Jump to content

Talk:Baudouin of Belgium/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Requested move (previous)

Baldwin I of Belgium → Baudouin of Belgium — This is the name by which the king is best known. Charles 11:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Survey - Support votes

  1. Support; it is the only name by which he is commonly known in English, and this is the English Wikipedia, not Dutch, French, or German. --Russ (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Name most used in English & restores status quo ante after several unilateral moves. Lethiere 18:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support; he never was and, more or less, never is referred to as Baldwin in English. Cripipper 18:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. While it is correct that his English name is Baldwin and that Baudouin may be Belgically non-neutral, it is (for better or worse) the form almost exclusively used in English sources. —  AjaxSmack  07:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Suppory. While this may be a very selfish motive on my part, I have placed a cross reference to this page on my website and I would rather like to keep it. I have long been very taken with the Sanctus, from the Missa Luba. This piece of music is sung by the choir known as Les Troubadours du Roi Baudouin. It features on the soundtrack of the Lindsey Anderson movie, If. It is an extremely beautiful piece of music and it adds a great deal to Lindsey Anderson's film. Not knowing who Roi Baudouin was, I looked him up on Google. This was one of the very few references I could find. Please do not remove it. - Richard Gillard (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

  1. Oppose Given that he had several different language names in Belgium, we should use English to avoid having to choose between Dutch/French/German. --Henrygb 15:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

This is to stop moves to superfluous forms of the King's name and to restore the form of his name which is used most. Charles 11:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Google shows over 60,000 hits for "King Baudouin" +Belgium -Jerusalem -wikipedia, and only 400+ for "King Baldwin" +Belgium -Jerusalem -wikipedia (-Jerusalem to exclude references to the medieval monarch of the same name). Taking the first 30 of these 400+ as a representative sample the vast majority (approx. 75%) are from websites hosted in countries where English is not a native language. This situation arose because an editor unilaterally decided that Baudouin was a bit tricky to pronounce and because this is the English wikipedia it would be easier to call him Baldwin. I think he/she must also have moved all the redirects, thereby squatting on the original and making it impossible to revert. I inadvertently violated style conventions in my attempt to sort out what I felt to be the rather more important matter of getting his name right. Cripipper 18:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Show of opinion on Leopold III instead of facts

"Though reinstated in a plebiscite after the war, it became clear that Léopold was too controversial a person to be a unifying force, hence the abdication."

He abdicated to preserve the union of the country, because of a "fight" between 2 sides, Pro-Leopold 3 and one against him.

Leopold III was hugely unpopular. The royal family lived in Switzerland until 1950, because they were so unpopular. DonPMitchell (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

==No children== Why couldn't Baudouin & his wife have children? There is no medical explanation given. Mightberight/wrong 16:50, 3 November 2005.

Baudouin or Baldwin

Isn't Baldwin the English version of Baudouin or Boudewijn? If so, I suggest the name be changed to Baldwin. --B-west 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Baldwin is the English version of Baudouin/Boudewijn, but I have rarely, actually never, heard him refered to as Baldwin, but either by Baudouin or Boudewijn.

I've never seen him called "Boudewijn" in English. It's possible that English newspaper discussion of him from when he was a child refer to him as "Baldwin", but certainly "Baudouin" is the primary form. john k 20:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's a bit confusing to pronounce compared to "Baldwin". Additionally, Baldwin is the english form, and this is an english-language encylopedia. After, Kaiser Wilhelm II is called by his english name, "William II, German Emperor", in his article.- Alex The Gonz 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC).

Unfortunately he is never called Baldwin in English. Cripipper 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately. Švitrigaila 22:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

? Cripipper 22:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're right. But I think it's too bad. Švitrigaila 22:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? In any history textbook, he's referred to as "Baldwin". 74.133.188.197 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I realise that this thread appears to have ended, but it is very common house-style across a number of publications to use the local name (of people and places) rather than an anglicised version. There are exceptions, often for capital cities (Vienna, not Wien, Belgrade, not Beograd, etc etc). The same goes for names and I for one have never read a history textbook that calls Baudouin Baldwin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyAustria (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am seeing that the French form of his name is "Baudouin" and that that's the form usually used outside of Belgium. Then I see "his Dutch name is Boudewijn", and recall that Belgium also uses Flemish language, which is not Dutch but is a lot like Dutch. So why use a Dutch form here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

King of Belgains

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure it's "Belgians" bot Belgains. 72.197.133.100 22:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Stamp

I have found an old stamp collection in my house, one of which is an old Belgian one with Baoudouin's face on it. I don't know how to upload/copyright junk it, but if it sounds like it could help this article I could try. --Leathlaobhair 23:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Reign started

Baudouin I's reign began July 17th, 1951. The day after his father's abdication. Baudouin took his accession oath on July 17th (Belgian succession isn't automatic, like most monarchies). GoodDay 04:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"of Belgium" or "of the Belgians"

