edit.britannica.com/getEditableToc?tocId=24981 to https://edit.britannica.com/getEditableToc?tocId=24981
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070914150715/http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=65481-belgium-netherlands-dioxin to http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=65481-belgium-netherlands-dioxin
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924034710/http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0019846.html to http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0019846.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050116083744/http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/16/sprj.irq.nato.belgium.ap/ to http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/16/sprj.irq.nato.belgium.ap/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930131538/http://www.mae.lu/fr/Site-MAE/Politique-etrangere-et-europeenne/Organisations-Economiques-Regionales/L-Union-economique-belgo-luxembourgeoise to http://www.mae.lu/fr/Site-MAE/Politique-etrangere-et-europeenne/Organisations-Economiques-Regionales/L-Union-economique-belgo-luxembourgeoise
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609192011/http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Stevin.html to http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Stevin.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429185157/http://www.gvpedia.com/Uploads/Files/market%20essentials%20-%20belgium.pdf to http://www.gvpedia.com/Uploads/Files/market%20essentials%20-%20belgium.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224164244/http://ec.europa.eu/culture/portal/sites/members/belgium_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/culture/portal/sites/members/belgium_en.htm
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20091013022635/http://wwar.com/masters/movements/flemish_school.html to http://wwar.com/masters/movements/flemish_school.html
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160515200408/http://wwar.com/masters/nationalities/belgian.html to http://wwar.com/masters/nationalities/belgian.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207233008/http://www1.uol.com.br/bienal/23bienal/universa/iueopa.htm to http://www1.uol.com.br/bienal/23bienal/universa/iueopa.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928001505/http://www.globalgourmet.com/destinations/belgium/backgrounder.html to http://www.globalgourmet.com/destinations/belgium/backgrounder.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210101230/http://www.visitbelgium.com/mussels.htm to http://www.visitbelgium.com/mussels.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605055509/http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=G2I3H7IVR to http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=G2I3H7IVR
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070911223542/http://www.inbev.com/press_releases/20070424.1.e.cfm to http://www.inbev.com/press_releases/20070424.1.e.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110827090211/http://trends.rnews.be/fr/economie/actualite/politique-economique/ou-habitent-les-belges-les-plus-riches/article-1194966031033.htm to http://trends.rnews.be/fr/economie/actualite/politique-economique/ou-habitent-les-belges-les-plus-riches/article-1194966031033.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070720161347/http://www.geogr.uni-goettingen.de/kus/personen/euregio/emr99-21.htm to http://www.geogr.uni-goettingen.de/kus/personen/euregio/emr99-21.htm

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) 10:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Linguistic figures in the lede
Belgium is home to two main linguistic groups: the Dutch-speaking, mostly Flemish community, which constitutes about 59 percent of the population, and the French-speaking, mostly Walloon population, which comprises about 40 percent of all Belgians.

Is there a source for these precise figures? 2602:306:CFEA:170:501A:713A:AD20:16E3 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

New Statbel site since 15th January 2018
The largest cities in Belgium 1st of January 2018

Source: https://statbel.fgov.be/en/themes/population/structure-population — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webby rr (talk • contribs) 09:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Antwerp is the largest city in Belgium
This article is wrong. Brussels is not the largest city in Belgium. Antwerp is, even if the Brussels province is slightly bigger than the Antwerp metropolitan area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User142857 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2019
Kikiarga6 (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PorkchopGMX  ( talk with me  -  what i've done ) 17:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Prime Minister
The current Prime Minister of Belgium is not Olivier Chastel but Charles Michel. Vleug (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this gets vandalized or "corrected" by mistake constantly since the government is one of "running affairs" only. You are welcome to correct such errors if you spot them! Fram (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2019
Belgium has an area of 30688 km2 according to a new survey from Statbel source: http://www.hln.be/nieuws/binnenland/belgie-is-160-km-groter-dan-gedacht~a3d8d378/ Liomarcp (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅. I've looked around at a few other sources and it seems you are correct, so I've tweaked/added the info in question. Thanks for catching that, .-- SkyGazer 512 <span style="background: linear-gradient(aqua, #d580ff);">Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Brussels capital and largest city
The infobox states that Brussels is the largest city in Belgium, but when you click on it it links to the City of Brussels article not the Brussels Capital Region. The City of Brussels is NOT the largest city in Belgium by itself, only when you include the entire Brussels capital region.2602:306:CC42:8340:B9DA:211D:AE70:83C2 (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Then what is the largest city in Belgium? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant that isn't Brussels the City separate from the Brussels Capital Region? They list only the City of Brussels as the capital and not the whole region.2602:306:CC42:8340:D982:41B3:9554:523E (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * With a population of 510,610, Antwerp is the most populous city in Belgium


