Talk:Wallonia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merger proposal

As the two pages speak of the same concept, I propose to merge the two in a page called Wallonia(as it is the usual, common, popular name of the region), and change Walloon Region as a redirect, as we do for official names of political entities. Stephane.dohet (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

They are not about the same concept, like Flanders and Flemish Region are two different things. The Walloon Region exists since the sixties, Wallonia exist since centuries. The territory is not the same, as Wallonia is a historical concept linked to the language (latin, walloon or french). The Walloon Region does include the German speaking territories of Belgium who were never walloon. There are other differences (such as Fourons or Mouscron) in territory who are the result of territorial negociations.

The issue might appear not important, but it is a serious one: a certain regional activism shares a political agenda that is trying to merge these concepts. But the german speaking community for instance, who is in the Walloon Region, refuses these assimilation attempts. Their answer is on their website: they do not mention Wallonia. Indeed, they are not walloon, although they are in the Walloon Region.

I am myself neither walloon, nor in the Walloon Region, but people created this article because they felt very strongly about this, and history is on their side (a historical concept and a political creation of the 20th century cannot match). The article is probably still to be developped, there is no reason they should not have time to do this. Bradipus (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Same as Bradipus… Wallonia is a concept of the Walloon movement… it was invented in 19th century as a romanesque territory and as a "project of society". That concept the Walloon Movement fight for lead to federalisation of Belgium and the creation of Walloon Region. But Walloon Region is a political and administrative region, not that "romanesque territory" or "project of society". This is recognized even in wallingant litterature, for example the Destatte's book on Walloon identity. David Descamps (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason tomerge these two pages. On the contrary, they need to be kept distinct at all costs. The Walloon Region is a well defined legal body with administrative and political competences, responsibilities and territory as provided by the Belgian Constitution. On the other hand Wallonia is a vague concept that has as many definitions as users and that might refer to many other concepts based on the language, the culture, the history or even on a polical approach, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to have a definition of Wallonia on which everyone can agree. While some will confuse (purposely or not) Walloon Region and Wallonia others make a clear distinction between them. Keep separate entries for both concepts will reflect this and, furthermore, allow readers that are not familiarised with the subtilities of Belgium to learn more about this intriguing country. --Lebob-BE (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

All this is quite irrelevant and as usual unsourced. Wallonia has in 2008 a precise sense, it means the territory of the Walloon Region. As WP requests we have to use the most common name for naming an article. In this case, the most common name is Wallonia, as the official website of the Region www.wallonie.be (sic) invites us to Discover Wallonia, or an independent public service center show us Public authorities in Wallonia, or see the Environmental Portal of Wallonia, or the Highways of Wallonia, or the Union of Cities and Municipalities of Wallonia which works for all the 262 Walloon municipalities ; other examples of a daily usage of Wallonia : [1], [2], [3], this one has a precise map of Wallonia, [4], the CIA world factbook knows what is Wallonia, ...

Why would Wallonia be the only political entity in the world forbidden to use its usual name ? Stephane.dohet (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You want to play the same little game you did on WP:FR? I had the decency to not modify problematic pages since you and your master are blocked. You don't have that decency on WP:EN, so I won't have it anymore anywhere. Nobody said Wallonia was not used to name Walloon Region, we said that the actual article Wallonia is about the concept of Walloon Movement and Walloon Region about Walloon Region… The concept of disambiguation is not for the birds.David Descamps (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it, your POV on Wallonia is unsourced and should not be on the Wallonia page but on the Walloon Movement one. When someone clicks on Wallonia do you REALLY think he wants to learn about how Walloon Movement activists thought Wallonia, or more simply to learn more about the southern region of Belgium ?

You try to damage the quality level of Walloon articles in this wikipedia as you did on the French one. Could you discuss a little more and bring sources to your claims ? Stephane.dohet (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Website of the CRISP is very interesting as it clearly shows that until the end of the 19th century there was no actual Walloon feeling in Belgium and that this "Walloon feeling" (which would eventually lead to the creation of the Walloon Region) has been built essentially as a reaction against the Flemish movement that was perceived as a threat. But it has taken more than a century to artificially create something that did not exist, i.e. the feeling to belong to Wallonia. Furthermore this feeling is not still not shared by many inhabitants of the Walloon Region as, historically, they have never been Walloon. Please, Stéphane, continue to feed us with sources like this one, we appreciate it. Indeed they perfectly show what Bradipus, David Descamps (and many others on Wikipedia (fr)) have writen since more than one year and that you refuse to hear (il n'y a de pire sourd...). You also have the good idea to cite the CIA's factbook. Didn't you notice that it contains a map where the word Wallonia indeed appears but without any boundary clearly shown. You know, those guys of the CIA may do some mistake at times but they aren't completely stupid. If they refrained from clearing indicating the limits of Wallonia on that map it is because they perfectly know it is something absolutely impossible since no legal provision (international treaty, constitution, law) defines theses borders. Wallonia is not a country nor a Region. I have no problem that the word Wallonia is used as a common wording when speaking about the Walloon Region (as it is indeed becoming usual in some circles) but if you want to make a valuable encyclopedic work you need to make a clear distinction between Wallonia and Walloon Region. If you do not you are just trying to push forward a (very) politically oriented POV that has not its place on Wikipedia. But you're of course free to create your own on-line encyclopedia where you (and your friends) will be free to put all want you want. For instance Wallonipedia would be a perfect title for this. BTW the only one who damages the quality level of Wikipedia is you. And I am not ready to let you do on Wikipedia (en) what you did on Wikiepdia (fr). --Lebob-BE (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest to the people who disagree with this merger, and who obviously share the view that Wallonia and Walloon Region are 2 different things, to quickly make that point clear as well

• on Talk:List of municipalities in Wallonia, where the only person to oppose the renaming into List of municipalities of the Walloon Region is of course Stephane, and
• on Talk:List of municipalities of the Flemish Region where Stephane proposes to rename the article into List of municipalities in Flanders (don't tell me it doesn't make sense, I know it, it is just another WP:POINT of Stephane, but this one is indeed quite astonishing).

Bradipus (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like to contribute as an IP but my name is José Fontaine (user on the french WP). I think that there are arguments in favour of the point of view of S.Dohet and arguments in favour of these of Lebob, Bradipus, David Descamps. The word Wallonia is frequently used on the official sites of the Walloon Region and also in the day life. The word Wallonia is not (not only!!!) a political concept of the walloon movement (for instance the company which was the only company which distributed as far as 2006 the electricity in Wallonia wrote a letter to the inhabitants of Wallonia). The international treaty on the river Meuse wrote the word Wallonia on the map linked to the treaty etc. But nethertheless, there is a difference between Wallonia and Walloon Region (because the little minority who is speaking german and some other discussions). This difference is not a huge difference! So I think that the best thing is the agreement we found on the WP in french, i.e. to employ the two concepts. And for instance and principally also: to write that Wallonia is the word generally used in order to name the territory of the Walloon Region. I am in favour of the logical structure of the WP in french beacause the worst agreement is better than the war. If we don't agree that becomes ridiculous. 217.136.31.78 (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (José Fontaine)

There is a policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which clearly helps to find the most widely used name for an article. First of all, see what other encyclopedias do. Encarta has a specific article on Wallonia, speaking of the Region not of a WM concept. Britannica also has such an article. None of them has an article on the WR which would be different from Wallonia. The convention proposes to search on the US GNS site. If we enter "Walloon Region" or "Wallonia" we find this page where the two terms are considered synonymous, Wallonia being the short form of Walloon Region.

LOL. According to Encarta, "Wallonia, administrative and language region in southern Belgium(...)". And language? So these guys do not know about the german community? Oh yes, they do: "Wallonia is inhabited predominantly by a French-speaking people known as Walloons. There is also a small German-speaking minority that lives on the eastern edge of the region...and who are dus not walloons, thanks for the confirmation. Bradipus (talk)

Never heard of national minorities ? German-speakers are not ethnically Walloons, but are Walloon citizens. So you will, at last, agree that Wallonia has the same territory as the Walloon Region ? So we can go forward by merging the two articles ! Stephane.dohet (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely what I try to teach to my opponents, it's NPOV to have Wallonia as a short form of Walloon Region, that is the most widely used name for the Region. Doing otherwise would be a breach of Wikipedias's conventions : we're here to write about what exists, not about personnal POV, that would be WP:NOR.

