Talk:Wallonia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Identity concept

What is the 'identity concept' mentioned in the first paragraph and why was the old more informative first paragraph removed? 194.9.254.241 09:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of nonsense in the article now. It should cover the Walloon region of Belgium, which is of course not an "identity concept" but a real entity, as much as entities such as Texas, Bavaria or Wales. Any doubt about the authencity of an old Walloon region, etc., may be expressed in the "History" section.

Walloon Region should be the page where we talk about... Walloon Region. But you're correct there is a lot of nonsense in that page. I will try to make a big clean upDavid Descamps 08:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Facts on politicization of press

After every change in the board of administration, one can find articles in the press with the political color of every individual administrator. The fact on Télé-Bruxelels was confirmed to me by both its then editor in chief, and by a delegate of the association of professional french-speaking belgian journalists. I guess it is not difficult at all toi have it also confirmed by other sources.

Rudy, thanks for your comment. However, I don't believe it is appropriate to write about "Tele-Bruxelles" in an article about Wallonia. You are probably aware that this TV channel has nothing to do with Wallonia. I understood that Brussels was not part of Wallonia. In addition, it is unfortunate that we can only take your experience for granted. It would be far better and would comply with Wikipedia policies (Cite your sources, No original research) if sources would be cited. Don't take it personally. I am sure what you added is correct, but I want that every reader can find authoritative sources to corroborate your findings. These sources should be cited. --Edcolins 21:18, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Right about Télé-Bruxelles, except (minor note) it are exactly the sme political parties deciding on it. But, on the whole, TLB is to be dropped here.

On the other hand, indépendant sources, well, at every nomination round, everybody can find in in many papers, the exact party affiliation or loyalty of every single new administrator. Pour des rappports critiques et de fond, le GERFA est connu.

Thanks again Rudy. I tried to integrate the indicated source. Now, where could we find a source confirming this:

"This sometimes translates in censorship. The dominant French-speaking parties are known to have tried, only a few years ago, to forbide the journalists of a public TV channel from interviewing Flemish politicians."

I am concerned by the rumour status of this statement, although again I am not denying it is probably true. --Edcolins 08:30, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I will check with a contact in the Association des Journalistes Professionelles, and in academia to see if there are more recent studies or other evidence on this.

About the board of directors from the RTB, is there any memeber that is NOT a political nomination?

Aside from that, should this paragraph on press not be moved to the article in the French-speaking Community as that is the appropriate one?

Yes, it is probably better to move the paragraph about the politicization of the media in French-speaking Belgium to the French Community of Belgium, you are right.

Regarding this paragraph, I have two questions however: First, what about the VRT, the Dutch-speaking Belgian public TV, (and what about the BBC by the way, I'll check that)? It would be nice to compare both, if it adds something to the discussion. Secondly, many Belgian politicians are in Boards of directors of bigs companies in Belgium (Elio Di Rupo is member of the Board of Directors of Dexia, one of the main banks in Belgium, for instance), however, this is not considered to be a politicization, why? --Edcolins 08:29, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

About VRT, I've been doing some verifications of things I supposed. Politisation apparently also exists, but, according to some people, it would be considerably less. Also, the resulting color at VRT would be less heavily dominated by one political color. Nevertheless, my personal appreciation is that its information is biaised with following 'systematic' bias:

# friendly towards the 'zuilenbestel' (one 'zuil' being the politico-syndicalo-mutual insurrance organisations);

# very indulgent towards the cost of our current de facto political system;

# clearly left leaning (80% of its journalists have said voting on green or red lists);

# very critical of free market enterprise, and very apologetic towards state initiative;

# strong unitaristic preference, strongly anti-Flemish (this has been openly and eplicitely acknowledged in the past by severel senior ex-journalists);

# conservative towards modernisation of our democratic institutions: against referenda, ...

The way this bias is 'implemented' is by often allowing 'subcontractors' spread the propaganda, without asking many (if any at all) critical questions, and even going so far as to allow these subcontractors (friendly academics, politicians, ...) to ell factual lies.