 * But why are we only counting the Ville de Bruxelles municipality for the population of Brussels? The idea that Ixelles or Anderlecht doesn't count as part of the Brussels is pretty curious.—Brigade Piron (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * They count as part of the Brussels-Capital Region, not unlike how Brasschaat and Schoten count as part of the province and arrondissement of Antwerp, but not the city of Antwerp. Lvsz (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Brussels is no longer listed as the largest city in Belgium in the article. That is wrong as the entire Brussels-capital is considered one city and has a population of about 1.4 million. This is not the metro area which has a larger population. That is larger than Antwerp. The article should be changed.2602:306:CC42:8340:4CA9:B83C:E252:11B4 (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed extensively in the past :
 * if the statement "Brussels is the largest city " is used then that is definitely not true  : the correct administrative city area  of Brussels has a surface of  32.61 km2 (12.59 sq mi) and a population of 178,552 neither of which makes it qualify for largest city : the table of belgian communties shows that Antwerp with 517.042 citizens has the highest number of inhabitants and Doornik (Tournai) has with  213,75 km² has the largeste surface.


 * if the statement "Brussels (capital region) is the largest city " should used then that is definitely not true either because  although "Brussels capital region" is a region of the Belgian Federal state and compares to Flanders and Wallonia as other regions, as prescribed by the constitution, and could be considered a single urban area, it dos not qualify as a city BCR has a gouvernment and a parliament and doesnot have a city council and a burgemaster, in fact it has 19 elected city councils and a burgemasters, making it 19 administrative entities of equal rank as Antwerp and Doornik. --DerekvG (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

But all of Greater London is called the capital of the UK in its article, but only Westminster (where most UK government buildings are located) and the City of London (the tiny financial center in the heart of Greater London) have city status. What is so different about Brussels?2602:306:CC42:8340:7088:65C9:D3BB:94C4 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * One notable difference between Brussels and London, is that Greater London has got its own Mayor, while the most comparable office for Brussels-Capital Region is that of Minister-President. Lvsz (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) belgiumlivesmatter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.180.33.37 (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If you compare Brussels with Antwerp, compare Brussels city with Antwerp district 1 (197.137) or else compare Brussels Capital Region, with ALL the Antwerp districts (500K). Vleug (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't actually care much about the size debate, but currently footnote_b says that "The Brussels region is the de facto capital, but the City of Brussels municipality is the de jure capital". The first part is wrong; there's no such thing as a "de facto capital". The source provided for this statement relates only to the second part: the constitution indeed identifies the City of Brussels as the capital - which is the only correct statement. The de facto statement is unsourced and seems to be a personal opinion only; it should be removed.85.28.110.57 (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
Change the Philippe King of the Belgians since 2013

Charles Michel Prime Minister since 2014 to Philippe King of the Belgians since 2013

Sophie Wilmès Prime Minister since 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Wilm%C3%A8s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sophie_Wilm%C3%A8s.jpg Gerard135 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: please see Special:Diff/927382132. Thanks, <b style="color:black">Nici</b><b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 04:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2020
change "22th" to "22nd" in "Population Density" Lumper3 (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅th. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Belgique (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020
Minster of Defence = Philippe Goffin 141.135.61.211 (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Map of Belgium in context of Europe?
Hi. Why is there no map that places Belgium in the context of national borders within Europe? A map, for example, that would show its geographic position relative to its neighbors (France, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) and even with the British Isles? If any mapmakers read this, please take note that it would greatly enhance the article by providing a means of visual reference for its national context in Europe, the illustration of which, currently is left to the human imagination. Thank you. Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There seem to be two maps already on the article which match that description?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting removal of "Ethnic groups" from card
Change request: Remove "Ethnic groups: see Demographics" from card (delete line `|ethnic_groups =`).