Ethnically walloons? OMG. Oh well, I guess this is a point where flemish and walloon extremists will agree: they will invent ethnic groups. I guess it is because you know you have lost the argument here, as you have lost it on WP:fr, that you are trying little destabilisation tactics such as putting "Bradipus accepts Wallonia is the WR, at last" as a comment to your edition. Please refrain from doing this. This is not an appropriate way to discuss. This is the second incident with you in this discussion, next time I will escalate the issue you represent to another level. Bradipus (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Buth what ? It's hard to understand your POV, once you accept what I and Encarta say, with a small difference with identity of Walloon German-speakers and now you step back ? And it's me who has an unappropriate way to discuss ? Stephane.dohet (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But where the heck did I say I accepted what Encarta says? I specifically pointed this sentence in Encarta that doesn't make sense ("Wallonia, administrative and language region in southern Belgium(...)") ot that is in any case mixing two meanings of Wallonia: the administrative meaning, which is the Walloon Region, and the language meaning, which refers to the historical Wallonia, in the sense of a territory where latin, then walloon, then franch was spoken. Bradipus (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I can't understand you. But who are you to say Encarta articles don't make sense ? I don't think Encarta mixes anything, but you are unable to grasp what Wallonia is, don't blame it on others, but provide us some real sources for your POV, this discussion is getting too long as no progress is made. Stephane.dohet (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephane, I am sorry to spoil your dreams, but you are the one who asks for a merger of 2 articles, so it is up to you to bring sources. Let me explain you something very simple: you are saying Wallonia and Walloon Region are exactly the same thing, while we know that the word Wallonia is centuries old and that the Walloon Region is some 40 years old.

So you should provide clear sources who say that Walloon Region is refering to exactly the same thing as each past occurrence of the word Wallonia (good luck, as Wallonia can be found, according to José, in the 12th century). And you do not have that, only a lot of sources who are using Wallonia in one of its senses.

Encarta provides good medium level stuff for english readers, but the fact is that Encarta is not only, as I indicated, mixing concepts but also contradicting himself, as in the same paragraph, Wallonia is a language region (that is where they speak of Wallonia, in the linguistic sense, because I cannnot see in the Constitution any place where the Region is defined in terms of language) and a place where german speaking people live (that is where they speak of the Region, but mix up with Wallonia when they say inhabitants of the germans speaking area are not walloon).

On the word walloon as well they make the confusion. Walloon can mean either inhabitant of Wallonia/person who is connected with the walloon culture, or inhabitant of the Walloon Region. When they say german speaking people are not walloon, they refer to the first sense, of course. Because if they refered to the second sense, it would mean that these people would not be citizens of the Walloon Region and would have no voting right. This is what you would achieve if you say that Wallonia = Walloon Region. Bradipus (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bradipus, if you want to create an article on all these meanings of Wallonia you think they exist, go ahead. Create Wallonia (historical region) or Wallonia (French-speaking region) if you think you have enough material to put inthere. But you cannot put on the side of the road all these encyclopedias, dictionnaries, official websites, daily newspapers, advertisemnts, border signs which tell us that in 2008 Wallonia is the short form for Walloon Region (this region wouldn't be Wallooon if she wasn't built on Wallonia). I agree that the territory of Wallonia has changed with years, that happens to every country, but do they change their country's name each time a portion of territory is added or removed ? Francs is still France with or without Alsace-Lorraine, Ireland is still Ireland without Northern Ireland...

I repeat, I have bring a lot of sources. Can you do the same for your POV ? Stephane.dohet (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The article exists, it is this one. Wallonia is not a country!!! It is the administrative result of compromises. You provide no source, you provide material where Wallonia is used to mean Walloon Region, but nobody denies the fact that Wallonia is used as a short version of Walloon Region. Your reasoning is doing circles, while I provided you with sources in Talk:List of municipalities in Wallonia who show that also in the Walloon movement, the construction of the Walloon Region based on provinces, and not on the then territoy of Wallonia, has created, and still is, an issue in the movement.

Bottomline is that sources were provided, specifically on Talk:List of municipalities in Wallonia and you pretend here they do not exist, so either you cannot read or you lie. You never provided any firm source supporting your POV, and I am getting tired of this. Because I know that an activist such as you will keep on pushing his POV until something is done about it. Bradipus (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Firs of all you shouldn't say I lie or I am an activist. If you cannot have an argument, you shouldn't make ad hominem attacks. Play the ball, not the player.

Secondly, as I have stated on Talk:List of municipalities in Wallonia, I have not pretended yout sources don't exist. I just said they were irrelevant, as they were historical sources, what we need is sources for present-day Wallonia. Now this : above you say "nobody denies the fact that Wallonia is used as a short version of Walloon Region". That's precisely the point of the debate. If Wallonia is the short version of Walloon Region (as you just said), then the page Walloon Region should be merged with Wallonia, as we are told by WP conventions to use the shortest name, the most widely knwon name of a subject. And here, that's the point. Of course, you are free to put in the article that some people think Wallonia is different from the Region, with the sources you provided in the municipalities' talk page. That's a way to achieve NPOV. Stephane.dohet (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephane, you specifically said hereabove "I have bring a lot of sources. Can you do the same for your POV". So you were again pretending you had brought sources and that I had not, while sources were brought to you. So what can be the conclusion? If I assume good faith, it means you cannot read, but there is another branche in the alternative, that I mentionned.

Again this is going nowhere, the majority of the people posting here agree with me, you are all alone in your POV. Even José Fontaine says that "there is no huge difference between Wallonia and Walloon Region" which means that there is a difference. Bradipus (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If José thinks Wallonia is not the Walloon Region, it's his own POV. Again, you are going against what is stated in all encyclopedias, that Wallonia means the Walloon Region, it's its short name. Maybe other people may think that it's two different concepts, but all sources lead to what I meant upwards. You have brought sources that say some people think they are different concepts, what we need here is an official source that would say Wallonia is a part of the Walloon Region. Still waiting for this one. Stephane.dohet (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no huge difference between Wallonia and Walloon Region. By comparison with an american state, Wallonia has less competences (for instance Justice), but also more (treaty-making power without - de facto - any possibility of veto of the federal State, the law voted by the walloon parliament is as strong as the law voted by the belgian parliament and that is a sort of confederalism). No text is saying that Wallonia is a country or a nation but Wallonia is much more than an administrativ entity, she is a political one. And for Charles-Etienne Lagasse there is no difference between a federal State which is the result of a federation (historically built by Sates who wanted to bea federal State: e pluribus unum), and a federal State wich is the result of a fragmentation of an united State ( whose the fragmented parties are federated: I can give the exact quotation). So: more than an american state but also less, more than an administrativ entity; but no nation nor country nethertheless not far from these concepts. Two page or one page? On Wp-fr this compromise is good (two pages). Some people are thinking that Wallonia is not only a legal community, some people are thinking that Wallonia is only a part of of a coutry founded on only legal and political foundations. José Fontaine 11:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.246.157 (talk)

Teach? You want to teach us something? Bradipus (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems you miss a lot of information about this subject, as demonstrated upwards. Stephane.dohet (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if a consensus was won on another language WP, as we are here on the English WP, we are not held by others' agreements. Furthermore, I don't think we should take an agreement that go against daily life for LAW. If a consensus comes with "Earth is flat" that doesn't mean it is so, bear that in mind. It's a pity I am blocked on the French wikipedia, because I'd like to publicly denounce this so-called agreement, which has never been truly applied. Stephane.dohet (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to change the agreement on WP:fr and I maintain this position. The present discussion on the WP:en are creating difficulties on WP:fr. The question is : who are making really all these difficulties? I would not say that it is Stephane Dohet. The p Wallonie was changed on WP:fr by David Descamps but Mogador restored the original version. Who is the source of all these difficulties existing for more 18 month? My name is José Fontaine but I have no identification on Wp-en because my english is too bad. 217.136.31.78 (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No one said agreements were set in the stone, José. David Descamps shows us that agreement was a bad one, as it solved nothing, and as we see today, he's trying again to push his POV on the French WP. Stephane.dohet (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A consensus was settled down on WP:FR in talk pages, Fontaine and Stephane.dohet (aka Ashritter) have been part of it. They agreed but never allowed someone to put that consensus in articles. Now, they complained I tried to do it. They play with the fact that the Wallonia is polysemic… They accuse me to be POV as tens of contributors complained about them the same way on french-speaking wikipedia. David Descamps (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The real consensus was this sentence (a way to implement the agreement): Wallonie désigne généralement le territoire régi par la Région wallonne, Wallonia is generally the name of the territory governed by the Walloon Region. I agree with Stephane and there are many contributors on the Wp-fr who are thinking that this whole discussion is deeply ridiculous. What is your goal, David? There is only ONE signification for Wallonia. Are you trying to hinder to speak about Wallonia? Here and on the WP-fr? The agreement which is solid on WP-fr is this sentence about the territory and David is not right to suppress this sentence. It is the reason why I am asking on not change the text on WP: fr. On WP:en it is an other thing. José Fontaine 217.136.217.34 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Stéphane Dohet proposed the merge because Wallonia word is ambiguous : it refers to some identity concept (this page) and to institutionnal region (Walloon region). I invite him to read Wikipedia:Disambiguation page. His proposal is contrary to that policy. He should also mind that Wallonia refers too to French-speaking language area. His nonsense should lead him to propose to merge that too. David Descamps (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, specify where my proposal is contrary to the disambiguation convention. You should not mix Wallonia with the French-speaking region, one of the two language areas of Wallonia, that would be POV. And you are talking about nonsense... Stephane.dohet (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephane, please STOP putting "still waiting for a source" as comment to your edits. You have been given sources, this is getting insulting.