About politicians having mandates in private companies, this is 100X less then what's tought. Di Rupo is rather an exception. On the other hand many politicians, especailly members of parliament, ex-ministers with political mandates etc. have mandates in public companies and organisatins, or cumulate several 'fully paid & full-time mandates'. Di Rupo at one given moment was at the same time mayor of Charleroi, president of the PS, and member of the senate, totally three fat salaries that each required officially full-time work!

Get your facts right... Di Rupo is from Mons, not Charleroi.

Volcae and the name Wallonia

Please see Wikipedia article on them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcae The German pejorative term "die Welschen" refers generally to Italians, but is derived from Volcae. In a broader sense it refers to Romance-language speaking peoples. The Walnuss (walnut) comes to Germany from Italy; its name refers to its origins among the "Welschen." I believe the Germanic contact with the Volcae was made when the Volcae lived in Italy.

No. Its is also actual for the Walloons beacause the original wpord is (in old German Walah). See the WP in French to Wallonia.

José Fontaine (my real name on WP in french), but I want to use this name also here.

Cinema

The section on cinema needs a good cleanup. I've already started correcting the grammar, but at times I don't even understand what is meant. The content itself could be improved as well. --Pauline7 16:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

"...with a high unemployment rate of up to 20 percent in some regions."

This statement does not cite its source, it is true that there are regions with a very high unemployment rate but it really needs to be verifiable. Cite your sources 217.136.184.180 07:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is up to 30 percent in some towns in the region of Mons. [1] David Descamps 15:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Degrelle?

Why not include something on the man who fought very hard for an independant Wallonia? Léon Degrelle. Any one else think so? Jtflood1976 18:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Jtflood1976

Territory of Wallonia

A user think Wallonia is not the same thing as Walloon Region, as the former would only be a part of the latter. Can anyone find a source for such a statement ? Obviously, it is all but correct as Wallonia is the usual name for the Region (like Italy is the short name for the Italian Republic), look at the OFFICIAL website of the Region. Stephane.dohet (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Stephane, I do not think it is a good idea to try to push your POV on WP:en after it failed on WP:fr. This debate already happened there, and even you cannot deny that although the word Wallonie is used for various reasons (easier, political agenda,...) as a short version of Région Wallonne, it is not the same thing, as Wallonia does not include the german speaking part of Belgium while the Walloon Region does. Bradipus (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not MY POV, it's actual truth. Reading the French-speaking Wikipedia could let think what you say is true, but it's not. No one sourced Wallonia is different from Walloon Region, and there is - until now - no source which prooves the German-speaking Community is not a part of Wallonia. THAT is a POV pushed by Lebob et al, but he never sourced it. What I want is removal of such misinformation, or at least various trusted sources for such a POV. Stephane.dohet (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Stéphane, according to fr:Wallonie, the word Wallonie can be traced to 1844, and according to fr:Notion de la Wallonie au XVIIe siècle, traces of the concept can be found in the 17th century. I find it very hard to believe that Wallonia, that in those senses may mean a territory where a walloon language or french is spoken, just coïncidentally matches with a political creation that can be dated of the sixties. Besides, you just cannot seriously include in Wallonia the dutch speaking territories, nor can you seriously assert that Fourons is not part of Wallonia (in the historical sense).

If there are persons who think that this article must exist, it is specifically because they think the concept is not the same as Walloon Region. If you think Wallonia and Wallon Region aere the same, well then stop pushing your POV in this article and ask for the deletion of it. Bradipus (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we better have Walloon Region redirecting to this page, as the rule says : use the most common name in English. And AFAIK Wallonia is more widely used than the official "Walloon Region".

If some people think Wallonia is a different concept than Walloon Region, they should offer us some sources to back that. We still lack a source which would tell us "Wallonia is a part of the WR"... Til now, I read history books called "History of Wallonia" where Wallonia means WR, and where German-speaking areas are considered Walloon (as any map of Wallonia would show you).