1. It is not a common practice in Belgium to list people by ethnicity or request that information in census. Other articles about nearby countries also do not include that section in their card (France, Germany).

2. That section only links to Belgium which doesn't adequately present the ethnic groups in Belgium.


 * Done. Indeed the line only contained a link to a section with indirectly relevant discussion. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. "Ethnic groups" is an uniquely unhelpful way of thinking of linguistic communities in Belgium. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing request Danski454 (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Unemployment in Wallonia boomed after what war?
On 2020-09-07 I read, "Unemployment in Wallonia is more than double that of Flanders, which boomed after the war." After which war?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I suppose what this was meant to say was that Flanders boomed after the second world war, while Wallonia has had problems. (I did not write it, but I think anyone familiar with recent Belgian history would assume such a point is intended.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's right. My understanding is that the aftermath of the Second World War led to rapid economic growth in Belgian heavy industries (thus largely in Wallonia and Limburg) amid the Belgian economic miracle. The position only began to reverse in the mid-1950s and 1960s.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I was also wondering if it is correct. My answer was only intended to guess at the intended meaning. But yes, I think the divergence was not simply after WW2, but later. It is also not quite so simple on a regional basis. One of the big issues was the decline of old industrial sectors in specific Wallonian places. For general consideration I think all such discussions tend to create confusion also about Brussels, which has obviously done well since WW2, but is not always thought of as Flanders.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. List of Belgian provinces by GDP is interesting on this. There's arguably more in common between Antwerp/Brussels and Limburg/Liege than between Antwerp/Limburg and Walloon Brabant/Luxembourg. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ideally we should try to find a good source we can cite. But to be honest I think Belgium is better explained in terms other than the provinces. For example within Liège province there are extremely different economic regions. The industrial belt of cities near the Maas, Haine and Sambre are obviously a very special case, with a similar economic history to some areas in England.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Joel Robert
please change ((Joel Robert)) to ((Joël Robert)) 2601:541:4580:8500:1982:9A7D:E969:91F1 (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done <font face="Brush Script MT"> EN - Jungwon  15:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021
The Great Mosque of Brussels is not the Islamic **and** Cultural Center of Belgium, it is the Islamic Cultural Center of Belgium. Please delete and. 50.34.197.13 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference available for that? Looking on Great Mosque of Brussels, I find a link to salam.centreislamique.be, which names it "Centre Islamique et Culturel de Belgique" (fr) and "Islamitisch en Cultureel Centrum van België vzw" (nl). So while I agree it sounds unlikely, it appears that it is actually correct as is. --David Edgar (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * According to that website ( http://salam.centreislamique.be ), the organization called "Centre Islamique et Culturel de Belgique"/"Islamitisch en Cultureel Centrum van België" (which translates as "Islamic and Cultural Center of Belgium") is in the process of being dissolved, so it seems more than desirable to remove the information that the Great Mosque of Brussels "is the seat of the Islamic and Cultural Center of Belgium" from the Wikipedia page. It no longer is. The organization with that name doesn't exist any more (or will soon no longer exist). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021
Add following missing information to Infobox: iso3166code = BE 2003:C9:5707:EB00:F0E7:9A0F:E70:26D (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done <span style="color:rgb(105,80,161)">LOMRJYO(About × contribs) 22:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021
Change 82st to 82nd in population 2601:843:C202:3B10:DDA1:CBF2:D942:1A1D (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 05:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2021
Between 1888 and 1908, Leopold II, king of Belgium, perpetrated one of the largest massacres in human history in Congo Free State, his private estate (and not a colony of Belgium at that time) causing the deaths of an estimated five to fifteen million Congolese people, during the production of massive amounts of rubber and ivory.[19]

