Talk:History of Wallonia

Credating separate Industry of Wallonia article?
I am thinking now it is difficult to separate a possible page Industry of Wallonia from History of Wallonia... José Fontaine (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The second and equally essential part of making a separate article by slicing away text, is to restore a concise version to the cannibalized article, in this case Wallonia, under the hatnote directing the reader here.--Wetman (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that the page Wallonia must be concise with some tags or notes directing the reader here. Is it good understood? (I am not sure because of my bad English). In  any case, that's what I want to do with the help of you and other contributors, if it is possible.What do you think? Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

However this frontier has not much changed since the 18th century, perhaps since 1000[12]
I cannot find this in the source presented, can anyone else? Grey Fox (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I erase "perhaps since 1000". There were no so great changes after 1000, 1200 1400 but it is more sure to say since 1700. I  was not absolutely wrong but nethertheless, 1700 is better. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The same text quoted from Peter N. Stearns appears in two different sections but one version is slightly substandard English. The whole article could do with attention from an editor who could clear up what has been distorted to some extent in translation--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

style
The language is stilted and unidiomatic. It may not have been written by a native speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

some historic criticism is in order

I'm no expert in history of industrialisation; but the aticle clearly and repeatedly states that "Wallonia" (supposedly in this context interchngeable for "Belgium") was a major industrial power ("with the exception of Ghent" in Belgium). it is strange that this has to be formulated as such... that means if we do not take into account Ghent; in Belgian terms a major 19th century industrial centre, and untill 1870 certainly the most important one, Wallonia is be on top (second place) in terms of devellopment. (what is meant by that?) in context it probably means something like "wallonia allone is accountable for the high levels of belgian devellopment in early continental industrialisation" ("with the exception of Ghent" remains inescapable)

this simply is more a "boutade".

it is true that between 1840 and 1910 walloon industrial growth outpaced the rest of the country (including Ghent) and that in most other regions in europe (ith the exception perhaps of the Ruhr), but it isn't true that industrial output ("with the exception of Ghent") was only situated in the Walloon "Sillon Industriel". In the north Ghent was the centre of a ever wider spread wave of mechanisation and industrialisation in the towns. If we take Roulers/Roeselare as an example; it is a provincial town (with citysatus) and most think of Rodenbach and Guido Gezelle the local romantic bucolic poet. Most who have never ben there think of a sleepy little city. It isn't ; it is a pretty large town. It used to be a centre of manual textile trades, primarily located in the countryside. Belgian independence meant economic crisis because the Dutch and French markets got closed off. In 1838 steamengines were introduced, the city was linked to important infrastructure trough canals and the railways, and knew a rapid growth of industrial production especially between 1860 and 1870 in which time the town got known as the Manchester of Flanders (the originality!) this growth was accompanied by a swelling population. the countryside was steeped in economic crisis... poverty was proverbial there... ant the booming Flemish villages of the 18th century were now running empty... another example is Aalst/Alost which from 1850 onward became known as "Factorycity" because of its numerous (large!) textile factories. as such there were dozens of smalltowns up north powered by steamengines and filled with small and big factories. so you can say: "with the exception of Ghent AND all of its industrial satelites..."

it is true that because of population Wallonia was relatively more devellopped: Flanders had an inheritance of overpopulation due to a proto-industrial phase in the massive devellopment of textile-industry. so you could say that in terms of population flanders was "underindustrialised" meaning that industry could not employ these numbers of workers. economic growth was also slowed by this presence of a protoindustrial production-complex (there was already a large industry in place, being mainly powered by manual labour and not machines!)... however it should be noted that industrial mechanised production was in direct and indirect competition with these workers and put them out of work: the main objective of this industry being profits truough cutting costs in an extremely competitive national and international trade. so there is a link between industrialisation, unemployment and pauperisation that was much more accentuated in Flanders. it is so that because this industrialisation put so much pressure on people, there were more strikes in Flanders and at an earlier time then there were in Wallonia...

At the start of the second phase of the IR in Wallonia (mainly the devellopment of heavy iron/puddlesteel and coalmining) the region was relatively 'underpopulated' and industrial growth was more than enough to provide people from all over Belgium with work. (and because there was a deep crisis in the domestic 'cottage style' textile sector; many desperate weavers and spinsters would look for jobs in the mines.)

It is true that the centre of gravity of industry in Belgium rapidly became situated in the central axe of the Walloon Sillon Industriel (which concentrated most of the countries heavy industry), but it isn't true that other centres such as Ghent, Roeselare, Alost, Bruges, Courtrai, Oudenaerde, Renaix/Ronse, or big citycentres such as Antwerp and Brussels, should be ignored or that Wallonia on its own "caried forward the industrialisation" of the whole country.

Also: the region is relatively small, if you compare you should compare with other regions such as the Ruhr, Saarland, Le Nord-Pas de Calais, Flanders (also a region with a relatively high degree of industrialisation), Michigan... I'm sure Wallonia would still be somewhere on top in such a trivial ranking before most others, but you compare apples with apples, not apples with elephants.