As far as sources are concerned, you are the one who asks for a merger based on information that is uncourced, you should provide sources. Even José says that "there is no huge difference between Wallonia and Walloon Region", which means there is a difference.

At least he accepts certain facts that even you cannot contradict, but that you are trying to ignore, such as the german-speaking community, who was never part of Wallonia (please see the Encarta you were referring to, and who says people from that community are not walloon).

You haven't brought one single valid argument for your request for rename. Wallonia and Walloon Region are 2 different things, even if Wallonia is regularly used as a metonymy for the Region. The mere fact that Wallonia is used to talk about the Region must be accepted (although we should probably document somewhere the fact that this use is also a political strategy), but it does not mean it is the sole sense. Bradipus (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The official website of Belgian Senate : [5] Wallonia = French-speaking language area. David Descamps (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, Stephane, Encarta is a very good illustration of what I said about the fact that 2 concepts can be merged in a less advanced encyclopedia. The english Encarta has an article about Wallonia that is a strange mix between Wallonia and Walloon Region (where it is explained that citizens of the Walloon Region living in the German speaking community are not walloon!). Encarta in franch is a bit more developped: there are two article, Wallonia and Walloon Region. QED. Bradipus (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not huge difference it is the same as in Le Cid when Chimène says I don't hate you which means I love you. Not huge means a small difference or even a very small difference, perhaps smaller than we think. If this difference were not so small no so long discussions about that... José Fontaine 80.200.141.40 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is it exactly on that page, David ? I don't see it. Stephane.dohet (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read the French Encarta articles speak of the same thing (Wallonia has 5 provinces, and is the basis of the Walloon Region), they have just a specific article for the WR, seen as the political body governing Wallonia than a totally different thing. By the way their "Wallonie" article is far more NPOV than the present Wikipedia one. Of course the English article is more concise, and hold on one article. Nothing new under the sun, and no proof that Wallonia has a different territory than the WR. Stephane.dohet (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The important thing is not that Wallonie mentions the provinces, but that the two concepts, Wallonie and Région wallonne are clearly separated in 2 different articles and, indeed, that the article about the region is specifically about the political entity.

This confirms that Wallonia and Wallon Region are not the same thing.

End of the discussion, thank you for this confirmation that the merger is not necessary. Bradipus (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting double-speech. So when there is ONE article in the English Encarta, it is a less developped encyclopedia, but when there are TWO articles in the French Encarta, it's the end of the talk ??? Can I say that you are a bit inconsistent ?

As we are stuck in the middle of nowhere, can I make a proposal ? We could do like Encarta does, and stay with two articles, one, Wallonia, which would speak of the land, history, geography, people, and the other Walloon Region which would speak of the political body created in 1980, with administration issues ? That would be a good compromise ? Stephane.dohet (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the first time I said indeed that the reason for which there was only one article in the Encarta in english (and other encyclopedias not in french or in dutch) is that they are at a lesser development level on the subject. The fact that the Encarta in french has two articles on the subjet is the demonstration of this. I do not see where the inconsistency is.

It's just in the fact that the encyclopedia is "well developped" when it follows your POV. BTW, French Encarta is written from France, not Belgium, and so I would understand if they didn't get it that Wallonia and Walloon Region was the same territory. Stephane.dohet (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as your compromise is concerned: well, this is something you should dicuss with the authors of the article, which I am not really. But I can already tell you that you should refrain from or at least temperate your point of view according to which Wallonia and the Region have the same territory. Understand me correctly: when even Encarta says that a citizen of the region living in the german-speaking community is not walloon, it means that also today, the 2 have not the same territory. It may well be that at some points the meaning Wallonia-Walloon Region absorbs all the other, but it is not yet the case. Bradipus (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny you still don't understand that (and as said above French people writing Encarta --and some Belgians as I have experienced since I am on Wikipedias-- don't know the specificities of Belgium). German-speakers don't feel Walloons. That's a thing I can understand. But are they or not Walloons, that's a different matter. As they live in the Walloon Region, they are Walloons, aren't they ? So It seems the well developped Encarta misses a thing or two here. Anyway all official sources speak of Wallonia as a territory of 16844 sq. km, including German-speaking community. Stephane.dohet (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny, Encarta in english was brought by you in the discussion, I told you it contained unclear and ambiguous information, and you told me I was wrong. Now you are saying the same thing because you do not like that bit of information they give. On the other hand the Encarta in french is pretty good and pretty exact. Bradipus (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to support Bradipus and others. Both article MUST be kept distinct. Wallonia is different of the Walloon Region and requires a separate article. For example the Walloon Region include Eupen which is of course not a city of Wallonia. The Walloon Region is just as distinct of Wallonia that the the Brussels-Capital Region is distinct of Brussels. Vb 13:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.201.96 (talk)

TOTALLY CONFUSED

Is the Walloon region more than Wallonia? If so, what? What I have heard before is that Belgium is divided into Flanders and Wallonia and that Brussels is part og Flanders, although it is a separate region, so that Flanders is the Flemish region + Brussels. That leaves us with Wallonia as the remaing area of Belgium, If the Wallon region is more than Wallonia, parts of the region must be in Flanders, right? Is Brussels part of the Walloon region? I thought it was a separate region? I do not understand this. --Oddeivind (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't wory, you are not the only one to be confused. In fact Brussels is landlocked within the territory of the Flemish Region, but has never been historically Flemish, even if its ihhabitant spoke a Flemish dialect. Nowadays, a majority of the inhabitants of Brussels speak French. As you wrote, there are indeed three distinct regions in Belgium, i.e. the Flemish Region, the Walloon Region and the Region of Brussels. The territory of the Walloon Region is indeed more than wallonia, at least if you consider that Wallonia is the area where the Walloon language was spoken. Indeed, the Walloon Region includes part of of the area where walloon was historically spoken (but not the part that is located in France) and also parts of Belgium where other roman dialects where spoken (e.g. in South of Belgium - Gaume). Furthermore, the Walloon Region also includes the territory of the German-speaking Community of Belgium wich, historically has never been walloon. However, the territory of the Walloon Regions does not include any part of the Flemish Region. And Brussels is not part of the walloon Region as it is a disctinct Region. --Lebob-BE (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To try to keep it simple. Region and Communities are official insitutions with official names. They do exist now, but they aren't that old (1983 I think). Flemish Community use the term Flanders to communicate as their name. And Walloon Region use the term Wallonia to communicate as their name. Flemish community has it's parliament and goverment in Brussels, but their competences on the area covered by the Region of Bruxelles-Capital are actually very limited (shool and sport and that's pretty much it). Flemish don't really wanna hear about Flemish Region and for them Bruxelles is part of Flanders. French speeker from the Walloon Region or the Bruxelles Region don't wanna hear about the French speaking community and for them Bruxelles is a completely separated area from Flanders. Basically for dutch speakers Brussels is part of Flanders, for French speakers it is not. And that's pretty much why Belgium still exist. Now, practically, if you go there on the ground, you'll see that Belgium is divided in 4. Brussels Region, Flemish Region, Walloon Region and German Community. The limit of the Brussels Region is visible, when you cross it the price of the public transportation changes, the road changes, ... Basically you see it (I crossed it every day for 9 years now you can trust me on that).. That's the present day view of it. As changes have happenend all the time in the last century, if you add history in the mix you'll see hundred of contradictory informations, by people who truelly believe what they say is correct. --Nicnac25 (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Latin Europe

Hello Wallonia/Archive 2! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map should be changed, to show the Wallonia is a part of Belgium. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Romance Belgium)

The short stub article Romance Belgium should be merged into this article.

