Talk:Wallonia

My comment about the linguistic border

An anonymous IP wrote the following sentences:

The beginning of the language border coincides with a massive deforestation of the Ardennes forest and reclamation of land of the marshes in the north. The Gallo-Roman and Frankish farmers and monks assumably extended their respective territories in those unfriendly regions till they meet each other along the Belgian language border which, after 1000, ceased any significant movement

I never red that, and I think I know this period. I have no time to correct but I feel that absurd. José Fontaine (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I am the Anon IP but is this a reason to remove the scholar references I added? Even if they were in German. I simply don't believe in the splitting of vulgar Latin into three dialects Picard/Walloon/Lorain during the 7th century. This is simply nonsense! No serious research support this. For instance the Legend of Eulalie document shows analogies with the dialects of modern Wallonia but it is just Old French this is not Walloon yet! According to the sources I found (Kramer), the language border appeared in its modern form between the 7th and the 10th century but the exact history of its genese is controversial among historians. Oreo! Could you please restore the work I did and retrieve the references! This was quite a work to summarize my source. Moreover please don't mix scholar sources with "tourist information" put on the net by the Walloon Region. Those infos are not false but they are not correct either they are just short cut for american tourists and investors. Do you really think one could speak about Walloon and Germanic neighbours in the 7th century (which by the way would call the Walloons Walha)? Nobody really knows what happen at those times. Stop joking. Thanks. Vb (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I never red your German sources, I ought to say it. But there are many scholars who are speaking about the formation of the Walloon dialects and not only Walloon scholars (if that is a sense to have a doubt about the Walloons, why not the French when they are speaking of French relaities etc.? ). You quoted an author who is also the author of the map of the linguistic border in Belgium. There is not a conflict between us, I suppose but a conflict between two scholars, at least two (For instance Leopold Genicot who is a specialist of the Middle-Age...). One thing you may not say it is the question you adress to Oreo : "Do you believe that it is possible etc.?" I don't believe anything. I know only many scholars who are speaking about the three kinds of the dialects. There is also a long comment about the presence of the traces of these three diaclects on the French Wp but without any sources, I remember, so it is not possible to have a certitude, following this Wp. But there are a very accurate comment, saying what is walloon, picard, lorrain and for me that is what I know about these languages I can speak. I never red the theory you quote, so I am not able to critizise it. But what I have always red about this topic is not what you quoted (following this scholar). There is for instance a great role of the Catholic Church, the difference between the density of the two regions ('Flanders' in the past and 'Wallonia' in the past) etc. And I agree with you: it is a very difficult issue, very controversial. But what te page is now only saying is that the there are traces of Picard, Wallon and Lorrain in the Sequence of Saint Eulalia. So I propose we discuss. Perhaps in letting a blank about the theories of the linguistic border. It is not necessary to speak accurately about it, and certainly if it is a very controversail issue. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also a thing I don't understand in your quotation: The Gallo-Roman and Frankish farmers and monks assumably extended their respective territories in those unfriendly regions till they meet each other along the Belgian language border which, after 1000, ceased any significant movement It is a question of good sense. If the monks and the farmers extended their territories in those unfriendly regions till they meet each other along the Belgian language border, I don't understand how the linguistic border is what it is. I don't say that in order to destroy this point of view. But if the farmers and the monks were working in the Ardennes, how is it possible that they meet each other along the linguistic borders which is relatively far from the Ardennes in the North of the Ardennes and which is going through other regions than the Ardennes. Perhaps I am not able to understand what the scholar say because of my English, but for me it is impossible that the farmers and the monks were meeting each other along the belgian linguistic border, unless that would be the Belgian linguistic border between Germany and Belgium (or Wallonia)? I try to undertsand, sincerely. And without other elements, I would think that is what this author wanted to say... ?????? José Fontaine (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Vb, had you signed in I probably would have been a bit more courteous. What you wrote was good, (I was surprised that an IP did it) but the fact is that I trimmed what you added because it was too much detail for a brief summary of the history of the entire region. Maybe it would be more appropriate to add it to a page on the history of Wallonia or the Belgian language border. If you want to retrieve it, you can find it in the page history. I've put back one of the references.

