Talk:Wallonia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

An encyclopaedicstructure (II)

For the importance of the Ardennes I was inspired by the work Elsevier asked to me in order to write Walloniëin this Encyclopedcy (in 1983).That was not my opinion but the request of people from The Netherdlands. There is also an other argument. The Walloon territory is very small but with a lot of different (geographical) regions (and so it is hard to speak about all of them in different sections that would be too long or with too numerous). Thirdly the Ardennes is not only a pure geographical concept but a concept of human geography (does that exist in English?) and the definition of the Ardennes of the Encyclopaedia universalis includes the geological meaning and the human meaning. If this human aspect would'nt exist, Ardennes and Eifel were the same geographical region (and nobody writes that they are the same region). When I proposed an order, I was absent-minded and I forgot economy. I would propose 1) Geography 2) Economy 3) History 4) Politics 5) Culture etc. In the human sense (which is also encyclopedic : in the sillon ibndustriel i the most important part of the Walloon population, there is some sources verifiable to found that, tables etc.), Ardennes includes almost the whole South of the sillon industriel (except Gaume) and the sillon industrial itself (see Encyclopaedia Universalis published in 1988). Why do I think that interesting? Because it gives a structure to the article (verifiable). There is a link between geography and economy. Is it not interesting to have a readable article with a logical structure: geography + economy (Ardennes as the origin of the Walloon industry)? Events of longue durée are the idea of Fernand Braudel, it is not an analysis, it is a fact as well as the industry. And many Walloon historians have the same perspective. There are a lot of books: Genicot, Hasquin, La Wallonie née de la grève, La Wallonie,le pays et les hommes, almost all the books which were published stress on these points. I defend a work I began but I must say that in any case, I am not able to write alone this article. It is possible to eliminate the section about the Battle of the Bulge and as Lebob suggests it to place this section in the article Ardennes.VB has a POV, Lebob also and me too. Is it not possible to have a compromise which would include all these POV? I stop to write the article and I am waiting your replies. I recognize when i write anything I am worry about the pedagogic point of view but is i not correct? Is it not intereting to have a vue d'ensemble? José Fontaine (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can find many good sources which use different structures (i.e. non encyclopedic ones) but here we need to stick to a neutral structure. This is YOUR opinion (and the opinion of other good authors) that the Ardennes require a specific section on the same level as Geography or Economy this must not be the opinion of every author. The item with the longue durée event is also a gibberish thing. This is a very special way to present history. Why couldn't we simply order the facts by dates? A title like "History: Two longues durées events" is simply POVed. Of course you can source this but this is simply Baudel's POV on history. If you want it create an $article on the history of Wallonia and discuss this POV there: this is OK but such a discussion definitively does not belong to a general article about Wallonia. You say it is important to have a vue d'ensemble. Yes of course we need : in the lead and at the head of each long section but this view should be restricted to a neutral summary of the facts and shouldn't include global analysis (surch as a Marxist summary of the history). Vb 09:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't propose Ardennes would require a specific section on the same level as Geography (I propose we discuss about specific topics or great sections). I propose that the first section ////geography//// would have this order (because of the central location of the sillon industriel): a) the sillon industriel b) the North of it c) the south of it and in this subsection : the Condroz, Fagne-Famenne... , the economical or geological importance of the Ardennes (one or two sentences at the end and so we have pertaps a transition to history). After: the history. But I propose a discussion of each section separately. I think it more confortabble. I don't reply now what you said about facts and analysis in this spirit (i repeat:in order to have a more confortable or easier conversation and a clear agreement, great sections by great sections. What do you think?José Fontaine (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is alright. Please do! Remove the section Ardennes and place this content inside a Geography section. I think only then we will be able to discuss the content. I began an article Wallonia/test. Please have a look at it. 79.233.251.226 (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer something so (and we have a map about that): ++++++the most populated region of Wallonia is the Sillon industriel (about 2 million inhabitants over about 1000 km2), including almost all the most important Wallonia's cities (Mons, La Louvière, Charleroi, Namur, Liège), and dividing High Belgium and Middle Belgium etc. (and the map)++++++ In this framework, I think it is possible to describe the different regions clearly, the regions of the sillon itself (Borinage, Le Centre, Charleroi, Basse-Sambre (with the old coal-mines), Liège), the regions into the North (incidentally not Hainaut but Hainaut occidental and not Brabant but Brabant wallon which is both a region and a province), of the sillon and into the South of it (Condroz, Between-Sambre-and Meuse, Gaume and - I would prefer -finally the Ardennes. It seems to me that is a clear plan or text. I am a little regretting that the Battle of the Bulge would be erased (because it is a way to introduce Wallonia for a large public : is it not possible to keep a little mention of it? And an image?). In general, have mercy on my work. I worked hard and with good faith even if it is far from perfect or POV. All the informations are verifiable. And I also would keep a link between Geography and History in order to introduced the section ///History///// and/or the section ///Economy///... I want also to ask you to say regionalist. Nobody in Wallonia is calling himself nationalist, but regionalist. It is very important. People who are regionalist are not a small minority and the evidence of that is the fact that Wallonia is actually a political Region. I propose also we write your Wallonia/test before changing the page itself. Or the first section of it (Geography) (and then we would change the page. After : History and Economy ... and so on). I propose this kind of working because it is likely this way we would be able to see what must follow /// Geography///. I hesitate between ///History/// and ///Economy///. It is better to be pragmatic in making the page instead of having philosophical endless discussions about the difference between facts and analysis (eg). Moreover you and me don't perhaps exactly know about what we agree and we don't agree...What do you think? José Fontaine (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Do as you will but don't mix everything. Section the article correctly (in a NPOV encyclopedic way) that's all I want. You can of course keep a trace of the battle of the Bulge as a subsubsection of History/20th century but I think it should not take more place than for example the Revolution in Liège or the destruction of Liège by Charles the Bold which are also major events within the Walloon history. Vb 13:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.251.212 (talk)