Discussion

Approve. This is sufficient to be a section of the article, as it is a part of Wallonia (the Walloon language article even gives another name, "Romance Wallonia", as Germanic languages are also spoken in eastern Wallonia. Stephane.dohet (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

German languages are not spoken in Wallonia. They are spoken in the Walloon Region. This precisely proves that Wallonia and the Walloon Region are not the same. --Lebob-BE (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a sophistic reasonment. History books clearly state what Wallonia is. Let's just take "Histoire de la Wallonie" from Demoulin and Kupper on page 282. I translate "Nevertheless, Wallonia came out of [First world war, Note] conflict with a substantial gain of territory and population." Then the author cites the cantons of Eupen, Malmedy and Sankt-Vith. You can find same things in Hervé Hasquin's La Wallonie, son histoire. Stephane.dohet (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Also against. First, Romance Belgium is about a territory defined by dialectology, Wallonia is (not-so-clearly) defined by some nationalist groups. An article on wikipedia can't have two differents main subjects. Then, wa.wikipedia can't constitute a good reference as a wikipedia (especially since the main contributor is a single guy who invents new words for some artificial walloon language). Speculoos (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wallonia is not described by nationalist groups, but by historians (see above). Or by those who are in charge of its governement. What about the name of the Walloon Region administration : "Service public de Wallonie" (en. Civil Service of Wallonia) ? Pretty clear ! And for the German-speakers, the same thing. Stephane.dohet (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Did Wallonia sign the Treaty of Versailles for getting its territory and population substantially increased? In fact, at that time only Belgium got these increases in both population and territory. For Wallonia, this didn't change anything, since the canton of Malmedy was already Walloon albeit part of Germany till 1920. And the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles did not make the inhabitant of the cantons of Eupen and Sankt Vith become Walloon at all. Many did not even find themselves Belgian, and even less Walloon. The difference today is that they feel Belgian, but still not Walloon, although they are Walloon citizen (if there is something as a Walloon citizenship). I am sorry, but it is obvious that the authors you cite apply in 1920 a concept that was not existing at that time. And that still doesn't exist. --Lebob-BE (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to remind you but Wikipedia doesn't care what you think Wallonia is. Your POV is irrelevant. What count are relevant sources, like the history books above. And German-speakers may feel what they want or what they don't want, as long as thye are part of Wallonia/Walloon Region they are Walloons. Simple as that. Stephane.dohet (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

They have the Walloon citizenship, if this exists. But they are not Walloon. And, as you are the one who tries to impose his POV by all means, you have very conveniently forgotten the clear statement issued by Mr Lambertz who has clearly said that the inhabitants of the German speaking community of Belgium are not Walloon. Furthermore, they have never been, are still not and will probably never be in Wallonia. But they are on the territory of the Walloon Region. And please stop this useless discussion that you have already lost on wikiepedia (fr). --Lebob-BE (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can find history books saying Belgians fought Julius Caesar. Let's say Belgium exists since then. What count also is what sources say and what they are: First look at the introduction (and conclusion if there is one) to know what they aimed to do. Usually it is just some mix between Historiography and nationalism (that gives Romantic nationalism) Speculoos (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Walloons, Walloon citizens, that's the same thing. About Wallonia I have made myself clear on Talk:Wallonia (disambiguation). This discussion is not useless as you seem to still not understand what Wallonia is. Stephane.dohet (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

For Speculoos, Julius Caesar's Belgians are not present day Belgians. Here, we have a clear case of disambiguation. Stephane.dohet (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I will believe that Walloon citizenship exists the day I will see a Walloon pasport of identity cart. But as you know such things do not exist right now. And there is a strong likelyhood that when they will exist, Eupen and Sankt Vith will be German or Luxembourgish. --Lebob-BE (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We have indeed! :-D Speculoos (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be necessary to renew this discussion... José Fontaine (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A very strange way of thinking

It is very incomprehensible that Speculoos undid these interwiki links as, for instance, with the German word Wallonien or the Greek word el:Βαλλωνία. See here [6] and here [7]

He is maintaining the same interwiki links with Walloon Region. But, In many languages, Wallonia is synonymous of Walloon Region and maintaining a link between Βαλλωνία (or Wallonien in German etc.), and the words Walloon Region in all the languages of the world is a way to prove that Wallon Region is synonymous of Wallonia, which is not his goal as that is clear when you see his efforts on the french-speaking Wp. Which is his goal? The separation between Wallonia and Walloon Region. But it is impossible to destroy the authentic meaning of Wallonia. It is very interesting to discover that when you are among a great number of languages. If Speculoos wants to undo the link of synonymity between Wallonia and the Wallon Region he ought to change all the languages of the world. Is it possible? No. And firstly in french and in Wallonia where the word Wallonie (of course!), is used to name the Walloon region by everybody. The two pages (Walloon Region and Wallonia) have the same meaning even if it is actual that there is a little german minority (wich is enjoying its autonomy) in the east of the province of Liège. José Fontaine (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't base your assumptions on other wikipedias, except perhaps on featured articles. For information, you have been banned of fr.wikipedia because of your POV-pushing, especially for the synonymity of Wallonia and Walloon Region. How can an administrative and political region created in 1970-1980 can be synonym of some identitary region claimed since 1890? There is indeed a link between them, even some cause/effect relationship, but no synonymity. WP:SOAP, if you continue the bias you tried to do on fr.wp, I will ask to the admins here. Speculoos (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact is on other wikipedias Wallonia and Walloon Region are synonymous, as they have the same topic, and use the most widely known name, that is Wallonia. So, it's perfectly reasonable to have interwiki links on this page pointing towards Wallonien, Vallonia, Valonija... Let's not forget that your way of splitting the page Wallonia in two is also POV-pushing. Stephane.dohet (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How can an administrative and political region created in 1970-1980 can be some synonym of some identitary region claimed since 1890? Speculoos (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because this Region is a lot more than administrative and political, or because it has the same territory, the same symbols, the same name, the same history, the same people living on it. "Walloon Region" is just one of its official names, the most widely used name being WALLONIA. Stephane.dohet (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my! Thanks to you, I just got to learn that specialists about that, like Albert Henry or Destate are wrong. You hold the truth. And you assume your position, on what? On NOTHING! We should all blame the administrators of WP:FR who banned you, because I am just a silly POV-Pusher who dare to use academic references and attribute them when I contribute on WP. We should perhaps alert administrators of this wikipedia about my awful deeds. Speculoos (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)g thinking

You know sources have to be pertinent. Henry and Destatte could have said interesting things, which are on related articles BTW, but there are other sources more pertinent and more upt-to-date. The best of all is the site of the Walloon Region itself which call its territory "WALLONIA" and its public service "Service public de Wallonie". Stephane.dohet (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But all the references that are requested for an Encyclopedy are in favour of this synonymity (I don't want only one page) and this way of writing is not POV. In order to undo this synonymity you must change all the newspapers all over the world, the articles of the great Encyclopedies and all the languages all over the world (and even Wp fr). I don't understand you. You have absolutely no chance to separate absolutely these two concepts, Wallonia and Walloon Region who are saying the same thing for everybody.I want to rewrite the citation of the official website of the Walloon Region which is saying this synonymity. Only one thing: If I treplace this citation, shall you revert it? With which arguments? An autonomous Region in the political sense is not a neutral source or reference in order to speak and to write about it on Wp? I don't want to do anything before your answer to this question and only this question; is the website of the Walloon region POV when this website speaks about Wallonia when it is peakin also about the Walloon Region? I dont'know an other example of a such a revert of an official text... which is neutral in the sense of Wp... José Fontaine (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Wallonia and Walloon Region are saying the same thing for everybody". I am sorry, but I have to disagree. For me it is very obvious that Wallonia and Walloon Region do not always have the same meaning. But I agree that I might not be everybody :). --Lebob-BE (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The only time Walloon Region could be different of Wallonia is when we are speaking of the institution per se. When you say "I work for the Walloon Region", it doesn't mean you work in Wallonia (especially if it is for the Foreign Affairs Department), but it means you are a civil servant of an institution called Walloon Region. I agree with that POV... until a particular point. This point being what I 've already written above, the official name of the Walloon Public Service is "Public Service of Wallonia". You can cry a river if you want, Wallonia is an official name for the Region. Stephane.dohet (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Same for me. I disagree. Actually, you mix polysemy with synonymy : it is not because we say Europe for several things (ECC, EU, the continent, …) at different times that all those things are synonyms, though each of them can mean almost the same territory. Idem for England, Scotland (Scotland (European Parliament constituency), Scotland, Kingdom of Scotland). All José Fontaine can say, it is that there is a use of the word Wallonia to mean the Walloon Region. But telling that Walloon Region has the same meaning as Jules Destrée's Wallonia is not encyclopedic. If you try to say that, I will ask for some administrator of this wikipedia to look at your deeds. You've already been banned on fr.wikipedia because you do POV-pushing, especially in misinterpreting citations. Speculoos (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Europe is a different case, as all of Europe is not in the EU. Scotland is a better example. Your links point to a page on the European Parliament constituency for Scotland which is synonymous to Scotland (same territory). The page on the Kingdom of Scotland is an historical one : that's something which doesn't exist anymore. I could draw parallels to the German-planned State of Wallonia of 1918. But there are no different pages on the political and administrative Scotland on one hand AND on the identity Scotland on the other, contrary to your POV. The Scotland page talk about BOTH administrative and identity Scotland as they are one, like the page of Wallonia should be. But maybe you plan to split it too with a Scotland (administrative region)page and a Scotland (celtic land) page ? That would be POV. Stephane.dohet (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