It should be noted that industrial prowess of this walloon region is remarkeable and characteristic to its intense history of industrialisation, but also that the boasting and ranking in its current fashion not only is misguided ad desinformative; but not pertinent and not interesting. it would be much better to integrate Wallonia in the Belgian history of industrialisation which is pretty early and relate its context in a search for causes and consequences. it is an interesting history of an interesting region, that deserves attention.

--Monoclemask (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)--


 * I understand you. But 1) There are relevant sources (and not only Walloon), about this unique situation of Wallonia as an industrial country and an evidence of that is the Flemish immigration to Wallonia 2) the page is about the History of Wallonia even if there are evidences of industrial development in Brussels or Flanders, the situation of the Sillon industriel was absolutely different and there is 3) a last evidence of that : the fact that socialism became the most important party in Wallonia. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It still does not mean you can substitute "Belgium" in that case with Wallonia... the political development isn't an argument: industrialisation doesn't mean socialism. In 1810, French period, the north was faster industrializing (textile industry always developed first) ... the flemish emigration doesn't imply a lack of industrialisation per se (while lagging behind in terms of growth of population). As the textile-industry developed and became more mechanized, it meant that hundreds of thousands of small-town and rural weavers and spinsters lost their livelihood as they couldn't compete with the factory produced textiles. This successful 18th century proto-industrial economy had te make place for a leaner, 'more capitalistic' mechanized form of industry, leading to more poverty in an overpopulated region (the income per capita in the whole of Belgium dropped between 1800 and 1850, the industrialisation at that time didn't lead to increased living standards but to poverty).

The debate is so complex that such a simplification is simply wrong, and stems mostly from wallonia-centric thinking in a wallonia vs flanders contemporary debate. You must look at Belgium as a whole. It is however correct that between 1840-1880 the Walloon industrial development was the strongest within Belgium. In that period it will have been 60% Wallonia 40% flanders (this is what numbers of workers suggest, this is a difficult issue, because a coal miner is mostly reckoned as a heavy industrial worker, while a flax-land-labourer, is mostly reckoned as a 'peasant-worker', while both were hired labour in the resources-industries delivering raw materials to the industry...) but a 60-40 relation in a short period of the time that is described, does not warrant a claim for 'substitution'. (of course, it does illustrate the importance for labour in the walloon industry, since the region was less populated then the north, though around 1870 Flanders and Wallonia were close in numbers of population) The walloon heavy industry development, in terms of growth are simply miraculous in that time... From a reasonably underdeveloped region it grows into one of the most populous and densest industrial regions of the world in a matter of 2 decades... (at that time much faster then in the north, which was by comparison slower). If I might suggest, José, looking at the figures of the excellent belgian census over the period, and look at the population-figures per province, as an indicator of economic output: you will notice that until 1840 East and West Flanders most populated provinces, indication of a strong proto-industrial and early industrial development (in textiles), between 1830-1890 the incredible rise of Hainaut and Liège amongst the most populated, and between 1880 and 1910 the rise of Brabant and Antwerp. It will give you more insight in the dynamics of Belgium, and of the development of Wallonia WITHIN that context.

When Jules Destrée, in 1912, wanted to explain why his liberal-socialistic cartel had lost the elections, he sought the explanation in the different levels of development of two races. He compared the Walloon worker with the peasant from Campines, but this was a charicature, in 1912 the Campinois peasant was marginalized 'bucolic' idealized economic figure in Flanders as much as in belgium (in Flanders at that time about 15% of the population worked on the land, while less then 10% in wallonia worked on the land); why didn't he compare a worker from Roeselare (Roulers) since 1850 an textile-town bigger than Verviers in the south, but which doesn't get as much mentioned, that voted exclusively catholic, with luxemburg, that was completely rural, and also voted catholic? Because his reasoning is simply flawed and doesn't take into account the manner in which regions industrialized. Did people lose their jobs to machines as in Flanders, or did they gain jobs in mines (not exactly seen as a good job at the time by the flemish laborers, but they had no choice) as wage-slaves? This is because what he writes is a POLITICAL document, not a socio-economic study; but one that reflects the manner of thinking none the less, that has always been inflicted on belgian politics AND historiography.

--Monoclemask (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Iguanodon
The section on Iguanodon really isn't history - it's paleontology, or geology, or whatever, and doesn't belong in an article on history. I didn't delete it because I didn't think it was proper to do so without discussion. Wallace McDonald (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

--> Perhaps give it a place in the industrial revolution and the development of these earth-sciences... it is because of the mining-industry they discovered such wonders. For Belgium it is of symbolic significance illustrating the scientific progress and discoveries of an era.

--Monoclemask (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Wallonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626185804/http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/023/0036/jmmd0230036.pdf to http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/023/0036/jmmd0230036.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Wallonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312122832/http://users.swing.be/grottedespy/page10.html to http://users.swing.be/grottedespy/page10.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130731024244/http://en.erih.net/index.php?pageId=114 to http://en.erih.net/index.php?pageId=114

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)