A too long page

I am writing a project-page in User:Vb/Wallonia. But I am now aware that it is impossible to have so long a page with so many images. It is necessary to create a page History of Wallonia, the only way to have a shorter and neutral page Wallonia. What do you think? I am waiting some advices before continuing to write. José Fontaine (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course. You need also Geograpy of Wallonia, Economy of Wallonia, etc... The article Wallonia will just be a summary of all those articles. Vb 19:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.168.111.146 (talk)

This page is not necessarily too long, but it certainly needs a lot of restructuring.

• Much of the material on industry is historical and unsatisfactory. I would like to see the industrial history sections gathered together. As I found it the section on iron (and the Walloon method was unsatisfactory and at times wrong: I have altered it, and provided more references.
• The term Sillon Industriel needs translation: literally it would (I thnk) be 'Industrial Ribbon', but 'Industrial Belt' might be more ideomatic English.
• I am not sure that the section on WWII and the Battle of the Bulge belongs in this article: might it not be better in an article on the Ardennes.
• I would suggest that general and politcal history should be separated from industrial and economic history.

Note: the Walloon method is essentially a Swedish term. It was not used in England because all finery forges used it. I have deleted material on this, because it was merely repeating (but much less well) what already appears in various ironmaking processes. Strictly, the Walloon method refers only to the process in the finery forge. I have delinked this (from being a red link), since it is adequately explained in the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I begg your pardon for my bad English. Thank you for the changes. They seem to me very interesting! You add very accurate things I didn't know, but if I know the History of Wallonia I am not a specialist of iron... (and you correct my mistakes). But is it not possible to make a page on Walloon method once upon a time? With your informations more particularly? I made a proposal for Industrial revolution in showing the Rioux's table. I found this title Sillon industriel. It occurs that some pages about Walloon, French (etc.) realities are introduced in French... The page Wallonia must to be rewritten, I am aware of it. Sincerely. OK also for the Battle of the bulge. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I support splitting the history section of this article into a standalone article, the History of Wallonia. It will assist in the future expansion and restructuring of this page. It should, of course, retain an adequate summary of the history of Wallonia and proper wikilinking to the new page.Synchronism (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support.The difficulty is if that I must transfer all is linked to History of Wallonia's page, I must transfer many things so that this page would be largely erased. And I was hesitating to do so but if the work I want to make has support.... May be also that User:Vb/Wallonia would no more be absolutely necessary? I try to get the best solution. Thank you for your help, sincerely... José Fontaine (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No objection to forking out History of Wallonia. However, it might be better to fork out Industry in Wallonia, covering both the present Sillon Industriel and industrial history. By all means use the term Sillon Industriel, if you like but provide an English translation when it is first used. I am an expert on the iron industry, though not on Wallonia. You make be intersted to know that iron imported from Liege was known in England and Lukes iron (from Luik). There was another kind known as Ames iron; it has been suggested that this was from Amiens, but I am not convinced. As long as you do not mind having your English corrected, I do not mind correcting it. However, I was out of order in correcting what some one else had put on a talk page. You need not be too concerned over the need to alter links: the "What links here" tool is useful for this, but it will not matter unduly if the links are to "Wallonia", rather than to the new article, at least initially. A summary of the material removed should in any event be left in the old article, linked to the new one by a "main" template. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir, for your advices, the support of Synchronism, VB... José Fontaine (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