those numbers are propaganda. If you do real research you will find that most scholars have acknowledged that there is no way to know how much the reign of Leopold 2 was damaging for the population of the Congo Free State. Putting those numbers in the summary of the English page of Belgium is just trying to dirt the country with unreliable numbers. I nevertheless agree that the reign of Leopold 2 in the Congo Free State was bloody and affected greatly the local population but those number are nowhere close to the reality. Moreover the big majority of victims were due to sickness that arrived with Europeans and to whom Africans weren't immunized, this sickness influenced the harvest and then influenced the natality. Saying "...Belgium, perpetrated one of the largest massacres in human history... during the production of massive amounts of rubber and ivory." is just wrong. Of course there were brutality and a lot of victims... but few hundreds then few thousands of Europeans can't kill 15 million of people and expect more production of them in same time... 212.161.79.68 (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What published sources can you cite for this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Belgica VS belgium
Isn't Belgium derived from Belgica (instead of Belgium being a Latin word)? Pieter Lootens (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is correct. I presume you mean in the context of Caesar supposedly using the word? If no-one objects here soon, I'll replace it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Caesar said: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0002:book=8:chapter=46&highlight=belgio%2Cbelgium : his confectis rebus ad legiones in Belgium se recipit hibernatque Nemetocennae. It is one form of the word. Modern borrowing from Latin are often not in nominative case. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is badly explained. Belgium is the nominative form as well. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Belgium#Latin Belgica, from which we have many of our modern Romance words, derives from an adjective as in Gallia Belgica, or a form of Belgicus. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Belgica#Latin https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Belgique#%C3%89tymologie https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Belgicus#la --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The 8th book of De Bello Gallico wasn't written by Julius Caesar but after his death by the legate (and later consul) Aulus Hirtius. In the same paragraph he uses the terms "legiones in Belgio" (in + abblative) and "legiones in Belgium" (in + accusative). My Latin may be a bit rusty (my school days were a long time ago) but this doens't fit with Latin grammar. Caesar himself doesn't use these words, but writes instead "omnes Belgas", "finitimi Belgis", "reliquis Belgis", "communi Belgarum" and "Belgae" (but never Belgio or Belgium). JoJan (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The word also appears in Book 5, and seems to be accepted as a real word in Latin dictionaries. Concerning authorship perhaps Caesar didn't anything that has survived under his name but the work is very well known. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, in book V 24 (3) he uses the phrase "tres (legiones) in Belgio collocavit" (in + ablative of Belgium). In my textbook this is explained as follows: "Since all the legions, but one, were billeted with the Belgae, the word "Belgium" actually means part of the whole territory of the Belgae, probably the territory of the Atrebates, the Bellovaci and the Ambiani." My book relies for this explanation on T. Rice Holmes. JoJan (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is also how I understand the opinion of other scholars such as Wightman who I've cited in the article. (Remember to look not in the lead, but in the main body, for the sourcing.) In other words, the word Belgium was classical Latin, but it did not refer to the same territory as modern Belgium, and nor does it seem to have referred to the much larger area called Gallia Belgica. The modern meaning began with the word being used as a term to distinguish the northern, originally Flanders-based, chunk of possessions of the Burgundian Dukes (before people came up with the idea of calling them the Netherlands).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2021
this part: "Leopold II, king of Belgium, perpetrated one of the largest massacres in human history in Congo Free State, his private estate (and not a colony of Belgium at that time) causing the deaths of an estimated five to fifteen million Congolese people, during the production of massive amounts of rubber and ivory.[19]"

This is just old propaganda from British government trying to trash Belgium (and distracting people from the Boer war and other crimes of British colonization). Please take source from real history books when you put accusation like that, otherwise you have no credibility. Belgian colonization of Congo had a few horrible outcomes and exploitation of local populations was one of them. Nobody deny that, but most of the depopulation comes from sickness brought by the Europeans and the destruction of social structures that led to a decrease of birth rate. Nothing to do with "largest massacres in human history". That statement imply that those deaths would have been in purpose ! Also the numbers here are assumption from the British propaganda as we don't know the population of Congo before 1924 it is impossible to have a real idea of the depopulation.

Here a source that quote historian specialists on the subject : https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/1999/may/13/features11.g22 The source you use from the Independent has no reference.