I've reworded the Picard, etc. section slightly to make it a bit less misleading, but again, I think we should avoid excessive detail and historiography. Having said that, we should also not have anything that is plain old wrong. Oreo Priest ^talk 06:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jose, I think here what is meant by the Ardennes is a larger forest that the one we now know. I think at these times (700-1000) the Ardennes Forest were larger including both sides of the Sambre-Meuse valley. We have to think that even Liege was not existing yet. In the region which is now Wallonia were only some Roman villas but no city (except Tournai). The Gallo-Roman farmers who exploited these farms had to deforest their neighbourhood before expanding further. The cities along the Roman road from Tournai to Cologne were more or less Germanized and formed a barrier to a further expansion of the Gallo-Roman region. However, this is how I understand this and I think this is controversial -- i.e. not supported by my source.Vb (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My source is also very clear and discuss the inner Belgian language border. Of course there is also a language border between Germany and Belgium which is also discussed and can be understood on the same pattern. The cities along the Rhine were all quite early germanized and expanded slowly within the Ardennes/Eifel meeting the romanized population along the modern language border. Vb (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear VB, I see the explanations you red are not so different from the explanantions I red. But I remember many books who are speaking about the North of the Ardennes and even in the Ardennes themselves. See for instance this old version of the page about the Diocèse de Liège on the French Wp [1], all villages and towns are quoted by Félix Rousseau. These villages or towns are not a desert and the presence of the Church is an evidence of their romance character (Leopold Genicot said that to me this evidence and I could verify the fact in some villages I visited in my youthood during the holidays, when I red their history). I remember also I red in latin (a little) some stories about saints in the Ardennes, in the first centuries after JC. The Ardennes were alaways very different from the rest of Wallonia or Belgium or other regions in the neighberhood. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact our sources do not contradict themselves very much. Maybe they even agree. The Ardennes seem to be the historical kernel of Wallonia, i.e. the French-speaking part of the Low-Countries. But according to my source, while the Ardennes kept their Gallo-Roman character through the ages, the rest of Wallonia was not continuously francophone from 700 to 1000 (or at least the sources are not that clear about this). This is only after 1000 that the language border can be dertermined with certainty. According to my source this fixation of the border is assumably due to the expansion of the deforestation and progress in the exploitation of the soil both in the North and in the South of Belgium which implied a growth of the population. Vb (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Until now (I must read again Félix Rousseau), I am only able to say (following Rousseau), that all the villages (before 815: see the French Wp), were depending on the Church and the Mérovingiens+Carolingiens. In my memory Rousseau saw all these villages or towns as the romance part of the diocèse de Liège. And also the Ardennes were a desert (without people, only some villages). But I only remember. I have a global view of that coming from several books, conversations etc. I will try to study that during the W-E. It would be interesting to write the just sentences about that, if it is possible. I don't know if it is possible. But the linguistic border is an important fact and I think all the scholars agree now with what you said (or the German author or scholar): in 1000 this border ceased any significant movement. Everybody agree with that. Incidentally, this border is a very strange phenomenon... Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Map of the basin area of the river Meuse

In the § 'Geography' I think this map is a very important information. Because the river Meuse is the most important geographical fact explaining Wallonia both on geographical and historical plan and also economical plan. I citated a book of Marc Suttor about that (publisehed in 2006), but it is also an long traditionnal characteristic of the historical tradition in Wallonia. The river Meuse is also linked to the Walloon heritage, in the past as well in in the present-day with (for instance the Pont de Wandre, the engineers of the university of Liège who was buildinf the viaduc de Millau, the Liège station and also many other bridges in Europa or in Wallonia). The map in itself is a map joined to an International treaty on the Meuse signed by France, Wallonia, Flanders, The Netherlands, Luxemburg Germany (Wallonia has the treaty-making power). So that is also important on the political plan or on the constitutionnal plan. It is also (I wrote it), an excellent mean to situate Wallonia on a map of Europe and to understand how is the transportation in Wallonia not only on the river Meuse but also in the direction of some great european ports (Antwerp, Rotterdam, Dunkirk), and Rhine. Finally it is also a possibility to nuance that Wallonia is a landlock country because (sea the § transportation), following the authority of the Port of Liège, Wallonia has a kind of access to the sea.