I want to have explanation about recent changes. Some sections were simply erased. They were perhaps too long but they are referring to a main article which vanished. Some informations were also erased. May I ask to this IP to justify his changes and to speak about his project for the page Wallonia. I want to cooperate but erasing which an author made is not the best way of a civil cooperation...José Fontaine (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC) And perhaps I don't understand, but Wallonia is not only along the Meuse... José Fontaine (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What had happened was that a large chuck of text had been made into a comment, thus hiding it until the article is opened for editing. I have reinstated this but its structure is most unsatisfactory. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course.Thank you,José Fontaine (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

One page for Wallonia/Walloon Region

I think we should have one single page for Wallonia/Walloon Region, as it is the same topic with two names, short and long form. Soekenlaan (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, one is a geographic term, the other is a political one. This is similar to the confusion between Flanders, the Flemish Region and the Flemish Community. The history of the "Region Wallone" is a political history: the history of Wallonie is much broader, going further back and including culture, economy and so on. Fram (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fram but I think that it is too small (not sufficiently significant), to write: a geographical region. Wallonia is more than a geographical region. It is possible to write for instance 1) a Region (or) 2) an historical and geographical region or something else... And to have at least the Walloon Flag because the difference between Wallonia and the Walloon Region is very small. If we agree with this proposals, it would be interesting to suppress the tag "disputed". Don't you think. I wrte the same words on the Lebob's page. I begg your pardon for my simple English.José Fontaine (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Rather than have fragmented discussions about it, I'm formally proposing a merger. Wallonia and the territory of the present Walloon Region are practically the same thing, and the Walloon Region can easily be explained in the Government section of the Wallonia page. I understand that many of you will draw attention to the fact that Flanders and the Flemish Region have separate articles, but if you look at the Flanders article, you'll notice that there are much larger differences than here. More importantly, notice how Brussels, Germany and Italy don't have separate articles for the Brussels-Capital Region, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Italian Republic, even though historically these terms have slightly different meanings than the current political entity.

In a nutshell, the political entity and the cultural one here are not different enough to have separate articles. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, what I forgot to mention earlier is that having multiple pages is extremely confusing for the non-Belgian reader. It is by no means clear on either page that one is supposed to be a purely political construct and that one is supposed to be some abstract ill-defined entity which closely corresponds to the territory ruled by the political entity.

If you compare the leads of both articles, they say pretty much the same thing. Both use the terms Wallonia and Walloon Region pretty much interchangeably. Compare this sign: File:Wallonie-panneau-routier.jpg, which welcomes the driver to Wallonia, clearly put up by the Walloon Region and using all its symbols.

