Talk:Belgium in World War I

New article

This article assembles portions of other articles and adds new material. see the talk page at Talk:History of Belgium. Rjensen (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The importance of precision

I'd just like to spotlight a feature which pervades this otherwise very good article. It is exemplified by: "The Germans were angry" (formerly in the "Rape of Belgium" paragraph). Does this indicate that several million Germans were, indeed, angry at Belgium? The overall message is fine, but unfortunately the language is so broad as to sound like the whole idea is made up. Could we be a bit more precise in the rest of the article? Best wishes --Brigade Piron (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

well it's what happened -- German soldiers (in Belgium) were very much angered and outraged at what they thought were atrocities committed by Belgian civilians, so they retaliated in kind. (the atrocities they thought happened to them were imaginary) Rjensen (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Were the Francs-Tireurs in Belgium imaginary? 105.4.6.9 (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

schleiffen plan

The whole point of the plan was not to conquer Paris but to swing by it, 'keep the right wing strong'. The Belgian and BEF success was not that they stopped an attack on Paris but that they cut the German offensive in the north off — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.92.201 (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

ARA "the American arm" of the CRB?

The article currently states, that at "its peak, the American arm [of the CRB], the American Relief Administration (ARA) fed 10.5 million people daily". In fact the ARA had not been the "American arm" of the CRB. The ARA was the successor of the United States Food Administration and founded in February 1919. ----130.83.23.163 (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources section

I removed the "Primary Sources" section of the bibliography which was reverted by Rjensen who, I believe, created it in the first place. My rationale was as follows:

• Any list of primary sources is, by definition, selective and thus vulnerable to WP:OR considerations. I can see the rationale for inclusion, yet the secondary sources already cited throughout the article will already cite to primary sources which a hypothetical student could follow up.
• This list of primary sources is very selective. This article is, after all, about the entire of WWI in Belgium (and the Congo), yet 9 of the 10 listed books focus on the occupation as pertains to America. While I would certainly not say the CRB and American relief was not important, but its current prominence in this section is not remotely reflective of the topic as a whole.

As a compromise, I suggest that a primary source selection is moved to a more relevent article or that we have a discussion here about what exactly should go in it.—Brigade Piron (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's discuss. 1) Or = no sources cited. these are all cited. 2) Usefulness. This is the sort of topic that university students need original sources to write papers. 3) Which sources are too weak to be useful? 4) which sources should be added? Rjensen (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your first point - OR is not just about uncited text but citing to primary, rather than secondary, sources. I'm afraid that, on (2), you seem to be assuming that the only people who read this will be American students - as I say, I'm not against the article being helpful, but it should be balanced as regards coverage of all topics and that should be our greatest concern, shouldn't it? I don't think (3) is an issue - they're not exactly "weak" and all could no doubt be found on a reading list - but the question is whether you think they're essential enough to include in the limited space we can consecrate to it.

As for (4), a couple that come to mind are the open brief aan koning albert (Open letter to King Albert) from the Flemish soldiers on the Yser Front (1917) - a cornerstone text of the Frontbeweging which gets its own article on Dutch and French wikis - and the declaration of Flemish independence by the Raad van Vlaanderen from the same year. Otherwise, Albert I's speech to the Belgian Parliament on the declaration of war and/or "King Albert's Book (see here) might be worth including too. That's just a few ideas, of course. Others are very welcome. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The WP:OR rule does not apply because the sources are not secret. Wiki editors should be careful using primary sources in writing this artiocle. Yes. But we are not doing that. We are providing online primary sources for students to use as in undergraduate classes. ie the STUDENTS do the original research not the Wiki editors. 2. This Wiki is for English language users--in US, UK, Canada, India etc. this is not the place for foreign language primary sources (--please add them to the French/Dutch versions of the article.) We now have the famous Bryce Report from Britain, and the translation of the memoir of King Albert's top aide. The Hoover commission was an international aid group and there are three very useful cites. The other links are to online memoirs by Americans who were allowed in Belgium 1914-17 as neutrals at a time when the English were at war w occupying Germany. But please add online English translations of good materials like the King Albert’s Book (. As for "limited" space--we are not crowding anything out--this is at the very end and is easy to ignore unless you have a February deadline for a research paper on Belgium in WW1. Rjensen (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

If I may, I think you're confusing WP:OR - it's about the primacy of secondary sources, but anyway. Secondly, why are you assuming that any students who read this are only interested in American history and only speak English? Must we sacrifice good coverage of the topic in question just in order to use English language sources (perhaps worth reading WP:NONENG, where quality and relevance come higher than language availability). Remember, we do have limited space - this is an article, not a pure bibliography. I don't mind my students reading wiki (of course), but would seriously worry if they were relying on Wikipedia to provide all their primary reading material... —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no assumption that readers are Americans. There is an assumption they can read English well enough to handle the text of the article here. We have not "sacrificed" anything--I did not remove any text. The goal is to broaden opportunities for students and ADDING good stuff is the route--all the materials added are about Belgium in WWI. Some were written by Americans because Americans were neutrals in 1914-17 and allowed inside Belgium. Deleting material helps no one. People who can read French nd Dutch well enough to handle primary sources in those languages should be aided by you reading list on the French and Dutch Wikipedia versions of this article. Rjensen (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Kossman requires initials and academic credentials in first reference.2601:18C:CD7F:6064:39B9:9B6:3374:C04A (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:De Broqueville government in exile which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:46, 25 November 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:

• Houthulst - Military Cemetery - War graves 1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)