When I place this map, I was principally inspired by a very interestinf programm of the Belgian national TV (RTBF) a program prepared with many scholars) and l'Institut du patrimoine wallon, no a quickly made program), who illustrates this importance during two long hours (on 3 january 2010). It is nos used. I am not principally inspired by the programm in itself but by the fact that there is in it an opportunity to share with many people (and also on en.Wp.), all the informations I red on this importance of the Meuse for Wallonia. You have often a geographical phenomenon which is able to situate a country or a Region. The river Meuse is also the cause of the industrial power of Wallonia during years and years : this waterway was very important on the economic plan in the past and yet to-day. It is almost impossible to speak of Wallonia without speaking of all these things on many plans. The map and all the comments of it are following me highly relevant, excepted I didn't write them perhaps in good english. All the lines I wrote are not so long and I can regret that my long work (even brely written) disappears in a few minutes, without explanations and discussions. It is precisely what I hope in writing these few words: to have a discussion about the importance of this map following not nly me, but many scholars in my country and many people I am aware I am not able to restaure this § without you but I answer you to read and to understand my reasons. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. In short, while what you wrote is interesting, it went into far too much detail for a general summary on Wallonia. Additionally, it seems like Original Research, and doesn't have very many sources cited. If you could find a few more sources we could include at most a brief paragraph on it, but keep in mind that this is just one way of looking at Wallonia, its culture and its geography, and not necessarily the mainstream way. Oreo Priest ^talk 17:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily the mainstream way? But I said to you that there is this TV program (a cultural program), with many scholars as Marc Suttor I citated and this TV program was based also on a long historical tradition which began with Félix Rousseau. You say that I am going into too much detail but you want to have many sources. It is clear that, if we want to show the Walloon heritage (and that means also geography and history, economy ...), you are forced to do that as the TV Program did it. Incidentally, I don't know what is the mainstream way for presenting Wallonia... It is not an angry remark but it is difficult to present an official geography of Wallonia and that is the reason why I think it is important to adopt the logic of this TV program, a cultural program which simply popularize many historian and geographic studies. You find that the map and its comments is an original work but i am absolutely unable to write about Wallonia otherwise. I don't know the mainstream way, sincerely. If a so great (and very successful) TV program is possible, that is this program which is the mainstream way. I am sure it is impossible to find scholars who would be against this presentation. The RTBF is a public televisionand it is obliged to mahe its programs as ... we are making Wp!Thank you for your friendly remarks. Sincerely! José Fontaine (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to use an example of what I mean. One interpretation of the economic history of Canada is called the Staples thesis. There have been television programs on it, respected scholars believe it, and I myself find it quite interesting. Nonetheless, you'll notice that the page Canada doesn't describe Canada's history in terms of the Staples thesis, because it's just one way of looking at it among many. Likewise, one can look at Wallonia's geography and history as revolving around the Meuse, but that's just one way to look at it among many. We should include at most a brief mention of it here, and if you wanted to go into more depth, I think the article on the Meuse would be the most appropriate place for it. Oreo Priest ^talk 00:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I must show my sources. But here it is not a thesis among many, that's really a very important thesis and all the historians are speaking about the Meuse. For instance, the TV program was speaking about "à l'horizon de la Meuse" ou "la Meuse à l'horizon". All the histories of Wallonia do know that very well. As far as I am concerned, it is just to say that I became suddenly more aware about that. But I must firstly show what I am saying now. I will do it when I would have times to do it. But firstly a remark: the map of the Meuse basin is a map joined to an international agreement, it is an official document. Thank you. José Fontaine (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost everything of this page is Original Research. CharlesWoeste (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but what I'm saying is that you've lived in Wallonia your whole life and you're a professor in matters of Walloon identity, and you still hadn't really heard of this until three weeks ago, so this is certainly not a mainstream idea. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Not absolutely no of course, but ... I red, red and red much about that (Félix Rousseau principally, the Mosan Art in itself, the two or three great 'History of 'Wallonia' and a lot of articles and books... A friend said to me (in 2007 or 2008) that Marc Suttor had an other result of all his research about the river Meuse I didn't read myself until now. I listen to this program and the first of it, its 'concept' (I think it is the same word as in English). That's not only a program but a documentary film based on the survey of three scholars. I quote the French: 'Enfin, le 3eme reportage vous montrera la Vallée Mosane comme vous ne l’avez jamais vue. Longtemps considérée comme un fleuve moyen, la Meuse a récemment révélé son secret: bordée des terres les plus fertiles d’Europe, elle a connu, pendant tout le Moyen Age, une activité équivalente au Rhin, supérieure à la Seine [I never heard that] . Guidés par trois passionnés (une archéologue, un historien et un géographe), nos équipes vous feront découvrir les mystères de la Vallée.' See [2] (The river Meuse was for the Middle-Age considered as a river of middle importance, now it seems that its activity was as important as the Rhine and more than the Seine ... an historian [Marc Suttor], a geograph [Dimitri Belayew] and an archeologist [Mrs Verbeeck] were the teatchers of this film (more or less translation). II think it only relevant and certainly not original. But I want to be patient (nous avons tout le temps devant nous). What is more, for me, is the fact that this program was followed by 20% of the audience share. I had suddenly in front of me, shared by almost an half million people, an abstract of what I red about that and that was a great emotion, intellectual emotion. And that is what we must do on Wp: to share the information which is well-kown and accepted. I agree with you: it is only possible to make a little summary about that in the page 'Wallonia' (I will make a proposal), and after, perhaps when I red the book, a more important § or perhaps a specific page (about the Meuse as the horizon of the most of Wallonia). There is also a difficulty if you will. What is finally an orignal Research? For instance the map of Meuse basin. The map is not an original research. To place this map in the § 'Geography' of Wallonia is good sense and good faith. For me. Is the map I made (the smallest map with the borders of Wallonia) an original research? In any case, this smaller map is absolutely loyal to the map joined to the international agreement on Meuse... But I will write only with your agreement and not immediately, for many reasons. Thank you and sincerely! José Fontaine (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Original research is when you write anything new on WP that doesn't come from other sources. According to policy, there should be nothing original on Wikipedia. It sounds strange, but see WP:OR for details. Oreo Priest ^talk 02:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Talking about sources doesn't mean automatically you're not doing OR dear José : if you associate originally different sources to get a pov original, it is OR. If you analyse originally a text, it is also OR. It seems that in the page of Wallonia in fr.WP, you already had the same remarks of pov-pushing your OR. CharlesWoeste (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