In fact, a great number of reliable sources use the terms Wallonia and Walloon Region interchangeably. See for example [1]. Even the federal government's invest in Belgium website uses Wallonia: [2]. Having two separate articles is a really confusing way to do things, and one that's pretty artificial. The best way to explain any slight difference is as part of one article. Oreo Priest ^talk 17:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Oreo Priest ^talk 18:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I think they should not be merged. Of course, the Walloon Region article can be considered as a subarticle of Wallonia as a "see also" or "main" reference within the Government section of Wallonia. For the Walloons themselves, the Walloon Region is their government not the region where they live! This is -I think- the reason why the word is written for the government with a capital case and for the geographical/cultural term without. One colloquially says in French "I am working for the Region" for "I am employed by the government of the Walloon Region" just as well as "Wallonia is a nice region" which has the usual English meaning. Moreover the Walloon region (i.e. Wallonia) is not only governed by the Walloon Region (which also governs the German-speaking Community of Belgium) but also by the French Community (which also governs the Brussels-Capital Region). The situation is even made more complicated by the fact that both the Region and Community are ruled more or less in personal union by the same politicians. One more point, one also speak about the "région Wallonnie-Bruxelles" for the territory ruled by the French Community. This is a very intertwinned situation which Wikipedia has urgently to clarif. I therefore think it is very important to distinguish both concepts: Wallonia = Walloon region ≠ Walloon Region! Vb (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course the government is not the same as the place, that's the same anywhere. People will say things like "I work for the province" when they live in the Province of Ontario. Still, the small technical difference of what you just said can easily be explained in the government section of the Wallonia article. So of course Wallonia = Walloon region ≠ Walloon Region, but Walloon Region ⊂ Wallonia, or Walloon Region ≈ Wallonia, depending on how you look at it. Furthermore, all of your concerns (and mine) apply analogously to Brussels and the Brussels-Capital Region, but they've been fused with no trouble, and the resulting page is quite elegant. Oreo Priest ^talk 05:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't like the solution adopted for Brussels. However I respect the compromise adopted there. Yous say Walloon Region ⊂ Wallonia. That's right: so Walloon Reigion is a subarticle of Wallonia! Of course Walloon Region ≈ Wallonia (in a somewhat colloquial sense if the German speakers could be neglected) but we are trying to write exact entries for an encyclopaedia! Moreover for most Belgians the Regions and Communities are quite formal constructs built by politicians but no nation or geographical regions. You spoke about the Province of Ontario. It would be exactly the same with the Province of Liege. Here the province=Province, i.e. the geographical extension is identical to the territory where the province has its jurisdiction. For example one says "I live in the province of Liege" bu one does not say "I live in the Walloon Region" but "I live in Wallonia". One says "The province of Liege has wonderful landscapes" but one does not say "The Walloon Region has wonderful landscapes" but "Wallonia has wonderful landscapes". One uses the term Walloon Region only in the case one refer directly to the (economical) government of Wallonia since 1970, e.g. "the administration of the Walloon Region is corrupt", "the authoroity of the Walloon Region should be extended to Brussels", etc. The same is true for the Brussels-Capital Region and I think that should be applied there too. Vb08:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.194.90 (talk)

I don't like your Liège example, because you say "province" to distinguish it with the city. I would think you would talk about the landscapes of Hainaut without specifying you mean the province. Likewise, you would never hear anyone mention "the Province of Ontario's landscapes". People never specifically mention the political body when they're talking about the place. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And a better analogy would be French Republic:France :: Walloon Region:Wallonia. Obviously there is no separate article for French Republic. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your example with Hainaut does not work. Hainaut is synonim for the Hainaut Province and everything I said about the province of Liège can be repeated here mutatis mutandis. The analogy with France is better. However France is a different concept than Wallonia. Wallonia is a region, a landscape, (may be for some POV) a nation which is very distinct of the Walloon Region. France is linked to the King of France and all the successive Goverments. France is defined as the place ruled by the French kings and their successors. Wallonia is the French speaking part of the historical Low Countries. This is not at all link to any government. Vb11:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I find your definition of France dubious. Regardless, take a look at Germany. It used to mean where the Germanic tribes lived, then where German-speakers lived, and now it means the Federal Republic of Germany, despite the fact that this no longer includes Austria or Switzerland. But look, we have one article, Germany, which includes the term as it is commonly used, and it explains the differences. If you were to propose splitting it into Federal Republic of Germany for the political entity, and Germany for the ill-defined cultural entity (which in this case, is even more different in extent than Wallonia and the Walloon Region are), the proposal would get overwhelmingly rejected. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well your example of Germany is a very good one. I would also oppose to the proposal you suggest. The word FRG has the same meaning as Germany (now!). For example one says "I am living in the FRG" just as "I am living in Germany" (I know that: I live in Germany) both formulation are (since 1989) equivallent. But no one will ever say "I am living in the Walloon Region" but "I am living in Wallonia". One lives in a region (with little r) not in a government. That would be just as absurd as saying "I am living in the French Community of Belgium." Vb 08:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.244.133 (talk)

