Talk:Wallonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag of Belgium This page relates to the WikiProject Belgium, a project to create and improve Belgium-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can join the project, and help with our open tasks.

Flag of the Flemish Community and the Flemish Region

Flag of the French Community and the Walloon Region

Flag of the Brussels-Capital Region

Flag of the German-speaking community

Some discussion might be useful here, before just handling the axe.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 : [2], [3], [4], this one has a precise map of Wallonia, [5], 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
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 : [6] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Latin Europe

Hello Wallonia! 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)

[edit] Map

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