Talk:Di Rupo Government

Date of existence
I had changed the date to 5 December: ministers are appointed by the king, and the royal decree was signed yesterday, on the 5th (see the decree in the Libre Belgique). The rest of the customary process (swearing in front of the king, that would be today and the government receiving a positive vote by the parliament, saturday) does not change this. On a second thought, I am not sure it is correct: article 96 of the constitution says that The King appoints the proposed successor as prime minister, who takes office when the new Federal Government is sworn in.. So maybe we 7 December was right, so I did put that date back, although I understand they will be sworn in today 6 December. Asavaa (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * They will be sworn in on Wednesday 7 December at 15.00. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Translation of dutch word 'middenstand'
the word 'middenstand' in 'Minister van Middenstand, Kmo's, Zelfstandigen en Landbouw' (Laruelle) does not translate in english as 'middle class', which is a sociological concept. in my opinion, in its economical, political and legal meaning as small businesses that sell directly to the consumer, 'middenstand' translates much better als 'retail'.

i don't know how to change this in the window in question. 178.116.30.127 (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Plurality?
There is a sentence in the introduction I do not understand and/or that is improperly sourced: "The government notably excludes the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA), the Flemish nationalist party which achieved a plurality and became the largest party", souced with this article.

I do not even understand what is meant by "the party which achieved a plurality", and I am not helped by the source either. I would sugggest this sentence could be replaced by "The government notably excludes the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA), the Flemish nationalist party that is Belgium's largest party".

I however suspect this "plurality" thing may be connected to another sentence of the introduction, ie "However, the government does not represent a majority of Flemish parties", which is plain wrong. What is meant probably here is that the government does not represent a majority of flemish citizens, but first the sentence should be rewritten, then it should be sourced. Asavaa (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * However, the government does not represent a majority of Flemish parties is not plain wrong, but the wording is a bit weird indeed. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Di_Rupo_I_Government&action=historysubmit&diff=465239996&oldid=465179103 I changed it.] A plurality, as the article says, is a relative majority. SPQRobin (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was, in the sense that discounting the VB, the governement includes 3 of the 5 "democratic" parties (in any case the main ones). Thanks for the change. Asavaa (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Why Di Rupo I?
It is pretty stupid to name this article Di Rupo I Government, isn't it? At present, it is the only government led by Di Rupo that ever existed and we are not certain there will be another one in the future!... Even in the French version of the article, they don't name this government like this. We should modify this but unfortunately I don't know how to modify the name of an article... Somebody could do it, please?

--Jotwo (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)