In English, nobody would ever say "I live in the FRG"; perhaps the Germans are used to it from 20 years ago when there were two Germanys. Likewise nobody would ever say "I live in the French Republic" or "I live in the Italian Republic". Oreo Priest ^talk 13:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• OpposeAs explained by Vb Wallonia and the Walloon Region are not same. Even the territories are not the same. --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• The CIA World Factbook says Wallonia is the short form and Walloon Region is the long form.
• The Invest in Wallonia website, published by the Walloon Region itself says "Wallonia is one of the three federal regions of Belgium, where most of the French and German speaking population of the country live today." It proceeds to say "The political entity of Wallonia was formed through the institutional reforms of 1970, 1980, 1988 and 1993."
• The Belgian federal government states: "Wallonia is one of three regions – the others being Flanders and Brussels – that make up the federal state of Belgium." and that "Wallonia supports businesses through incentives, auxiliary measures and premiums.", clearly referring to the government of the Walloon Region and not any cultural entity. Also it states "Wallonia has a population of 3.5 million and covers 16,844 km².", which is of course the exact area of the Walloon region.

We have three very reliable sources (and it would be easy to find more) calling the Walloon Region Wallonia and saying they're two names for the same thing. A very strong justification would be needed for not merging the pages. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Those "very reliable" sources are simply wrong! I'll prove that later Vb 11:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Well, we each have valid points, so let's try the best of both worlds. How about we put all the relevant content of the Walloon Region page in the Wallonia page, and mention and explain all the nuances, just as if we had merged the two. We can move the Walloon Region page, minus the economy, etc. stuff to Walloon Region (region) or (federal region) where we can go into further details about the Region itself, its history, and its place in the constitutional structure of Belgium. That way we have a page which encompasses everything on the subject of Wallonia, a sort of a one-stop-shop if you will, which is what I wanted; and we also have a full page dedicated to the constitutional region, which is what you wanted. I would like to redirect Walloon Region to Wallonia, and have a hatnote explaining the difference, in addition to a section of the Wallonia article explaining the difference and saying Main article: Walloon Region (federal region).

Who knows? Such a solution could even work for Brussels too... 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)

Marvellous. As we were the only two participating in the discussion, I don't think it's a stretch to say that this represents consensus. I'll get to it soon. Oreo Priest ^talk 20:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is still the issue of where links should point. Somewhere around 300 pages link to Walloon Region. My preference would be that we leave all of them pointing at Wallonia, and the truly interested in the specifics of the region will have plenty of links to the (federal region) page itself. What do you think? Oreo Priest ^talk 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Let's do this! Vb 06:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.243.152 (talk)

I've taken care of some things, but some cleanup remains to be done. I have to go now though. I'm glad this worked out! Oreo Priest ^talk 21:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to explain what's going on in a terminology section, so the lead isn't too cluttered. What do you think of it? Oreo Priest ^talk 14:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree also. We had a terrible quarrel about that on French Wikipédia, but (my opinion), an absurd quarrel, because even if there is a difference between Wallonia and the Walloon Region (because of the German speaking Community), everybody is speaking of Wallonia which is the shorter way to speak about this topic. In English, the whole litterature about this topic is always using the word Wallonia for ages. I don't know if Lebob would agree with that. But I am in favour of this good solution. The paragraph about terminology is short and excellent. It is triue that the inhabitants of the German-speaking community are saying they are not Wallooons and they don't feel thme walloons, but their President said he is a citizen of Wallonia. I have no much time to work and my English is not very good. But I'll make efforts in order to help you. You may send me emails if it is necessary. José Fontaine (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it! Oreo Priest ^talk 22:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

the lead is now: <quote> Wallonia (French: Wallonie, German: Wallonie(n), Dutch: Nl-Wallonië.ogg Wallonië (help·info), Walloon: Waloneye), formally the Walloon Region (French: Région wallonne, German: Wallonische Region), is the predominantly French-speaking southern region of Belgium. It makes up about 33% of the population and 55% of the territory of Belgium. Most of Wallonia is French-speaking and, along with Brussels, also governed by the French Community of Belgium. There is a small German-speaking minority in the east which forms the German-speaking Community of Belgium. </quote> I have some comments on it. I tried to improve it but Oreo Priest partially reversed my changes with the correct rationale that this all would be too detailed for a lead. So I simply don't know waht to do but the current lead is not ok.