My understanding is that he was not Baudouin of Belgium, but Baudouin of the Belgians. can anyone who knows better than I (which is a wide field) comment? Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The official title of the Kings in Belgium is "King of the Belgians" and never "King of Belgium". For instance look at this link to the Belgian Official Gazette and to a published Royal Decree starting with the words, "Albert II, Roi des Belges" (i.e. Albert II, King of the Belgians). And the same goes in the Dutch version were you can find the wording "Koning der Belgen" or in German with "König der Belgier". --Lebob-BE (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Number : Baudouin, not Baudouin I

Please, move the page to Baudouin of Belgium. This monarch does not have a number for being the only one to have this name and because that is official. Thanks. Cyril-83 (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Belgian kings are always numbered, even if they are the first by that name. Albert I was already known by that number during his own reign and not when his grandson acceded the throne in 1993 as Albert II. In the same way, Baudouin was called Baudouin I in his own lifetime. It's a peculiarity of the Belgian monarchy. -- fdewaele, 22 May 2010.

In Wikipedia's article about regnal numbers, there is a section about "the first". In some places, "I" is used immediately; in other cases, it's added retroactively (like it was for Elizabeth I of England) if another monarch comes along with the same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Flagging: Neutrality/Copyright

I flagged the article with the Neutrality/Copyright boxes. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I apologize if I made any mistakes.

The article has issues with neutrality of the style of writing, it is inadequately sourced and contains text cut and pasted from a copyrighted source. I tried to use inline tags to tag the suspect sentences, but it could probably use a significant rewrite.

The tone issues generally deal with the popularity or the subjects, or their various positive attributes; they may be true, but blanket statements about popularity, or popular perception or reaction need significant legitimate sources.

The copyrighted material that I found comes from the section "Death, succession, and legacy" The entire final paragraph is copied from the cited source (http://www.bookrags.com/biography/albert-ii/). UnFark (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"of Belgium" or "of the Belgians"

Belgian kings are always refered to as "kings of the Belgians", and not as "kings of Belgium". This emphasizes the constitutional power of the king, wich is given to him by the Belgians, and the fact that he is obliged to take the oath in front of the assembly of the united chambers, being the senate and the chamber of representatives, before he can take power of the throne. In other words: Belgium isn't the property of the king, but that of the Belgians, since they revolted against the Dutch king William in 1830 and took possession of the area, wich was later referred to as Belgium, for themselves. They only ask the king to govern it for them. Therefore he isn't refered to as "king of Belgium", but as "king of the Belgians". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Horemans (talk • contribs) 22:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


-> altough is title is "king of the belgians", his family name, like everyone in his family is "of Belgium" ("de Belgique" in french or "Van België" in dutch) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.135.184 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Page movement glitch?

At first I thought JK forgot to also move this talkpage. I reverted is pagemove, then move the page again along with the talkpage, yet it didn't work. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Baudouin of Belgium

It has been stated that this article is at Baudouin I of Belgium and not Baudouin of Belgium because the ordinal is usually used with Belgian kings. However, this looks to be incorrect.

  • "Boudewijn van België" gets 2290 Google Books results[1], and 10 Google News Archive[2]
  • "Bouewijn I van België" gets 2 (!) Google Books results[3], and 1 Google News Archive[4]
  • "Baudouin de Belgique" gets 891 Google Books results[5], and 25 Google News acrhives[6]
  • "Baudouin I de Belgique" gets 127 Google Books results[7], and no Google News archive results[8]
  • "Baudouin of Belgium" gets 17400 Google Books results[9], and 6370 Google News Archive[10]
  • "Baudouin I of Belgium" gets 1860 Google Books results[11], and 58 Google News archives[12]

In general, the results (from reliable sources) for the version without the numeral are about ten times as numerous as those with the numeral, both in English (which is what counts here, in the end), and in the two main languages of Belgium. Any reason why this page shouldn't be moved to the version without the ordinal? Fram (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:Ncrn

