Talk:Defaux (surname)

Flanders?

Where does "Flanders" come from? First source[1] has "Defaux: Nom d'origine: Faulx-les-Tombes (Nr), etc." Now, Namur is not in Flanders, not in the county of Flanders, and the name is not in Flemish but in French (or Walloon). The second ref in the same book, to Faux, also discusses place names in Namur and Walloon Brabant, again not in Flanders.

The second soure, [2], doesn't seem like a reliable source: but in any case, it says "Defaux Surtout porté dans le département du Nord,désigne celui qui habite un lieu-dit Faux (= le hêtre) ou en est originaire. Le toponyme est très répandu, c'est également le nom de deux communes du Pas-de-Calais et des Ardennes. Formes voisines : Default, Defaulx, Defaut, Defauw, Deffaut, Deffaux." So it might be named after, what, five different villages, all French-speaking, but two of them perhaps at some time in the county of Flanders. How does this make this a Flemish name except by some strange WP:OR and historical recuperation? Fram (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not the sources lacking anything Fram, nor WP:OR and historical recuperation, it's you lacking knowledge. This surname likely originates from Namur (or one of the villages of the same name in Belgium and northeastern France). Namur, and the other places, were in an area, roughly present-day Belgium and most Hauts-de-France, known as "Flanders" to the world at the time (most notably to Englishmen and Italians), and people coming from there where called Flemings regardless of the language they spoke. The large geographical area of the Low Countries is still known as Flanders. In addition, the counts of Flanders actually possessed the area of Namur for several centuries (from the 13th to the 15th), in the period when this and many other surnames were born.

"Flanders" is the perfect term here, because this surname is most spread and originates in northeastern France / Belgium. It spares you using two regions of origins in the info box (France and Belgium), which is also incorrect since Belgium didn't exist.

"Belgium", only if intended as "Belgica", or "Southern Netherlands" could also be used here to indicate the region of origin, (so as to include both Hauts-de-France and Belgium, while not making a choice between Walloon and Flemish) but Flanders is preferable.

What is wrong for sure is your claim that the surname is Walloon [3]. Things were different at the time, there wasn't the dichotomy between Walloons and Flemish people that there is today (again, both "Flemings"), and both Germanic languages and French were used throughout the area. No wonder the origin of the surname itself is disputed (Old French fau or Germanic falisa).--Cassius Fury (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You are mixing up the county of Flanders, the region Italians and Englishmen might have named Flanders long , long ago (which is totally irrelevant for this discussion), and what is now Flanders. Namur was never in the County of Flanders (it was for some 150 years owned by the counts of Flanders; why would the name even originate in exactly this period?), nor is it in in any way in current Flanders. Plus Flemish (or Dutch) were not spoken there. The Low Countries is not synonymous with Flanders at all. You are rewriting history, taking only the few weak arguments supporting your position and ignoring the actual situation (i.e. the current situation, the language, and most of history) which don't fit your narrative. "Defaux" is a French-language name, and the villages which are given as the origin of it all have a French name as well. Whether these villages ultimately get their name from a German stem or not is a step further, and would make these German names if you want to stretch it that far. But claiming that something is a Flemish name because Namur was for a while owned by the Counts of Flanders is a bizarre reasoning, and pure WP:OR in any case; feel free to provide us with sources which actually state that Defaux is a Flemish name. Until then, it is listed in the "Dictionnaire des noms de famille en Wallonie et à Bruxelles", and it is shared on enwiki by two French persons and one Walloon person. Nothing Flemish there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 16:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I'm not mixing up things, it's you lacking knowledge and not understanding (like the difference between "German" and "Germanic"; and here [4], where you claimed, with zero sources to back your claim, what none of the actual sources we have say; that is you claimed that all the surnames Dufaux have the same origin (the source says merely that those from Belgium have that etymology)). It's not a (modern) Walloon vs. Flemish thing, though you want to see it this way.