As for all countries, Walloon borders moved. Today and since 1925, German-speaking cantons are part of Wallonia, and today Fourons are no more part of Wallonia (saying "occupied by Flanders" is POV). Tomorrow, the German-speaking Community could leave Wallonia and become the 4th Region of federal Belgium, but til that day it remains Walloon. Stephane.dohet (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, why do you start on Wikipedia (en) a battle you have already lost on Wikipedia (fr)? I don't think we need sources to simply show things that mere common sense makes obvious: the Walloon Region is a political concept and a legal boy that has a territory on whiich it excercises the comptenteces that the Belgian Constitution grants to the body. Even if I can agree that the Walloon Region is often (but mistakenly) referred to as Wallonia it remains nevertheless very obvious that Wallonia is historically something very different. And since you referred to the German speaking Community of Belgium, it is clear that this Community is part of the Walloon Region, depends from the Walloon Region (although with a particular status, notably with respect to tutelage over the municiaplities) for some matters but is not (and, by the way, has never been) part of Wallonia. And this principle has been clearly assessed by its Prime Minister Karl-Heinz Lambertz. The fact is that today Walloon Region includes territories that have never been Walloon in the the historic meaning of this word. This is the reason why a clear disctinction must be made and kept between Walloon Region and Wallonia, including on Wikipedia (en). Doing it in another way could aonly lead to breach the agreement that had be reched with great difficulties on Wikipedia (fr). I am not sure you have anything to win from this. --Lebob-BE (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, exactly because he lost that battle on WP:fr, much like these insertions in article about localities, for which I am just too tired to fight about. But in this article, Stephane is just going too far (but we know from experience that walloon activists do not know where to stop).

Let me put this clearly Stephane: people have created this article as a separate concept from the Walloon Region. You sole source for denying this are politicians from the Walloon Region talking about Wallonia when they refer to the Region. Well that's not good enough. Bradipus (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not good enough ? Dozens of official, historical, encyclopedical sources versus an unsourced POV from Lebob and David Descamps (you know, the one who created the Walloon Region page, the same one who publicly states Tournai is a Flemish town and not a Walloon one) ? You cannot be serious. It is not because Karl-Heinz Lambertz and the German speakers think they are not living in Wallonia that it would be true. It is a POV that was once written in the French version of the page, but disappeared with the splitting of the page. I totally agree to have a page on Wallonia which would have a chapter on the identity feelings, and especially on the feelings of the German-speaking inhabitants of Wallonia. But no one can serioulsy say they are not part of Wallonia, without a valid source. Lebob said "I don't think we need sources to simply show things that mere common sense makes obvious". The problem is that it's not obvious : it's false. The Walloon Region is the government of Wallonia, it has been so since the creation of the WR. And the German-speaking cantons are part of Wallonia since 1925, all history books say that. I don't care about the agreement reached on the French wikipedia : it has never been respected for a start. Anyway, it would be weird to have a page saying "two and two makes five" because such an agreement was reached ! Don't you think valid sources, especially from an official site like the Walloon Region, are more important ? Stephane.dohet (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Let us take one of your "sources": Region's website. On top of the page, you can read....Walloon Region. QED.

You do not have a serious source who explicitely says that Walloonia = Walloon Region, you only have sources who are using walloon, wallonia,... as a shorter version of Walloon Region (plus of course the fact that authorities of the Region are pushing their agenda that does not please the authorities of the German speaking community who never were walloon).

You never answered my questions regarding the german speaking community. You never answered my questions re people in Fourons (they are not walloon, these guys, hu? José Happart is not walloon, hu?).

Bottomline is this: this article exist. Stop trying to destroy it, or create a request for deletion. Bradipus (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

On the same website you have a link "Discover Wallonia", with links to maps of Wallonia which clearly show German-speaking areas are part of Wallonia. The Encyclopedia Universalis and Encyclopedia Britannica, the Larousse dictionnary have article on Wallonia which states the area is 16 844 sq. km (the same as the WR). Here is another official site. You can even read "Histoire de la Wallonie" from Bruno Demoulin which is very informative.

Why would not Happart be a Walloon ? Because he was mayor for a Flemish town, formerly Walloon ? You seem to be confused in the timeline. Fourons is no more in Wallonia since 1963. Get your facts right. And you still have to show us valid sources for your POV.