When you accuse someone of perpetrating a massacre of millions of death please be more careful and nuanced... 212.161.79.68 (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you quote any works by historians? Sources do not have to be in English. Who are the historians who are most cited by other historians on this topic?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Andrew, I am not used to contribute to Wikipedia, so I am not sure if I am replying to you where I should. I am a little surprise that the article of the Independent that quote no source is enough to put in the summary presentation of Belgium's page that King Leopold 2 is responsible of one of the largest massacres in human history (and so dirt Belgium) but my article that quote historian is not enough. Besides this reference at that place (on the summary of this page) is a little weird as this happened during the Free Independent State, so it wasn't Belgium really, it is history of Congo or history of King Leopold 2... I provided you a source (https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/1999/may/13/features11.g22) where it says : "Professor Jean Stengers, a leading historian of the period, says: 'Terrible things happened, but Hochschild is exaggerating. It is absurd to say so many millions died." To confirm the quality of Jean Stengers as historian of this topic I can refer you to his page wiki : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Stengers where it says : "Though his interests were wide-ranging, his scholarly reputation was built on his treatment of the Belgian colonial history. His work Congo, Mythes et réalités was published in 1989."

As this topic is really emotional, many sources says everything and his contrary because there is no real data, just assumptions. In that situation I would anyway suggest to be more nuanced.

Thank you.
 * Thanks for the reference. Please indeed keep adding any further ones you find into this section. Hopefully someone will eventually work on it. It is a difficult topic because controversial, so it looks like we've all been reluctant to work much on it. For there will be sensible scholarly debates about how to describe what happened in a balanced way, but of course we all know there are extreme positions which we need to avoid.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article makes it clear there is some dispute. I've been googling around, and I get the feeling it has continued because the numbers are all estimates. Our own article on the book says "Hochschild's estimate of 10 million deaths is generally considered on the high range of possibilities, but a plausible one". Everyone seems to agree the number will have been big, and substantially reduced the population, so I'll see if I can tweak the wording in that direction.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like addressed this. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, feedback welcome. I'm sure better is possible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Which war?
The introductory section contains this sentence:

"Unemployment in Wallonia is more than double that of Flanders, which boomed after the war."

But no war is mentioned, not in this sentence's paragraph or the paragraph before it. (In the paragraph before that, both world wars are mentioned.)

I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject can fix this bad writing. 2601:200:C000:1A0:39B3:8122:BB64:25B9 (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "Second World War". The problem has been addressed. JoJan (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021
I would like to change the armed forces part because the interpuntcion. this is my suggestion:

The Belgian Armed Forces have about 47,000 active troops. In 2019, Belgium's defense budget totaled €4.303 billion ($4.921 billion) representing .93% of its GDP.[102] They are organized into one unified structure which consists of four main components: Land Component or the Army, Air Component or the Air Force, Marine Component or the Navy and the Medical Component. The operational commands of the four components are subordinate to the Staff Department for Operations and Training of the Ministry of Defense, which is headed by the Assistant Chief of Staff Operations and Training, and to the Chief of Defense.[103] Pimme04 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ SSSB (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Religion
What is biggest Religion in Belgium? 112.215.242.24 (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussing improvements to the article rather than asking trivia questions, but see Belgium. If you have other questions of this type, you could ask them at Reference desk. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Belgian (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022
Can you add English and Luxembourgish to the “Official languages” list? Belgium has many official languages. 70.71.87.75 (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Misspelling of Belgium as 'Belguim'
The sentence "Between 1885 and 1908, the Congo Free State, which was privately owned by King Leopold II of Belgium, was characterized by widespread atrocities and a population decline of millions, leading Belguim to takeover the territory as a colony." in the introductory section contains a misspelling of Belgium as 'Belguim'. 2A02:3035:C17:9E23:1:0:1C58:6B1F (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Well spotted! —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2022
Change total nominal GDP from 609.887 billion to $609.887 billion. 2601:2C2:980:6710:CB5:DD28:7211:7FCD (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ DarthFlappy 19:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022
Change total nominal GDP from $609,887 billion to $609.887 billion. Thousands separators are governed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Grouping_of_digits and decimal points by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Decimal_points, irrespective of the language variety in use. 2601:2C2:980:6710:5DBE:8931:553D:E6DB (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Aidan9382 (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2022 (2)
Change total nominal GDP from $609,887 billion to $609.887 billion. 2601:2C2:980:6710:912E:F3A:F57D:A00C (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kpg  jhp  jm  06:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not related to sources. It's a formatting issue. $609,887 billion implies a total GDP of $609887 billion which doesn't make any sense. I am pretty sure what was meant was $609.887 billion. Also look at the total PPP GDP which is written as $715.658 billion which does seem to be correct. 64.209.89.208 (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This issue has been taken care of by Aidan9382 in the section immediately below this one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2022
In the “Capital and largest city” section of the infobox, can you change “Brussels” to “City of Brussels”? Brussels in the infobox is a region. 2605:8D80:404:8E9F:8132:B6DD:8428:4FCA (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ RudolfRed (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2022
"continued to interact with the their neighbours" 81.103.38.4 (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Thanks! Favonian (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2023
Could the "ethnic groups" section be changed from "belgians" to wallons and flemish? Belgian is not an ethnic group. Maybe include all three with flemish and wallons as subgroups of belgian. 188.148.143.116 (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * How would you source this? This is a sensitive question of course, but it is partly sensitive because it is tricky to work out the practicality. Identity, including ethnic identity, is in reality something connected to what people perceive about themselves and others. This can be pretty complicated. As much as people on the internet want to tell people how identity should work based on language, it doesn't. In fact even language surveys can be difficult in Belgium. (See Voeren.) So we need a clear way to measure this, and in Belgium this is not simple. Do all Belgians say that they are primarily either Flemish or Walloon? (No.) Which statistics exist, and are they clear and uncontroversial? (You could propose to simply use the statistics of who resides in each of the states? But then what do you do with Brussels? Are state populations really ethnicity surveys?) What do we do with people who say they are primarily Belgian? (Tell them they are mistaken?) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and you make a compelling case. However, ethnicity and nationality are not the same. Take Russia for example. The nationality every citizen is russian of course but that doesn't mean that every citizen is ethnically russian. A large part of the population have other ethnicities that are not even related to russian/slavs; the many turkic ethnic groups for example. My main point is not to divide Belgium into two distinct groups but rather the article the use the term ethnic groups correctly 188.148.143.116 (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well we could remove that entry in the infobox, but perhaps someone else knows of a better approach.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely the relevant question is whether reliable sources describe Walloons and Flemings as ethnic groups. From a quick search, it appears that many do, e.g. this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is one relevant question, but it does not address the practical question of what to do as Wikipedia editors in this case. Are there reliable (and uncontroversial) statistics which report the numbers of people who are Flemish OR Walloon (and some however exclude the possibility of being both)? Flemish/Walloon ethnicity, if these concepts mean anything worth reporting separately, are not the same as speaking Dutch/French, or living in a Dutch/French speaking area. These are things we already report. Are there statistics which make such distinctions, and do not simply equate these ethnicities with residency or primary language?
 * A second question this discussion raises is whether we are sure that being Belgian is not a possible "ethnicity". I think it is a way that people identify themselves. Keep in mind that this is not a simple topic. From an academic point of view the idea of language-based ethnicities, and people having to belong to one and only one such group whether they like it or not, is a bit problematic to say the least. From a historical point of view the division of Belgians into northern and southern linguistic groups is a quite recent and politically-decided thing. It is not universally accepted. If we find no distinct ethnicity statistics, as opposed to political/residency statistics, then I think we should report political/residency statistics for what they are and not confuse the issue.
 * Maybe the intention of this statistic is that someone wanted to report the statistics for people who don't have ancestry in the region? This is a typical distinction made in Flanders, using terms such as "migration background" or "allochtoon". However it is also quite problematic if we are trying to be encyclopedic, and I again wonder what statistics exist. In everyday speech these terms are often applied to native-born Belgian citizens, but they tend NOT to be applied to families with "white" ancestry, such as "ex-pats" from countries like the USA, or people with ancestry in neighbouring EU countries. These ways in which people popularly distinguish their groups from other groups are clearly not very scientific. The question of ethnicity in Belgium could probably be handled in a special discussion in the body of the article, or perhaps better in a special article, but do not seem suitable for an infobox, which should contain very clear and simple information?
 * But again, it depends what sources can be found.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I was just thinking about the labels, not associated population percentages. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Per the above discussion this request is not specific enough to be implemented as is. Therefore I am marking the request as "answered". GiovanniSidwell (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The discussion has raised a question about whether we should be saying things about ethnicity (as opposed to easier topics like language and political districts) while we have apparently not really got strong sourcing for that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The main issue is not at calculating the percentages of people who identify as Wallon of Flemish rather the incorrrect usage of the term "ethnic groups". 188.148.143.116 (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So should we remove it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I propose something in the following style:
 * Ethnic groups      66.6% Belgians
 * -Flemish
 * -Wallons
 * -Others
 * 33.4% Others 188.148.143.116 (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Folklore
Your affirmation "A major non-official holiday is the Saint-Nicolas (Sint Nicholas in English) Day, a festivity for children in Belgium and also for students" is not correct. Saint Nicholas Day is also celebrated for students in all University towns in Belgium. Many drivers stuck in the traffic would confirm it was because of the Sint Nicholas students's procession in Brussels. Eva. 23March2010- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.58.82.178 (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: ridiculous comments about Belgium once again among other stupid comments from French and other Wikipedians about other items and articles!