For your information, my French account has been blocked because I sent a snail mail to your brother (big crime) and because I categorized too many articles in a short laps of time, not for any POV-pushing as I did not do that. Stephane.dohet (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic purity

There is a paragraph with this subtitle, and I propose its suppression because it brings no information, mixing without explanation the 1932 debate about Belgium not becoming officially Dutch-French bilingual and the defense of the walloon language. If nobody objects, I will proceed to its elimination. Adumoul (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny, three persons banned from fr.wikipedia.org together on en.wikipedia.org to continue POV-pushing here. Speculoos (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 

POV

I have tagged the article as POV, since it seems rather biased and out to push one point of view. When you describe the geography of a region, you normally don't expect the section to start with "The historians committed to the Belgian unity cause stressed the duality of Belgium." How is this relevant? The geography of a region should describe its natural borders, its landscape, rivers, ... This section has almost nothing to do with geography, and other sections have similar problems. Fram (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The name "Wallonia": first appearance

The article makes claims about the first appearance of the name "Wallonia". Strangely, a one minute search on Google already reveals older uses of the term. This 1814 English book mentions "Wallonia" as the translation of a German language term from a book of 1571(!).[8]. Even if that mention is perhaps not clearly enough about the current Wallonia, it is mentioned in this 1833 English language encyclopedia[9]. As it is highly dubious that an English language encyclopedia would be the first to use such term, it seems probable that the term Wallonia / Wallonie for this region is a lot older still. Why then is the 1842 date presented as a fact in the article? Fram (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It was of course the first occurence of the term Wallonie in French, as it is recognized currently by scientific litterature. I corrected the fact. I am the main contributor of the article fr:Histoire du terme Wallon on fr.wikipedia and with fr:User:Lykos we found several older appearance in French of that word, the oldest found was 1825. But due to WP:NOR, we can't say that the first appearance dates from 1825, we can only that «The first apparition recognized of the French word Wallonie dates from 1842». Yours, Speculoos (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you know that your sources are clearly incorrect, then why not let the fact out altogether? It is not that important to know when the term was first used, and when it is absolutely and abundantly clear that the sources you have are incorrect, then either don't mention it or change it to something like "In French, the term "Wallonie" was used at least as early as 1825" (with the 1825 source as reference). You don't claim that it definitely was the first occurrence (which would surprise me anyway, as it was used earlier in English), and you provide a good source for the one thing you actually do claim. Fram (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of WP:NOR. You can't write down on WP your own research. At least, I write down a note saying that what current official research says can be wrong. We had a second problem like this in fr:Histoire du terme Wallon with an engraving with Wallonia in latin on it, the researcher didn't attribute it to the correct engraver (I exchanged emails with that university teacher, and he recognized his mistakes), so I had to annote it also. My preoccupation is to follow the WP recommendations, that's obviously not the case for José Fontaine and consorts. Speculoos (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

On rereading WP:OR, I fail to see how this is original research. If I had claimed that the first appearance of the term "Wallonie" was in 1825 or 1833 or whatever, I would be doing OR. Pointing out that it was at least in use by 1825 (with a source) is not OR. However, to avoid all discussion about this, I think it is better to eliminate the term altogether, since the source indicated (not really fully given) is obviously incorrect, and the first French use of a term is not really relevant anyway (for the geographic region, it may be important for an article about the political region). We are making a fool of Wikipedia if we present "facts" that anyone can easily verify are incorrect, even though they are supposedly reliably sourced. If the scholars provide such sloppy work, then we shouldn't include the reference, and look at other fats sourced from the same author with a much more critical eye as well. Fram (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

«Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.» Your analysis about 1825 or whatever should rely on secondary sources, not on the primary source of 1825 itself. If you think all available secondary sources are wrong, because you have a contradictory primary source, the best you can do it is to formulate correctly : «currently, all researches say that …» and you annotate the contradictory primary source to warn anyone. Walloon Region (also called Wallonia) exists only since 1970, that's not the case of the Wallonia expressed here. Walloon Region is a political achievement of Walloon claims for a recognition of Wallonia, that's the relation between them but Destrée's or Bovesse's Wallonia claimed since 1880 is not «the territory of Walloon Region», it is something else. Speculoos (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that the political region did not exist back then. The geographical region obviously did exist (otherwise what where the sources referring to when talking about Wallonia / Wallonie?), but it is unclear to me why the first French language mention of the region is important. In general, if you would like to mention a fact but you can't find a reliable source for it, you don't mention it. It is clear that the source given for this "fact" is unreliable. Combined with the relative unimportance of the exact year, I would suggest removing it entirely. Fram (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Fram, what you found is very interesting and I must say that the scholars in Wallonia know this word you found in the book you quote. But I agree with Speculoos because all the historians, the French encyclopedies in Wallonia or in other countries say the same thing. Wallonie was firstly used (in French and that is important, but read the following sentences). So the text is good as it is. Nethertheless this mention of the word Wallonia you, Fram, point out in this old book, is the evidence that the Latin word Wallonia used in order to name the province of the religious order of the Capuchins (from about 1620 until about 1700), have translations in modern languages (English at least). Jean Germain, who is quoted by Speculoos, says also that the translation of words as Wallonia in French is always with the last letters ie, but thinks that there is no clear evidence of a direct link between the Latin word (existing about 1600) and the French word (invented - perhaps!!! - in 1844). Germain doesn't reject the idea of a link, but he is not sure of it. But I am sure that this evidence will be found one day and soon, I hope. And anyway, there are synonymous of Wallonie in French before 1844, as "les provinces wallonnes", "le pays wallon" etc. My quarrel with Speculoos is about the synonymity between Wallonia and Walloon Region. In a sense Speculoos is right. There is a difference between Wallonia (to-day) and the Walloon Region (and also a difference between Wallonia to-day and Wallonia in 1600 for instance). As there is a difference between France and The French Republic. There is also a difference because of the little minority of German-speaking Community (politically autonomous) in the Walloon Region. But, it is also evident that Wallonia is used by everybody, more and more, in order to name the Walloon region. You can verify it in a search on Google niews each day, in the Belgian press (Flemish or Walloon), and in the world press. Everybody is using the word Wallonia in order to name the Walloon Region. French [10] Italian [11], Spain [12], English [ http://news.google.com/news?hl=fr&client=safari&rls=fr&um=1&tab=wn&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Wallonia&nolr=1&sa=N&start=10]. And firstly by the most pertinent reference, the Official Web-site of the Walloon Region. Your remarks, Fram, even if I am saying NO, now, are very interesting, José Fontaine (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The French word "Wallonie" may be "invented" in 1844, but it is very clear that a southern part of Belgium was called "Wallonia" earlier than that (e.g. the 1833 English encyclopedia). Whether the French (language) took it from the English, or from Latin, or had a continuing but unwritten tradition of calling the region Wallonie, is perhaps unclear, but seems tome rather irrelevant. It was not a new term in 1844, nor was it a new concept, so I have no idea what it is doing in this article, except in some obscure way to support some POV, since the whole article reads mostly like one political statement instead of a neatral, factual description of the geographical region. Fram (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

May be... I have the same opinion as you. But many contributors on fr:Wp are saying to me that this opinion was not neutral, despite of the synonymity of Wallonia with provinces wallonnes etc. I agree with you: that is not a new concept. In linguistic terms (I am not sure of the English words), that is perhaps a new signifiant (signifier?), but not a new signifié (signified?: signifiant/signifié: that distinction is well known). I defended the same opinion as you but this opinion was in a sense rejected. Don't you think it would be better to wait and to remove the tag POV? In order to continue with serenity? You have guessed that there is a huge political problem back all these discussions. How should I say? Wallonia is an old country or region, but without political structure before 1970. Some people don't accept the birth of Wallonia or Walloon Region in 1970... We are in 2008 and Wallonia has a very more important autonomy than in 1970 as well as the other Belgian Regions. Yesterday, Professor Michel Quévit published a text in the Université Catholique de Louvain, saying that the Belgian Regions are (loyal quotation) quasi Etats, this is the same words in English but the word Etats (States) is stronger in French, because of the French model of State which is absolutely not federal. It is the first thing I am saying to my students when I am beginning the lessons about the Belgian State... It seems to me more convenient to maintain the beginning version of Speculoos at this moment in order to avoid difficult problems... José Fontaine (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact telling that the first occurence term is pertinent, especially here. That's a study in itself, a study not yet complete and not yet perfect but still reliable since WP:V tells «The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth». Albert Henry's book «Histoire des mots Wallon et Wallonie» is reliable since it is recognized fundamental and it is easily verifiable. History of names are important, same goes for Belgium : Herman van der Linden's « De namen België en Nederland door de eeuwen heen », Jean Stengers' « De oorsprong van de naam België ». The problem in this page is that it is mined by some POV-Pushers who have been recognized in fr.wp to have a behaviour that doesn't suit WP, to corrupt sources for their own ideas, … Speculoos (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to avoid an endless discussion without any sense