1. "predominantly French-speaking" <=> "Most of Wallonia is French-speaking" Double.
2. "also governed": it is said nowhere that the government of Wallonia is the Walloon Region => also is a bit strange here.

Vb (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to say that Wallonia is governend by the French Community only for education and culture (and some other little powers in the social domain)? This idea is just but how to write that in English? I think it would be right to say that Whole Wallonia is French-speakin (the German Community excepted). If "Whole" is exagerated, it would be possible to say very generally or... I don't know but stronger words than "the most" It would be also right to say that only the French-speaking inhabitants of Brussels (80 à 90%?), are governed by the French Community. The english page about Wallonia is better than the French page, for me it is absolutely sure. Dank-U aan Vb and thank you to Oro... José Fontaine (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a page about Misère au Borinage, a very important film in the history of Wallonia and - if it is possible to write something about that - on the history of the Wallon cinema... I place an external link to a site tha I manage but if it is possible to place an other link... There are many versions of Misère au Borinage on the web without "copy-right"... José Fontaine (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Eifel is the german word of Ardennes (if you will), in Germany: I think it would be important to say that...José Fontaine (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns are legitimate, I will get to them when I have a chance. Oreo Priest ^talk 01:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK, but do you really think we need to mention the jurisdictions of the bodies in the opening paragraph? I would think wikilinks are enough for the lead at least, although it should be fully explained in the body. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it, because it is a difficult issue (if you will, Wallonia has two govenments... even if the Walloon government is the most important in Wallonia as in Brussels,the Brussels Government (of the Region)). But the rest of the text is OK for me excepted the formula "The most of Wallonia..." . I would prefer something so: "Wallonia ( the little German speaking Community excepted), is governed byt the French Community etc." I prefer that formula, because Wallonia is really a French speaking country. But, as in Switzerland we are very worry about minorities and that is good (I think). But despite these excellent rights, it is also good to say what is predominant. In figures: we may say that 98% (but it is not necessary to write that) of Wallonia are French speaking. In a sense Fourons is aslo a little thing (4.000 inhabitants), but this issue was and is yet a difficult problem. But is it necessary to place Fourons in this page? I don't know. I must think of that. IN any case Fourons is notable. There is undoubtely a Walloon minority in these villages which were a majority until the elections for the municipality in 2000. As VB is a Fleming it is interesting to have his opinion. He is a Fleming, I am a Walloon and you are neutral. Excellent situation!. Sincerely yours José Fontaine (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I removed the bit about Fourons because this article is about all of Wallonia, so we have to stick to including only the very most important stuff. Fourons is important, but it's best described on other pages. Oreo Priest ^talk 05:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Some comment about history

