Talk:Belgium

Guidelines for editing the Belgium page

• Text is to be written in British English, in which respect Oxford English spelling is used for this article.
• Units in metric should be spelled out with the converted imperial units abbreviated in parentheses per Manual of Style
• Only external links pertaining to Belgium as a whole, or official government of Belgium links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles.
• All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.

Folklore

Your affirmation "A major non-official holiday is the Saint Nicholas Day, a festivity for children and, in Liège, for students" is not correct. Saint Nicholas Day is also celebrated for students in Brussels. Many drivers stuck in the traffic would confirm it was because of the Saint Nicholas students's procession in Brussels. Eva. 23March2010

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?​▲ 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.​▲ 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)

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.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-01 00:41 (UTC)

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. mgeo 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 (62.3 sq mi) against Antwerp = 204.51 km² (78.96 sq mi)--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)

File:Elio Di Rupo 3.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Elio Di Rupo 3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)