We must find a solution instead of coming and coming again about what happens on fr:Wp (where, incidentally, you too are not allowed to make important changes on the Belgian pages during a long time, I said it now and for me it is finished). I don't understand what you mean by my POV. Albert Henry says that the word Wallonia is In 1988 telling about a political reality recognized by the Constitution i.e. the Walloon Region (French :En 1988, le terme Wallonie (...) évoque donc de plus en plus, une réalité politique et administrative constitutionnellement reconnue). And for the rest, I repeat that there are synonymous of Wallonia long before 1830 following Albert Henry himself : In 1830 (...) people continued to use locutions as provinces wallonnes and pays wallon... (French : En 1830, et au cours des années qui suivirent, on avait continué à se servir des expression provinces wallonnes (...) et pays wallon plus rarement attestée... Yes, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, but the common sense is also a threshold for inclusion and on not having endless discussion about Words! Words! Words!

You say also under the title A very strange way of thinking this How can an administrative and political region created in 1970-1980 can be some synonym of some identitary region claimed since 1890? Speculoos (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC) How? But - thresold of inclusion in wp is veriafibility - because Albert Henry wrote it very clearly (I repeat) : En 1988, le terme Wallonie (...) évoque donc de plus en plus, une réalité politique et administrative constitutionnellement reconnue. I agree with your introduction stressing on the date of 1844, with the two pages for Wallonia and Walloon Region. But for the rest Fram is right. Please, stop, stop, stop! and let us write the best page we are able! José Fontaine (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can make important changes in Belgian pages in WP:FR, I just need to have a consensus before doing so. That's another's words distortion. Again. I become used to it. Albert Henry wrote there were different contenus to the word Wallonia, the geo-social content (this page) and the political contents (Walloon Region page). Speculoos (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite completely

Let's be frank, the current article is useless. The article is full of POV and is in the end not about the subject it should be about, the geographic region Wallonia. I will not remove the POV tag, since these are serious problems that an unaware reader should notice when coming here (these tags are first and foremost for the reader, so serene editing is only of secondary concern). As an example of why the article is useless, try to read the "geography" section as an outsider, not as a Belgian, and imagine what you have learned about the actual geography. This article does not even mention the Ardennes, the Meuse or Sambre, the Condroz, La Lorraine and the Fagnes (neither the Haut or the Fagne-Famenne). Doesn't that strike all of you as rather strange? Fram (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fram,

Wallonia is not just a geographical region. It is also a cultural entity.

What makes the whole issue complex is that 1. this cultural entity became a political entity with the Walloon Region in the Federal state of Belgium; 2. some claim this political entity should become an independent country while other consider Belgium must remain an united country.

Maar dat weet je niet ? Ceedjee (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite aware of this :-) I have no problem with a section about the political situation of the region throughout the history, and of the emergence as an individual entity (culturally and so on) with e.g. a magazine like "Cahiers Wallons", and the current different positions (Belgium, confederalism, independance, attachment to France, whatever...). But this should, in this article, not be the main focus: when you discuss a geographical region, you discuss its actual geography, flora and fauna, important cities, languages, history, culture, ... I see very little of all this. No mention of the prince-bishops of Liège, no mention of the comics (Dupuis in Marcinelle), no mention of the rise and fall of the Borinage, no mention of the great old abbeys like Orval, no mention of the culinary traditions, ... Fram (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is much more complicated. So-called Wallonia is a subproduct of Belgium as Jean Stengers wrote, but based on romance-speaking cultural heterogene reality older than Belgium. Then, it is also the root of Walloon Movement's propaganda and claims, as Maarten Van Ginderachter (among others as Chantal Kesteloot) have analyzed see here. «Geleidelijk aan werd het Waalse grondgebied een waarde an sich met eigen rechten die gerespecteerd dienden te worden.» (bl. 40) and that's well illustrated by José Fontaine trying to remove the text I wrote by rewriting it and by creating the chapter «Defense of Wallonia more than defense of the French language». ;-) Speculoos (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems you have material from wp:rs secondary sources.

I don't know anything about all these issues and I am from Liège/Luik.

May I just suggest that you, guys, take care that the English-speaking readers should even know less about all these issues and therefore to take care to be clear and to avoid wp:undue.

Good work. Ceedjee (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A proposal about an article based on Geography

In 1983, the Dutch Encyclopedia Elsevier asked me to write the article Wallonië and I was also asked that the Ardennes was an important part of the pages (that was an article of several pages). And that was a good idea because 1) this region is the most important part of the Walloon territory, relatively famous even out Europa and 2) the Ardennes is a very old mountain (in French a plissement hercynien). At the bottom of this kinf of mountains you have allways coal, iron, cooper and many kinds of other metals (the industries linked to that in Wallonia along the river Sambre and along the river Meuse, not only around Liège but also Namur and Dinant, (in the middle-age, in the XVIth, XVIIth, XVIIIth... centuries also in Gaume and in the Ardennes). This is geology, but the geology influenced of course the geography, economics, history and culture. The Walloon history is also an industrial history. All that is also linked to culture and you have for instance some books about the Wallon imaginary in the comics. The Mosan art is also linked to that. You have plenty of reliable references about that and also many illustrations as it can be seen at Sillon industriel or fr:Art mosan or

Situation de l’Ardenne

or Bataille des Ardennes fr:Imaginaire Wallon dans la Bande Dessinée. There are plenty og things in order to build a very good page on Wallonia. During the Industrial revolution, Belgium (but in fact Wallonia, I have also reliable references about that), was during a long time the second industrial power all over the world in terms of levels of developpement ( Jean-Pierre Rioux, La révolurion industrielle, 1780-1880, Seuil, Päris, 1989 (Coll. Points) ISBN 2-02-000651-0

Rank	1810	1840	1860	1880	1900	1910
1	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	United States	United States
2	Belgium or Wallonia	Belgium (or Wallonia)	Belgium (or Wallonia)	Belgium (or Wallonia)	United Kingdom	United Kingdom
3	United States	United States	United States	United States	Belgium (or Wallonia)	Belgium (or Wallonia)
4	France	Switzerland	Switzerland	Switzerland	Switzerland	Germany
5	Switzerland	France	France	Germany	Germany	Zwitserland
6	Germany	Germany	Germany	France	France	France
7	Sweden	Sweden	Sweden	Sxeden	Sweden	Sweden
8	Spain	Spain	Spain	Spain	Spain	Spain
9	Italie	Italy	Italy	Italy	Italy	Italy
10	Russia	Russia	Russia	Russia	Russia	Russia
11	Japan	Japan	Japan	Japan	Japan	Japan

I propose also to make a plan deriving from this idea. If it is possible. José Fontaine (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant here but it will be very accurate if you use appropriate 'country' names accurately like between 1810 and 1940 we got the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy, Switzerland in the Napoleonic era, German Confederation and so on. fayssal / Wiki me up® 20:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I reproduce here loyally the board of Jean-Pierre Rioux, excepted the words or Wallonia for Belgium. But Germany, Switserland, Russia, Japan, Sweden, Italy, UK and USA are the countries pointed out by this French author. Germany and Italy were not united countries before 1870 but I suppose that theses figures are the good, because this book is reliable (published many times in France). And for Belgium it is not very difficult to imagine that the same author is giving the good figures (Belgium is an independant State since 1830). For Wallonia it is also fiable also because a Phd in economics (which is not quoted here but I will put it if this proposal is accepted in order to have something reliable), has calculated the figures for Wallonia and there is also an other board about that. But it is also possible to eliminate Wallonia in this board and to explain its situation in Belgium through this other board. In fact I was thinking that the board of Rioux has perhaps a sense on the page Industrial revolution. After 1815 the Napoleon's Empire vanished and all the countries quoted in this board are independant from France (perhaps not unified as Italy and Germany and with the particular case of Begimum - or Wallonia). This is only a proposal... José Fontaine (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For the first part of your proposal (everything above the table), I see no problems, these are the things that need to be discussed at length in the article. As for the table: it is not because Belgium is the third greatest industrial nation, and that Wallonia provides the bulk of this, that Wallonia is the third greatest industrial nation. Without absolute figures, providing e.g. 80% of the total of the third nation may put you individually at e.g. the 6th position, if all countries are relatively close to one another. What of course can be said is that in these years Belgium was one of the main industrial powers (cue your sourced table above), and that Wallonia provided about X percent of this (with also a source). To combine the two without having one source for this new conclusion would be WP:SYNTH.