It is urgent to find scholar sources about Wallonia's history. The reference [3] that this article currently use is purerly oversimplified. For example : "13th century: [...] the "land of the Walloons" gradually broke up into rival principalities." As far as I know the land of the Walloons got unified by the First French Republic. Before that it simply did not exist. There were the lands of the Liégeois, the Romance Flanders and other fiefs in the Low Countries hich were somtimes called Walloon because their population was speaking French. Where those principalities really rivals? Were the Duchy of Bouillon, the Abbey of Malmedy, the tournaisi rivals of Liège? Was even Brabant a rival of Liège. It is clear that from time to time the Hasburgs or the Burgunds were not that happy with some privileges of burghers of Liège. But were therefore the Flemings rivals of the Walloons. I ask the question but I know the answer. They were not because they were no nations in the sense the term obtain in the curse of the 18th and 19th centuries. Vb 12:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Rival" in this context doesn't really imply that they had a rivalry; it means something like that they were unassociated with each other and each looking out for only themselves (as opposed to some greater bond). A bigger issue is that the section has many sections which are a copyvio and in need of rewriting. -Oreo Priest ^talk 13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with VB. It is difficult to speak about a "Wallonia" in the 13th century. But on the other hand this official web-site is prudent. It is saying "the land of the Walloons". And there are many examples of books whose the title is History of Wallonia (Hervé Hasquin in 1999, Leopold Genicot in 1974, Félix Rousseau, B.Demoulin and JL Kupper (editors), Histoire de la Wallonie, Privat, Toulouse, 2004, ISBN 2-7089-4779-6 etc.). They don't say that Wallonia was existing for ever, but are simply trying to write the story or the history of a territory on which is living now a population called "Walloons". I would prefer to speak about the cultural traits of "Wallonia" in these centuries. Because it is really a fact recognized by every scholars and it is what I am doing in History of Wallonia. It is possible to speak about Wallonia or more accurately of Walloons during the 16th century and after because this word Walloons did exist since this century. And quickly the words Walloon country (or Wallooon provinces, perhaps also Wallonia did exist also [4]. Of course, this Walloon country was larger thant Wallonia to-day. But we have no countries (see for instance France), whose the territories were absolutely the same for ever. For instance the Walloon country was Wallonia to-day without a part of the French Hainaut and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais. So it is possible to speak about a Walloon country which is not absolutey different from Wallonia to-day. For instance when two important religious orders (Jésuites and Capucins) began the great religious struggle of the "Contre-Réforme" they divided the old Belgium into two provinces, a province of Flanders and a province of Wallonia. In the Middle-Age, there was nevertheless a "Pays Mosan" (arround Liège, Dinant, Huy, Verviers, even Thuin, Lobbes etc.), and that territory or that country is coinciding with the area of the Walloon language until now (reference Félix Rousseau, Genicot etc.). Or is coinciding with the romance part of the diocese of Liège. An other longue durée event is the industrial history of Wallonia.Since the 15th or 16th centuries the principalities (Liège excepted), lost their independance and were unified with Flemish principalities under the rule of the Dukes of Bourgogne (1400-1500 + or -), the King of Spain (1500-1700), the Emperor of Austria (1700-1794), France (1795-1815), after they were unified with the Netherlands and in 1830 Belgium became an independant country. But the Walloon part and the Fleming part of Belgium were always well-known, especially by English travellers and even classical Belgian historians as Henri Pirenne, who wrote about the "région wallonne de Belgique" for that time (Jésuites and Capucins). Of course, the feeling of the populations were very different from now. But there are some traits as for instance the languages... Sincerely. José Fontaine (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What we still need

I've been trying to overhaul the page and get it into good shape. The process has been much more time consuming than I had expected, but I'm sticking to it.

In the process of revamping the page, I've deleted most of the stuff on the Walloon movement. This is not because it doesn't belong, it's because it was scattered haphazardly around the different sections. I think one or two paragraphs about the Walloon movement in a subsection under politics would be the most appropriate.

Other things that still have to be done:

• The transportation section needs to be expanded a bit.
• The culture section really needs to be expanded! Subsections to be included are art, gastronomy, and festivals and traditions (Binche Carnival, for example). Perhaps some architecture too, including the world heritage sites.
• We should probably have a demographics section.
• A climate subsection under geography would be nice.

I'm actually not very good at original composition, so I probably won't do very much myself, but I'll do what I can to help. If you think I missed anything, speak up. Oreo Priest ^talk 02:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The page itself History of the Walloon Movement must to be written. For instance, it is not clear nor sure that the only origin of it were the French politics in 1795-1815. Even if it is right, it is not the only cause of the linguistic issue in Belgium. About the Walloon cinema, we must put somethings from the beginning i.e. from Misère au Borinage even if the Film directors are not Walloons (many scholars as Philip Mosley for instance were speaking of it as the first Walloon film). It is necessary to write a short sentence about Déjà s'envole la fleur maigre perhaps as important as Misère au Borinage. About culture OK. We must speak about literature in French but also in Walloon, great painters, the Museumof the Wallooon Art in Liège etc. etc. VB is right about the section about History. Is it not possible for this section to summarize some sections of History of Wallonia? I want to collaborate with you, Oreo Priest (references, ideas, proposals). But my English... Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Oreo Priest who removed the map I put into the page (Famenne etc.), but it would be interesting to put it into a special page about geographu of Wallonia because a particularity of Wallonia is the great diversity of its geographical regions (into a very little country which is without geographical unity). Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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 [5], 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 [6] (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)