This article exists, and shall exist. But the page Walloon Region should merge and then redirect to this one. There is no reason to have two pages speaking of the same concept. Stephane.dohet (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question regarding the german speaking community. They answer it on their website: they do not mention Wallonia. Indeed, they are not walloon, although they are in the Walloon Region.

Fourons....this is getting hilarious, you do not know any more how to get out of the trap, mmh? Fourons is not in the Walloon Region, so according to your POV, people cannot be walloon there. If Wallonia and the Wallon Region are the same, then all that is not in the Walloon Region cannot be walloon, it is a simple as that. Bradipus (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You try to hide your lack of sources under your questions. But how can you explain German speakers are not Walloon if they live in the Walloon Region ? How is it possible your are not intellectually able to understand that, WR and Wallonia are the same thing, like France and the French Republic, Italy and the Italian Republic... I really don't know how to put it simplier for you to understand. Who said that all that is not in the WR cannot be Walloon ? I don't stop being Walloon when I go to Brussels, Flanders, France or America. Can you understand there are Walloon people in Fourons, I mean people who see themselves as Walloon although they live in a present day Flemish town ? In the same way, there are Walloon people, I mean people living in Wallonia, or in the Walloon Region if it is easier for you to understand, who don't see themselves as Walloons. But whatever they think, they live in Wallonia, as long as their municipalities lie in the territory of the Region.

Well this is getting boring if you don't want to get it. And you still have to show us valid sources for your POV that say Wallonia is different from the Walloon Region. I suggest you read some books on the question. Stephane.dohet (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is getting terribly boring. You are getting as interesting as José :-o You do not have one single valid relevant source (the important words here are valid and relevant), but if you feel comfortable about it, go ahead and make a Rfd on this article. But stop trying to sneak you POV in it. One of the meanings of Wallonia is Walloon Region, but Wallonia existed before the Walloon Region, and Wallonia has thus evidently meanings than the Walloon Region, period and <plonk> Bradipus (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It must be the first time I read somewhere that the inhabitants from Eupen and Sankt Vith became Walloon in 1925. No serious historian even thought to write this but Stéphane Dohet did not hesitate to do it! Unbelievable! There was a strong majority in these two areas for not even feel Belgian and yet you write they became Walloon in 1925. At a time where Wallonia had not clear borders (or at least most people would have said that the boundaries of Wallonia would rather fit with the area where Walloon was spoken (which includes a few French an Luxmbourgish municipalities)) and where the Walloon Region did not even exist. The only one who claimed in that region to be Walloon where the inhabitants of Malmedy (Walloon club founded in 1895 if I remember well, thus at a time where this concept was not even comminly used in Belgium) and Waimes. And now you are trying to make us believe the inhabitants of Eupen and Sankt Vith are Walloon because they belong to Wallonia (in fac the Walloon Region)? Try to make a little trip to let's say, Weywertz, go to a cafe and have a couple of beers with the inhabitants and then try to explain seriously they are Walloon. Maybe you will survive long time enough to make us share your conclusions. --Lebob-BE (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bah, it is very simple: the Walloon Region exists since the late sixties, it was the result of political compromises, so it is a political entity whose territory is close to matching what most people understand when they talk about Wallonia, but it does not mean there is an identity with the concept of Wallonia, as the mere fact of the creation of this page (Wallonia or fr:Wallonie) shows.

People like Stepahne or José have a political agenda of transforming somehow the Walloon Region into something that looks more like a country, a bit like what the flemish achieved. To get there they need to create a national feeling and they want to have that trough inventing a Walloon culture (hence their strange obsession to categorise any french speaking artist as a Walloon artist) that somehow would be common to the whole Region. One of the things they do to achieve that (and what other activists do) is to pretend that the Wallon Region and Wallonia are the same thing, pretend the German speaking community does not exist, forget the municipalities who are not part of the Walloon Region, but who probably strongly feel they are part of Wallonia and municipalities who are part of the Walloon Region but were never in Wallonia. Bradipus (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Related issue

I have asked List of municipalities in Wallonia to be renamed into List of municipalities of the Walloon Region. Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves#December 31, 2007 and Talk:List of municipalities in Wallonia#Requested move (2) if you want to participate to this discussion who is connected with this one. Bradipus (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)