I agree with that. I propose to eliminate the word or Wallonia from the table (it is not absolutely loyal to put these words into it). And I want to write references of the fact that, for instance, the steel industry and the coal-mines were (at the periods of the table), only in Wallonia. But there are also references that (with an other table) Wallonia was really the second or the third, following the Phd in economics and his own table that I have not reproduced, with also a reference to an historian and a Professor of the University of Nancy. I don't reproduce the table now, but I think I am doing so to-day. Thank you for these good remarks, very sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's poorly relevant here. Heavy Industry is sure part of Walloon Movement's claims about Wallonia and Walloon identity but as detailled statistics as this HUGE table are not relevant. Speculoos (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The references which I was seeking

1) Wallonia the second industrial power of the world, in proportion to its populkation and its territory (Philippe Desttate, L'identité wallonne, Institut Destrée, Charleroi, 1967, pages 49-50) ISBN 2-87035-000-7 José Fontaine (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

2) Second reference (I don'translate immediately thinking that we are only talking about that and that is not very complicated)

Le tableau suivant inspiré de Jean Gadisseur, Le Produit physique de la Belgique, 1830-1913, Thèse de dpctorat, Liège 1980, reproduit par Francis Bismans in Une odyssée économique in Atouts et références d'une région, Labor, Namur, 1995, pp.145-175, p. 152, exprime - en volume et non en valeur- le développement de l'industrie wallonne au 19e siècle, certaines activités ne sont pas répertoriées en Belgique parce que ne se situant qu'en Wallonie, ce qui vaut presque à 100 aussi pour le charbon, l'exploitation de celui-ci ayant cependant commencé au Limbourg peu avant 1914.

Branches	Wallonie 1849-1873	Belgique 1850-1874
Coal	4,4	4,35
Blast furnaces	5,9	-
Iron Factories	9,5	9,4
Steel industry	19,1	-
Fonderies	7,3	7,3
Machines et mécaniques	,10,3	10,5
Zinc	5,1	5,1
Wool	10,3	10,17
Glass	6,0	5,95
Weapons	1,9	1,83
Total of the Industry	4,4	3, 73

Ce tableau est commenté, de manière résumée comme suit par Philippe Destatte in L'identité wallonne, Institut Destrée, Namur, 1997, p. 50, l'auteur se référant aux travaux de Bairoch, Gadisseur et Bismans.

Philippe Destatte écrit que F.Bismans, en se servant du tableau de Gadisseur reproduit ci-dessus, souligne l'importance du taux de croissance moyen de l'industrie: 4,4% en Wallonie contre 3,73% pour l'ensemble de la Belgique, ce qui met en évidence le fait que la part relative de la Wallonie dans l'activité industrielle belge a augmenté tout au long de la période. De plus, les données de Jean Gadisseur montrent bien que les branches dynamiques de l'industrie sont situées en Wallonie car les résultats en valeur réelle de la Belgique par secteur sont extrêmement proches des résultats wallons. Ainsi en est-il du charbon, des haut-fourneaux, des fabriques de fer, des aciéries, des fonderies, des machines et mécaniques, du zinc, de la laine, du verre et des armes. Dès lors le rapprochement de ces travaux montre bien la place qui était alors celle de la Wallonie dans l'économie mondiale. Selon Destatte, la Wallonie est la deuxième région industrielle du monde (ibidem, p. 49). Il poursuit en remarquant qu'en arrivant à sa phase de maturité, la productivité wallonne s'emballe, les entrepreneurs prennent des risques démesurés (ibidem, p. 51). Les conséquences en sont que Le système bancaire domine dès lors l'industrie en prenant des participations financières dans les entreprises, principalement par la création de sociétés anonymes. La décision économique échappe ainsi à l'espace wallon pour s'installer à Bruxelles, devenu centre financier lors de la mise en place du pouvoir politique belge en 1830. En 1847, tout est joué. Bruxelles structure et domine l'espace belge. (Ibidem) C'est ce qui amènera plusieurs auteurs, dont Pierre Lebrun et Michel Quévit à parler de la prospérité wallonne comme d'une prospérité dépendante.

José Fontaine (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

3) Michel De Coster, Les enjeux des conflits linguistiques, L'Harmattan, Paris, 2007 ISBN 978-2-296-0339-8

At hte pages 122-123, this author, Professor at the University of Liège, is writing about the difficulties of the Walloon identy: The historians ant the economists say that Belgium was the the second industrial power of the worll, in proportion to its population and its territory (...) But this place is the one of Wallonia where were concentrated the coal-mines, the blast furnaces, the iron and zinc factories, the wool industry, the glass industry, the weapons industry...

The german historian de:Herbert Lüthy (Historiker) [13] has some doubts about the theory of Weber about the link between calvinism and the industrial revolution because Wallonia (the first - in the history - industrial country after UK) was not calvinist but catholic... José Fontaine (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What is relevant and what is not

Lebob-BE did well when he reverted what Stephane.dohet added about political subdivisions of Walloon Region (additions that have been critized and erased on WP:FR). José Fontaine try to get it back there. I have to say no.

1. No because Wallonia has obvious polysemy, as Albert Henry and others analyzed. Merging Wallonia and Walloon Region, or making those two pages identical twins, is POV.
2. No because that part should be on Walloon Region page, not on Wallonia. Talking about provinces in Wallonia should be done by sources claiming which part is walloon and which part is not : sources giving a definition of Wallonia prior to 1970 [Walloon Region and other institutional realites] (I tried to but José Fontaine erased them by drowning them with irrelevant text), sources explaining the reasons why there is a Walloon Brabant (due to Walloon Movement's claims), sources claiming Mouscron is walloon (for instance useful to talk about the claimed Province of Tournai to get (back) Mouscron in Wallonia before linguistic border moved), sources claiming Voeren/Fourons should be walloon (the fact you have hidden purposely), should be bi-regional and bi-communautaire, or flemish … primary sources of all this are Walloon movement's texts (or antagonists' texts i.e. Flemish movement for Voeren) and secondary sources are sources analyzing those primary sources. Speculoos (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Lebob-BE's revert is a mean to enter a revert war as he removed information without any sources prooving his POV would be true. The fact is Eupen is in Wallonia (whatever Lebob-BE thinks about it, is it good or bad), all maps of Wallonia show the cantons of Eupen and Saint-Vith. Here is a map of Belgium from the European Union with the three Regions, Wallonia, Brussels and Flanders, and where Eupen and Saint-Vith are clearly part of Wallonia.

If Lebob-BE is unable to provide an official map of Wallonia where Eupen and Saint-Vith would be OUT of it, then we should put the information back.

About the separation between the two articles, I propose we have a Wallonia page which talks about the territory and its inhabitants (geography, demographics, history, culture...) , and a Walloon Region page which talks about the political institution called "Walloon Region" (Parliament, Governement, Service Public de Wallonie -- in German "ÖFFENTLICHER DIENST DER WALLONIE" --, competences...). That would be relevant. Stephane.dohet (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Stéphane, you just ackowledged yourself the fact: it's a map with the Regions that includes Eupen and Sankt Vith in Wallonia. In that way Wallonia is taken as a shortcut for "Walloon Region". This does however not mean that Eupen and Sankt Vith are Walloon and you know it very well. And to be very clear on that topic, if you want to include these two cantons within Wallonia, you will have to do it over my dead body. --Lebob-BE (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to include Eupen and Saint-Vith in Wallonia, they ARE in Wallonia presently, that's a fact. What I want is not relevant and nobody cares what you do with your body, that won't change anything in the present debate. Personal opinions don't count.

Now, you just recognized Wallonia is a "shortcut" for Walloon Region. That's precisely the point of all this mess for two years and more : Wallonia is the daily, best known, most used name for the Walloon Region. You may not deny that as it is sourced with millions of evidences. The fact there is a German-speaking territory within Wallonia and the fact German-speakers don't feel Walloons are relevant topics, and there is a point to write that in the article, BUT that won't stop Eupen and Saint Vith from being in Wallonia and their inhabitants from being Walloon citizens. Stephane.dohet (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is you that doesn't get the polysemy of the word Wallonia. Walloon Region's alternative name doesn't mean that this administrative part of Belgium exists since 1880 or 1844. And the definition of the identitary Wallonia given by Walloon militants as Jules Destrée, Félix Rousseau, … and others doesn't include Eupen in Wallonia. Perhaps in some alternative definition (i. e. Van Cauwenberghe's or Happart's), but that has to be referenced and attributed as ordered wikipedia's 5 Pillars. Your personal point of view saying that Walloon Region is this identitary Wallonia and this identitary Wallonia is Walloon Region does not count. Speculoos (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not MY personal point of view, it is the mainstream point of view. Did you receive the first issue of "Vivre la Wallonie", the magazine of the Walloon Region ((in French) Le magazine de la Région wallonne), in your mailbox last Monday ? Did you read it ? The editorial was particularly clear. Walloon Region is one of the INSTITUTIONS which rules Wallonia. There is no polysemy for Wallonia, that's the same piece of earth, with some minor changes on its borders throughout history, lile for EVERY State in the world. France didn't cease to be France when she gained Alsace in 1918. Why should Wallonia be different ?