It seems that this article suffers heavily of an original research and a non-neutral point of view. This article is not about the federal region, defined by the Belgian Constitution, it is about territory claimed by the Walloon Movement (that indeed followed by the creations of Walloon Region, French Community, ...). CharlesWoeste (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It is by no means about the territory claimed by the Walloon Movement. It is about the subject of Wallonia as a whole. You might disagree with the content, (which is a result of consensus above), but this is not an issue of NPOV or OR. If there is anything specifically you think is NPOV or OR, do bring it up here though. Oreo Priest ^talk 20:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For me it is OK. The word "Wallonie" is continuously used in the medias and when the linguistic border is concerned, Flandre/Wallonie. A recent and interesting book has as title "La Terre promise. Flamands en Wallonie" . This book is speaking about the Flemish workers who were coming in Wallonia during the period 1860-1920. This book (translated from the Dutch), is very successfull : it is an interesting phenomenon these meetings between Flemings and Wallons in 1860-1920. The most important thing is that the common sense agree with the words Wallonia and Flanders. It is obvious... José Fontaine (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Which consensus? it seems that Lebob-BE and Vb were clearly opposed as a merge, and you made a somewhat merge. Or it is the same subject, and it should be on only one page. Or it is two different things. I clearly disagree with what's going on on the english-speaking wikipedia, someone who is blocked for a large-scall POV-pushing is doing the right same thing here. For example, the first thing you know about the "Culture", it is the «The Manifesto for Walloon culture was published in Liège on 15 September 1983.» Good to know that the most important cultural thing about Wallonie is a José Fontaine's manifesto! CharlesWoeste (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This one: Compromise Proposal: What do you think? Oreo Priest ^talk 14:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC). It is a great pleasure to work with you. I utterly support your compromise. Vb (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC). I agree also. José Fontaine (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The culture section certainly does need work, it's pretty pathetic right now, and I think we can all agree on that. If you would like to rearrange it, or even better, add to it and complete it, that would be great. I've made some suggestions under What we still need above, and it would be great if you could help. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This consensus is against WP:NOT («articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic») and WP:TITLE. If this page and the one called Walloon Region (federal region) are one and only one thing, there should be a merge. If there are different, as written in the fr:Histoire du terme Wallon, they should have each one its own page. CharlesWoeste (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Charles, I still don't agree on merging both Walloon Region (federal region) and Wallonia. I agree with you that this very article is a pure mess, a big amount of OR and non neutral POV. However I am not raedy to start an edit war with Jose on each detail. But however we obtained a compromise I still utterly agree with. Namely: Wallonia is an article about the geographical region, its long history, its traditions, its culture, its politics inclusive the Walloon Region which appeared about 1970. However the place reserved here for the Walloon Region should be a short section which would be a summary of the main article Walloon Region (federal region). Vb (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Two too long pargraphs

