<article_title>Battle_of_Waterloo</article_title>
<edit_user>G.Burggraaf</edit_user>
<edit_time>Thursday, December 30, 2010 11:51:37 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>[[Belgium]] did not exist in [[1815]], nor are [[Belgians]] an ethnicity. Any use of 'Belgian' is anachronistic. They were citizens of the [[Kingdom of the Netherlands]], the adjective is 'Dutch'.</edit_comment>
<edit_text>The battalion had no reserves and was unable to close the gap. D’Erlon’s troops pushed through this gap in the line and the remaining battalions in the Van Bijlandt brigade (8th Dutch militia and 7th Belgian line) were forced to retreat to the square of the 5th Dutch militia, which was in reserve between Picton’s troops, about 100 paces to the rear. There they regrouped under the Command of Colonel Van Zuylen van Nijevelt and general Constant-de-Rebeque. A moment later the Prince of Orange ordered a counterattack, which actually occurred around 10 minutes later.&lt;ref&gt;Pawly, Ronald. Wellington’s Belgian Allies. Men at arms nr 98. 1815 Osprey 2001. This book, although small, gives a good picture of the Dutch/Belgian troops at the battles. The ´Netherlands Institute for Militairy History (NIMH)´ contributed to the book and it thus can be seen as the official Dutch history. p. 37-43.&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;Letters from the Battle of Waterloo: the unpublished correspondence by Allied officers from the Siborne papers. And &quot;the Waterloo letters&quot;. 2004 London: Greenhill. The following letters are used: the accounts of General Kempt, Calvert of the 32nd infantry, Cruikshank of the 79th , Winchester &amp; Hope of the 92nd, Evans (Ponsonby Cavalry brigade) and Clark Kennedy of the Royal Dragoons. These are the only letters that actually state some details about the Dutch<strong><strike>-Belgian</strike></strong> troops.&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;See above: Knoop, mentioned websites and Eeenens, Craan, De Jongh, Löben Sels, Allebrandi, de Bas, and Boulger).&lt;/ref&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>Tirronan<turn_user>
<turn_time>Friday, December 31, 2010 6:01:36 PM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Usage of 'Belgian' prior to 1830.</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>This article (a very interesting read by the way) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Waterloo&amp;action=historysubmit&amp;diff=405150467&amp;oldid=405082176 of the term 'Belgian' prior to 1830 (the establishment of Belgium) therefore I have some questions. As far as I can see, this article uses 'Belgian' in two senses. To refer to the troops fielded by the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a whole. To refer to certain divisions fielded by said Kingdom which are claimed to have borne this name. Could someone please provide a citation for the second use, with the addition of what is precisely to be understood by 'Belgian' here? As for the first use. Belgians are not an ethnicity, nor were they a nation at this time. So using wording like the 'Dutch-Belgian troops' for the Royal Dutch Army at Waterloo is like using 'English-Scottish-Welsh-Irish troops' for the British army. With the exception that those actually were defined groups of people at the time. Could someone please tell me, why this wording was chosen? Cheers, G.Burggraaf (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC) I am probably one of the least sensitive editors on this article about the usage of names. That being said there are readers out there and a few editors as well that are very sensitive about naming conventions. There are other editors that are far more knowledgeable about the Dutch-Belgian units than I, but some of those units were indeed designated as Belgian. If you want to start a edit war insisting on certain naming conventions that appeal to you for whatever (assuming good) reason is just about certain to cause one. I'd prefer not to start such things over names. We had a Russian Editor that decided that English names for Battles were far too lax and proceeded to rename battles to more reflect the proper (Russian) convention. Now it was all done in good faith mind you but the howls were deafening and I laughed so hard my sides were hurting. Just be aware that the naming conventions used on this article are the common ones and probably best left as is in most cases.Tirronan (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)If there were regiments called "Belgian Xth" then by all means, they should be referred to as such. However, if confusion has or can arise from the other uses of 'Belgian' in this article/time, then it should be either changed or explained to avoid it being seen as an anachronism.G.Burggraaf (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Contemporary accounts make the distinction: for example see the 1815 account "Battle of Waterloo; or, Correct narrative of the late sanguinary conflict on ..." by W. A. Scott (Lieutenant-General.) http://books.google.com/books?id=c6rSAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA150&amp;dq=Belgian+Waterloo&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=BCYeTbfePI6ChQeK7624Dg&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=6&amp;ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false. -- PBS (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>I am probably one of the least sensitive editors on this article about the usage of names. That being said there are readers out there and a few editors as well that are very sensitive about naming conventions. There are other editors that are far more knowledgeable about the Dutch-Belgian units than I, but some of those units were indeed designated as Belgian. If you want to start a edit war insisting on certain naming conventions that appeal to you for whatever (assuming good) reason is just about certain to cause one. I'd prefer not to start such things over names. We had a Russian Editor that decided that English names for Battles were far too lax and proceeded to rename battles to more reflect the proper (Russian) convention. Now it was all done in good faith mind you but the howls were deafening and I laughed so hard my sides were hurting. Just be aware that the naming conventions used on this article are the common ones and probably best left as is in most cases.</turn_text>