Oh, and BTW, it is not fair to revert my particularly well-sourced changes to the page without a clear and good reason. "This page is not about Walloon Region" is nonsense, as my sources clearly talked of Wallonia... Stephane.dohet (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to avoid an endless discussion about this problem with the result that there is no content on this page, I put this abolutely fiable reference of the most famous Belgian institute on these problems, CRISP. CRISP is writing: Wallonia is made up of 5 provinces: Walloon Brabant, Hainaut, Liège, Luxembourg and Namur, see [14] What does mean CRISP ? : [15]. For the provinces, S.Dohet is right and not POV. If you, dear Lebob and you Speculoos, you don't accept this most reliable reference, how can we write this page on the geographic plan? When you must speak about a country, it is necessary to speak about its subdivisions. For instance, the heavy industries were in the provinces of Hainaut (Borinage, Centre, Charleroi) and in the province of Liège (Huy, Liège). I am waiting for a reaction against the opinion of the CRISP which is evidently NPOV, neither the opinion of S.Dohet, nor the mine... I was going to write these sentences about the 5 provinces in Wallonia. But firstly, I must think about the way of reading. It is more important. José Fontaine (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a dictionary and go read to polysemy, or go to WP:D. Talking about mercury metal in planet mercury page is irrelevant, even if your sources talk about mercury. Speculoos (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:UCL logo.gif

The image Image:UCL logo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

This article has way too many images, and should not have any fair use images at all. Not everything that is mentioned in an article needs to be shown. See Wikipedia:Layout#Images for more on this. Fram (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny. What goes around comes around : José Fontaine is on the loose on en.wikipedia. I did warn about that, he did the same on fr.wp before being banned.Speculoos (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he will need to do a lot worse than the inclusion of too many images or a few fair use images to be banned here (blocking may hapen if he ignores consensus for too long). For the moment, he is productive, civil, but the end result is far from perfect. In those cases, we help a user, we don't block them. 12:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am aware I am far from perfect. I replaced Tintin because I believe it has now a link to Casterman. But I understand what Frame intedto say.So, I will remove some images. I triedto have image about history, heritage, geography... I wil read the WP rules. Nevertheless I think that he maps are very important. When is it is doable to remove the tag about the "dispute"? José Fontaine (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

When you feel that the article is "finished" (no article is ever finished, but when it has reached a reasonable level of completeness and neutrality in your opinion), you can start a new section here asking for comments about the neutrality. IF consensus then is that the article is sufficiently neutral, it can be removed (you have the right to remove it now, but if someone readds it then, we are still just as far of course). Fram (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to remove the tag myself excepted if there is an agreement about.An the article is not finished even not relatively (in my view). Thank you for your remarks Frame. José Fontaine (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Incindentally there were huge difficulties about the Belgian pages on fr:Wp and everybody has difficulties, not only me who are banned only until januaryJosé Fontaine (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Need for a encyclopedic structure

I am really happy to see the Wallonia article growing and I would like to participate and help bringing this article to a featured level. It is however very difficult because the article has a basically unencyclopedic structure. It mixes history, gegraphy and trivia at all level. I suggest the author to restructure the article along the following line: 1)History 2)Geography 3)Demography 4)Politics 5)Culture. Of course it is possible to permute some section with another but mixing the things as it is done now is simply awfull. Vb 10:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Your proposal :1)History 2)Geography 3)Demography 4)Politics 5)Culture. My proposal: 1) Geography 2) History (in my view the two are linked), 3) Politics 4) Culture (Demography would be among geography and history? Forinstance the Sillon industriel vis-à-vis the Ardennes?). It is a work in progress and it is hard for me to write in English. Frame (administrator) suggested me to begin by the geography. But the geography is deeply linked to the history and even to the geology: Ardennes is (geologically), the origin of the Sillon industriel. I am placing Battle of the Bulge at the beginning with a pedagogical preoccupation: to go from the well-known (the battle for American and English people), to the less-known (or absolutely not): the long and very important industrial history of Wallonia (with its influence in some foreign countries in the Middel-Age (not done:Eastern Europe), in the XVII-XIXth centuries (Sweden butuntilnow:not done), in the XIX century :Germany),and the phenomenons of the so-called (with an only thecnical connotation), imperialism (railways - for instance- in Russia, China, Africa:not done also). I have many sources about that, in French but also in English (I had some one and I am seeking other one). With culture, I have a problem: I wrote an article in English (published in London by a good publisher), about that but I think it not very honest to quote myself (it is possible that I suggest you to use this article?). I have also good sources about the industrial Wallonia in the Middle-age. I don't like very well the sections about language. It is too long. I quoted also somethings which are not here about the demographic issues ( and the différence between Flanders and Wallonia, the role of Brussels in dominating the Wallooon industry): in Industrial revolution. Incidentally, I think the Rioux's table is very interesting fort this page. What is your opinion? I want to develop also Mosan art on this page and on the page itself (I think that this English article is not speaking about architecture which is an important chapter of the Mosan art in the French or Walloon literature). There is also a machine translation of the fr:Histoire du cinéma wallon, on... Speedy... without the sources (I don'remember the exact title of that). I agree with you also hat it is important to have an important section about politics (and for instance the international relations). Ik ben zeer blij je had dit belang voor Wallonië. Ik ben een hardnekkige Waal maar Ik was nooit antivlaams en wij hebben veel brieven uit Vlaanderen in Toudi gepubliceerd (Fonteyn, Abicht, Anthierens; jongere mensen) . Ik had ook veel toespraken in Vlaanderen gemaakt in mij (zeer), gebroken Nederlands (en Ik had ook medewerkingen in Knack (Vlaamsetijdschrift). I begg your pardon, for my bad English and my bad Dutch (I am using it for the page Leopold III of Belgium,het boek van Velaers en Van Goethem). Thank you for your kind interest for Wallonia. José Fontaine (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with what you propose: 1) Geography 2) History, 3) Politics 4) Culture but however (4?) Demographics and (3?) Economy should also be included. However I utterly disagree with you on one major point: the structure you propose is completely POVed. Of course the geography (geology) of the Ardennes is the origin of Wallonia's past glory and the Ardennes was the theatre of the Battle of the Bulge. However this is essentially POVed to stress this points the way it is done in he article: the latter is a Walloon nationalist POV, the former is an US-centered POV. I suggest you the following structure (the subsections should not be formal subsections but paragraph or simply ordered sentences): 1) Geography: 1.1) Hesbaye, 1.2.) Condroz, 1.3) Land of Herve, 1.4) Ardennes, 1.5) Gaume (From North to South but South to North would be just as well); 2) History: 2.1) Prehistory, 2.2) Antiquity, 2.3) Middle Ages, 2.4) Renaissance, 2.5) Modern Times, 2.6) 19th century, 2.7) 20th century (Please refrain here to speak about "longue durée events": we don't need analysis here but facts!) 3?) Economy 3.1)The Sillon Industriel, 3.2) North of the Sillon Industriel, 3.3) South of the Sillon Industriel, 3.4?) Gaume (ordered along the economical weight) Nevertheless you definitively need to use a NPOVed style: no judgement, no interpretation, no analysis : just ordered facts. Of course well-cited opinions can be inserted but not in any title, not in the lead (of any section). The order of the sections and paragraphs must be based on a simple logical rule (from north to south, from a to z, from early to late) and not on a pedagogical ground. This is YOUR opinion that Ardennes requires a particular section with a mix of history, geology, geography, economy and linguistics! This is not mine. If I want to change this I have to destroy the whole article: this is not my aim and this is not yours either. You are not the only author of this article. The sectioning must be as neutral (factual) as possible in order to enable the other editors (with another POV) to help you editing. Vb 09:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above, in particular with the detailed plan proposed by vb. Furthermore I do not think that Ardennes (even if I agree that the Ardennes constitutes the bulk of Wallonia) needs a specific section. I agree that many geographical, historical, geological, economical and linguistic information vould be added to the Ardennes part, but then it is more efficient and more logical to add it into the Ardennes article that seems quite underdeveloped right now. --Lebob-BE (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)