Talk:Belgium

No mention of the London Conference (1830) and the Treaty of London (1839) that created Belgium? The treaty by which Belgium "...became internationally recognised as the Kingdom of Belgium."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Conference_of_1830

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)

I have not done any article-archaeology to see it if was mentioned before, and was edited out for some reason, but let's say I find it very surprising, but not eunexpected.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Biggest city: Brussels-Capital" to "Biggest city: Antwerp", below you will see why. Why?: The biggest city in Belgium is Antwerp (Antwerpen [NL] Anvers [FR) at approximately 550k population. And the second biggest is Ghent (Gent [NL] Gand [FR]) at 265k population. The city Brussels only comes third at 200k population, why are you guys using metro-population, that is just wrong to do when doing this, u can add a seperate part saying "Biggest metropoliatan city area: Brussels-Capital" please change that so it now shows how Antwerp is the biggest city here by population because Brussels is only 200k, metro isnt really used when talking about cities definitively. Hope you guys change it and have an amazing day! Love from Belgium. 193.121.94.207 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This issue has been discussed previously on the talk page (see the archives). Consensus will be required before your proposed change is made. Day Creature (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Belgium facts has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 20 § Belgium facts until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Regular editors—many from Belgium—don't seem to realize that most English-speakers (including a fair number in the nearby UK) are often unaware which Belgian areas are Dutch-, French-, or German-speaking, and which are officially bilingual. Language goes unmentioned far too often in many lead paragraphs about Belgian places, and is rarely cited at all in "Demography" sections. For ex., I recently added a short tagline in the WP article Bruges (English-speakers know it only by its French name), and it was reverted. And I added a similar tag for Leuven (Louvain still a familiar name to older readers). Belgium is linguistically complicated, and not just Brussels. More attention to this throughout English Wikipedia seems warranted. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: I looked at your reverted edit on Bruges and it seems your edit had several elements, and the edsum of the revision is specifically rejecting the edit for other aspects of the edit. So you might be able to resolve that. In general I think it is a reasonable point to keep in mind. It is not crazy to be a bit redundant sometimes and talk about the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium even if you also mention Flanders or Flemish.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Thanks for your reply. Another editor added the wording. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The info pane on the right lists:

Ethnic groups:

64% Belgians

36% other

For this, it cites a page from Statbel which states:

"On 01/01/2025, 64.0% of the Belgian population was Belgian with a Belgian background, 22.1% was Belgian with a foreign background and 13.8% was non-Belgian. This is what emerges from the figures of Statbel, the Belgian statistical office."

And furthermore, the Belgians with foreign background still include Belgians with 1 Belgian parent:

"The group of Belgians with a foreign background is very diverse:

- 50% do not have the Belgian nationality as their first registered nationality but have acquired it in the meantime.

- 50% have the Belgian nationality as first registered nationality, including:

- 20.9% have two parents with a foreign first registered nationality;

- 28.7% have one parent with a foreign first registered nationality."

So if the Wikipedia article wants to simplify to two categories of "Belgians" and "other", then "Belgians" should include Belgians with a foreign background (64.0% + 22.1% = 86.1%), whereas "other" should be restricted to non-Belgians (13.8%). Alternatively, more fine-grained categories can be reported. In any case, the current representation is untruthful. ~2025-43306-03 (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

If that is correct then indeed it looks like we are over-simplfying. I don't see why we wouldn't use the same 3 categories?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I have corrected it in the article. Thank you. Rolluik (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Sjö, @Oklopfer, @AeroVolk, Parody of DeroVolk About the maritime boundary. Exclusive economic zones aren't territorial waters. In its EEZ, a country is given certain exclusive rights in an area of international waters. Those waters are outside of the country's own boundaries. So, in that light, the UK and Belgium don't have a maritime boundary. Their respective territories are separated by international waters. For a visual representation, see . Isn't that correct? Largoplazo (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Largoplazo I'm a bit confused which argument you are trying to make, as the visual representation you provided seems to clearly show a UK/Belgium maritime boundary. ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The light blue expanse (though less light than the very light blue that denotes the respective countries' territorial waters) denotes international waters that have been designated as EEZs. The boundary you're referring to lies in that area: it separates two zones that are both in international waters. What the visual representation clearly shows is a demarcation between a portion of international waters (that are neither Belgium nor the UK) where Belgium has certain exclusive rights and a portion of international waters (that are neither Belgium nor the UK) where the UK has certain exclusive rights. It isn't a boundary between Belgium and the UK. When you sail across it, you aren't sailing either into or out of either Belgium or the UK (or, to be clear, their territorial waters).

Suppose you live in a house with property lines defined by your local authority. Suppose as well that your community has a public garden where you can arrange a plot for your own exclusive use. Suppose a plot adjacent to yours belongs to someone who lives on the other side of the community from you. There is nevertheless no boundary between your property and the other person's property because your properties are still not adjacent. The boundary between your plot and that person's plot doesn't become a boundary between your property and that person's property because the land on either side of that plot boundary belongs to neither of you.

International waters are the community garden and your EEZ is your plot. Largoplazo (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The Belgian border is where the territorial sea ends. The boundary that you refer to is where the two EEZs meet. The terminology is confusing; according to our article Maritime boundary"Teminology, a border is a zone, not a line, so two countries can't share a border. In common parlance a border is where a country's territory ends. That is how the article used to define maritime borders, and that is also what makes sense when it is presented next to which countries Belgium borders on land. Sjö (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps maritime border is the wrong term then, but this 1991 treaty seems to clearly establish a maritime boundary. ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. OK, looking into this further, I see that that's the terminology, even though it seems, at face value, to imply something that it doesn't. Apparently, lines dividing EEZs from each other are called maritime boundaries "between" two countries even though the territory of those countries doesn't actually extend that far out. Seems misleading to me (as Sjö says, "the terminology is confusing"), but you are right. I retract my objection. Largoplazo (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I third that the terminology is confusing :P ~ oklopfer (💬) 21:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

That boundary is still not a border. Sjö (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I changed the word from border to boundary to satisfy. ~ oklopfer (💬) 07:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

What floored me yesterday was the distinction made between "boundary" and "border"—in contradiction to the synonymity mostly attributed to them at Border—by Maritime boundary#Terminology, which says the line is a boundary and the border is an area around the boundary. I can't even. Largoplazo (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The redirect BELGIUM has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 20 § All caps country names (A-C) until a consensus is reached. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)