This article should be moved to Baudouin, King of Belgium, even though his actually monarchial office is King of the Belgians. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's start a request then - qv below.--Kotniski (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved yet, there appears to a burgeoning consensus around a new title, but not the one requested here. I would encourage editors to open a new RM and take advantage of the comments made at the tailend of this one to see if you all can develop consensus around a better alternative. Mike Cline (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Baudouin of Belgium → Baudouin, King of Belgium – per WP:NCROY, or to an even more natural title like King Baudouin of Belgium in the unlikely event that people will agree to violate The Rules. The present title is not recognizable as referring to a monarch, and is not what he's usually called. (Google hits for that phrase are almost always part of "King B of B" or "Prince B of B"; and the "of Belgium" bit goes with King/Prince, not with Baudouin.)relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Kotniski (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. "The present title is not recognizable as referring to a monarch": so what? Job description or claim to notability isn't added to other people's articles either, with some sad exceptions. General X is usually referred to as General X, but our article is at X. Cardinal Y has his article as Y, not Cardinal Y. No reason not to follow the general naming convention instead of the specific and rather convoluted NCROY (which you would prefer not to follow in this case anyway...).
And by the way: " the "of Belgium" bit goes with King/Prince, not with Baudouin." is wrong, it is their official surname (De Belgique / Van België). See e.g. House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha for more on this. "Of the Belgians" would be the title part. Fram (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The "general naming convention" would lead to some name by which he is commonly known; I don't believe Baudouin of Belgium is such a name. We don't translate surnames, so if "of Belgium" is intended here as a surname, then it should be put back to French or Dutch - but still, neither of those would produce a recognizable name to an English-speaking audience.--Kotniski (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
They (the Belgian royal house) have a translatable surname anyway (they have a different surname in Dutch than in French), and "of Belgium" is what he is usually called in English. Fram (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
But he's called that in English in conjunction with "King", not because we understand it as a form of his surname. You can only drop titles if what you leave behind makes sense without them. At least, this is generally true of such monarchs - if you've got a significant amount of English sources that call him that, then fair enough, but my searching revealed no such.--Kotniski (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
What is it in "Baudouin of Belgium" that doesn't make sense in your opinion? Does it make less sense than Beatrix of the Netherlands, Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, Lothair of France, Hemming of Denmark, Bernard of Italy, Pepin of Italy, Amlaíb of Scotland or Sverre of Norway? Yes, there are many examples of other naming conventions used, but it is not as if this name is so unusual or bizarre. Creating a redirect from your proposed move target is not a bad thing, of course, but apparently in ten years of Wikipedia no one has bothered creating it, so such a problem it probably ain't. Fram (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not so much whether it makes sense, but whether it's used. Some of the other names you list should probably be changed as well, if it turns out they're Wikipedia inventions or something close. If you call someone "X of Y", that implies they're from Y, not that they're ruler of Y, unless there's something else to indicate that we mean a ruler, such as a numeral (which we don't have in these cases), or reasonably common usage such that the name will be recognized anyway.--Kotniski (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The same names are used for queen consorts and many other members of royal houses. Take the closest example, queen consorts. No need for a further indication is given in the naming convention or in the actual names used for them, even though they are equally clear or unclear as the names of kings, and they are equally not their full or official names in many cases. Emma of Italy? Maria Theresa of Spain? Caroline Matilda of Great Britain? Gyda of Sweden? We even have Marie José of Belgium! I see no difference between those and the situation of kings, and no reason to treat them differently. Fram (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree - no reason to treat any of them differently, and no reason to use rare or made-up names for any of them. If any of those names are not in common use (compared with some other equally unambiguous name that we might use instead), then they should be changed.--Kotniski (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Which is of course an acceptable opinion, but mine is that all those are allright, and this one as well, and that it shows that this one isn't an exception or anomaly. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I think, but reading arguments for and against both positions may be useful for other participants in this RfC. Fram (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that the view that we should use names that are commonly used rather than ones we've made up is more than an "acceptable opinion" - it's fundamental both to the general naming guidlines you refer to, and to Wikipedia's basic principles (like WP:OR, though making up names goes beyond OR - it's not even research, it's fiction-writing).--Kotniski (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - nothing wrong with the existing title. Deb (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
What's wrong with it is explained in the nomination, which you can read just above.--Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
See a few sections above here: "Baudouin I of " is much less often used than "Baudouin of" (about 1 to 10). Your first option is certainly not an improvement. Fram (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
An ongoing, undecided discussion should not be given as a precedent for another ongoing discussion. Or of course, you could change your "rename" to "don't rename" if the Portugal discussion ends in "no move"... Fram (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:BaudouinUniformeAir.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BaudouinUniformeAir.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
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.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:BaudouinUniformeAir.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Death, succession, and legacy

This clause seems a little awkward to me: "Although in March 1992 the King had been operated for a Mitral valve prolapse in Paris." Where I come from, one would say either "the King had been operated on for a Mitral valve prolapse," or "the King had undergone surgery for a Mitral valve prolapse." I'm from the American South, though so I may be unaware of some vernacular at work there. O0drogue0o (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Scouting?

Baudouin's Scouting is mentioned 4 times in [1], but not in the article. Should this be mentioned?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ John S. Wilson (1959), Scouting Round the World. First edition, Blandford Press. p. 36, 224, 37, 289

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baudouin of 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baudouin of 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baudouin of 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality Swindle

"Despite maintaining strict neutrality during the opening months of the Second World War, on 10 May 1940, Belgium was invaded by Nazi Germany." That statement is a lie. Belgium may have pretended to be neutral, but they did in fact not act that way (cooperated wilfully with France and Britain, allowed Allied planes to fly over their country, etc.) and have been notified about this several times by the Germans. Hence the ignoring of the claimed neutrality by the German Army. --105.4.5.225 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baudouin_of_Belgium/Archive_1&oldid=1259469616"