Talk:Royal question/Archives/2016/April
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Puzzling statement
This sentence at the end of the section "Referendum of March 1950":
- The PSC-CVP realised that a single-party government could not create national reconciliation around the King as long as Liberals and Socialists were unwilling to accept the King's return.
seems peculiar, given that in the next section, that's precisely the route that the PSC-CVP tried to take after it won the election. They certainly didn't succeed in creating "national reconciliation", but why bring Leopold back at all if they "realized" that it would be problematic? -- Elphion (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Translation question
I've been re-reading and tweaking the article to be a bit more detailed and would welcome feedback on the following (small) issue:
We talk about the "Confédération nationale des prisonniers politiques et des ayants droits/Nationale Confederatie van Politieke Gevangenen en Rechthebbenden" and, of course, need to translate it. The problem comes from the word ayant droit/rechthebbenden which we've provisionally translated as "beneficiaries", but this sounds very strange to an English ear. It's certainly not an easy term to translate (rights-holders might be another option?) so I thought it might be worth opening the problem to others. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. "Beneficiaries" is what Google Translate comes up with by default, but it also suggests "their dependents". It would help to know who, historically, was being included in the name. Were these people who had not been imprisoned but were descended from prisoners who had not survived and therefore "had rights" to some compensation? -- Elphion (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think "their dependents" sounds much better - I take it to denote the widows and children of the political prisoners who were killed during the war. I'll change the article accordingly. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)