Etymology, symbols, regional languages could be a para only for the languages and no more symbols or etymology on which it is written in an other place (in the beginning). Culture could be summarized and it is possible to create a new page Culture of Wallonia  with all the topics of the Wallonia page. But because all these changes are important, I need your opinion and other contributors. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I took care of the first one, although "regional languages" should really be a subsection of a "demographics" section. Would you care to create one? And your idea for the culture is a good one.

On a related note, I looked at my section "What we still need" above on this page. Most of it seems to have been taken care of. This page has made excellent progress in the past year, almost entirely thanks to your contributions. Keep up the good work! Oreo Priest ^talk 07:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Tourism figures

You wrote: "Tourism is an important part of the economy of Wallonia.". It is unclear what this means. Is this for the French Community? Does the 9.8 figure include the 2.8 in Brussels? And does the 6% include Brussels or just Wallonia? Oreo Priest ^talk 07:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Cuisine

There is no dish identified with the Belgian nation as a whole. <ref>Culinary cultures of Europe: identity, diversity and dialogue, p. 79</ref> For me this citation is relevant. Mussels may not be identified with Belgium as a whole. Even beer, you have many kinds of beer and many countries where beers do exist. That depends on the product, of the kinfd of beer. For instance ORVAL and its taste depends of the water in the Gaume, and that is impossible to find this tatste in Flanders. What is more, Orval is a beer which is very different of all the other beers. I drink a glass of Orval each day but that is very different from the other beers. I have an argument for that. Do ypu Know "La première gorgée de bière" of Philippe Delerm? He said that only the first "gorgée" is great. That is not the case for Orval. People define ORval as a beer of whicht the taste doesn't cease to be a surprise. I recognize that the discussions about cuisne are al ittle difficult and often a little absurd. But.... But the Orval's definition is the good, very pertinent.

(Dear Oreo it is also a way to say you Good after-noon and to wish you an happy niew year...)

José Fontaine (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too! But the source is clearly wrong. Even the Belgian federal government said that moule-frites was the national dish in a tourism video. Maybe for Belgians, Liège waffles are thought to be a local specialty, for example, but you'll have no more trouble finding them in a store in Oostend than in Liège itself. To the rest of the world, it's all Belgian. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

[3] But it seems dangerous to go further...

José Fontaine (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Football teams of Wallonia

Standard Liege, Mons, Charleroi, Eupen, Tubize, Tournai, RFC Liege,(and in the past; Mouscron, La Louviere, Seraing), what else? Böri (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, beside the Sporting de Charleroi there is an Olympic de Charleroi which is noticeable. One may also perhaps add the Union Royale Namur. One can also mention the two clubs of Verviers as Walloon football teams with a past, i.e. the R.C.S. Verviétois, i.e. the former C.S. Verviers, and the SRU Verviers (I have just seen it disapeared in 2010). It in fact depends to which level of detail you want to go. --Lebob (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Individual sports teams shouldn't be included at all. Oreo Priest ^talk 04:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Guillemins.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Guillemins.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 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. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)