The area was not called that way "long, long ago" (and anyway, did the surname originate today or a long, long ago? What is today Wallonia and Flanders was once part of the County of Flanders and the neighboring domains collectively known as "Flanders"). It was called Flanders up to when Belgium became independent (and in the English-speaking world that is how pre-Belgium mentions of "Flemings" and "Flanders" are read, i.e. referring to the Southern Netherlands' people, often including Brabant). Thus, "Flemings" and "Flanders" were not used exclusively for the County of Flanders and the people from there, like you claim. Also, Namur was not ruled by the counts of Flanders for "some 150 years". It was ruled by them for centuries during one of the most prosperous periods for the area (leading into the Burgundian period), when people moved to towns and when, incidentally, surnames started to be used, and not only here.

The people shared a common culture, regardless of their language (which you claim wasn't Dutch in this area in the 13th-15th century, but in fact the nature of the people's language is totally unknown), and were known as Flemings.

While I'm not "rewriting history", you are making uncalled for claims that this surname's "origin" is "Walloon". The book is the "Dictionnaire des noms de famille en Wallonie et à Bruxelles" that is, the surnames ofWallonia and Bruxelles. It is a bizarre reasoning to take it as "the book of ethnic Walloons". I likewise invite you to provide a source for the claim the origin of this surname is Walloon. --Cassius Fury (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me also say that this[5] shows a bit of hypocrisy, and not because you didn't ping me.

You had a look at the on-topic articles I created and contested the articles Faux,[6] Defaux,[7] and Dufaux,[8] (which after all are the articles you cited at the WikiProject_Linguistics).[9] On the other hand, you didn't contest the "Flemish-sounding" De Fauw (which I also recently created, and which is linked in all those articles), even though its origin is the the same as the others, (as per sources) from Faulx.

The focus should not be on what today is seen as "Walloon" and what today is seen as "Flemish". Reading should not be compromised by this type of thinking.

Present-day Wallonia didn't exist at the time, and "a surname of Walloon origin" is immediately understood an ethnic marker. This is way I oppose claiming the surname is "of Walloon origin" in the lead. Certainly not the way you did.[10]--Cassius Fury (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I edited the page avoiding the language you opposed, as well as your claim of Walloon origin of the surname (I did mention that Faulx-les-Tombes etc. are in Wallonia though). See if it's acceptable to you know.--Cassius Fury (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The current version seems fine, thanks. I don't think jeantosti.com is a reliable source, but it doesn't really impact the contents very much. Fram (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's reliable also. But what it says is not absurd nor extraordinary claims, and there's very few sources about this. Thanks for the argument btw, you exposed a bit of mixing up and helped me improve the article (my intention was not siding by conveying that the surname is "Walloon" or "Flemish", but I ended up using ambiguous terminology, since, regardless of our idea of the extent of Flanders and the location of "Faux", "Flemish" today is understood only in one specific way. I also wished to group the surnames from northeastern France---that have very likely the same source as the Belgian ones--in one single group. "Low Countires" or the maybe anachronistic "Burgundian Netherlands" was the word I was looking for).

While maybe there was a broader application of "Flemings" in England etc., you are right about the real meaning of "Flanders", and though the most important city in the County of Flanders was in present-day Wallonia (Tournai), most of the latter (including Faulx-les-Tombes) never was, except for those 170 years of rule.

However, we know that another Faux (Court-St-Etienne) was in Brabant (and is today in Walloon Brabant), one in borderline Flanders (Wavrechain-sous-Faulx), and a few are in the French Ardennes and Pas-de-Calais (they were probably part of the County of Hainaut). There was also Folx-les-Caves, also in Brabant, and a Les Fawes in Liege. There could be more.

Another matter is the origin of the surname as such: it likely was first used in some city for somebody coming from Faux, someone who moved out. This and the very higher number of "Flemish" De Fauw/Defauw today (in respect to the number of Defaux, Faux, etc.) is probably why Browuer speaks of a "Flemish surname of Walloon origin".

All in all, saying the surname's origin is "Belgium" sounds nice. Again, thanks for your input.--Cassius Fury (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)