Is it the outcome of Wikipedia's idealistic project about which I wasted my time attending a MOOC course on the French platform FUN early this year ?? See at https://www.fun-mooc.fr/courses/WMFr/86001/session01/info.

Now I am telling you frankly after +/- 6 months personal experience: I found out all those VAIN, FUTILE 'guerres d'édition'/ 'edit warring' (such nice words!!): the black side of Wikipedia!

Matter of EGOS only !

HOW DISAPPOINTING!

Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring & https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Guerre_d%27%C3%A9dition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars & https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Guerres_d%27%C3%A9dition_les_plus_futiles.

Actually most of them are completely VAIN (EN) / FUTILES (FR)! Just a matter of common sense - — Preceding unsigned comment added by AIlurus (talk • contribs) 06:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Karel Van Noppen and not Karen Van Noppen
Just a tiny typo in the name Karel Van Noppen (in the section "Independent Belgium"). I'd correct it myself but the page is protected. The name links to a page with the correct name, Karel.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1810:4f0b:500:31eb:a2eb:314f:6739 (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Belgium Product Exports (2019).svg

Is French a "lingua franca" in Brussels or just the dominant language?
I reverted an edit and my revert was reverted without discussion so I am bringing it here. The justifying remark draws attention to a new article we have with the strange title (to me as a native English speaker) of "Francization of Brussels", and claims that it is more neutral and exact to call French a lingua franca in Brussels and not just the dominant language of Brussels. I don't get the point being made though, and I request explanation. To me, claiming that French is a lingua franca is tantamount to saying that it is a second language used by speakers of other languages. That is a quite complex claim, which needs a good source, and no new sourcing has been offered for this. As a Belgian I understand French is today simply the dominant language of Brussels. By this I mean it is the primary FIRST language of people living in Brussels. Other interesting facts may be added, but this is a big simple one which deserves to be put there up front. Am I wrong? And what is the source for this new wording? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC) BTW as a resident of Flanders I know that many Flemish people actually deliberately push discussion to Flemish or even English because they don't want to use French as a lingua franca in Brussels, even if they would speak French happily in Paris. So this is not a simple issue here that no one ever talks about. We should pick the right wording.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2023
There is an estimated 30,000 Romani people in Belgium. Add this to the demographics section.

Source: https://minorityrights.org/country/belgium/ 103.164.138.55 (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pinchme123 (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2023
Bandyta L.N.G (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) I want to change statistics because it's outdated
 * Can you be more specific? Which statistics are out of date? Please if possible also give your evidence. Which sources are you comparing to?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Per response from Lancaster. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Land area
Article says most recent measurement of land area used new methodology, but says "Unlike previous calculations, this one included the area from the coast to the low-water line, revealing the country to be 160 km2 (62 sq mi) larger in surface area than previously thought." Last two words indicate change in thought, not change in methodology. Suggest changing to "…than measured using previous methodology." IronJohnSr (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)