Talk:History of the Walloon Movement

Anglicisation
David, this is a good article but is very clearly a mechanistic translation from another source. I will try over the next week or so to rework it to be english english. I will put things here before posting so keep your eyes open and check as I go Cosnahang 17:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem :-) Thanks a lot! David Descamps 09:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I just revised the first two or three sentences - heavy going! It might just be easier to translate from French ... --Paularblaster 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that was its initial problem! Cosnahang (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with Charles Woeste and the words "non-recognition of Dutch"
If you say "the origins" of the liguistic problems, you don't say the same thing as "the causes" of the linguistic problems. The origins of the linguistic problems are really the fact that there are two populations in the pre-Belgian country or State, who are not speaking the same language (French/Dutch, French/Flemish or languages from latin origin/languages from germanic origins). There are no sources in order to say that it would be France which were the cause of the linguistic problems (or the origins). I think that idea is an anti-French idea. In talk:Belgium, we just agree with this opinion (right opinion, historically justified)) that there is an important minority in old Flanders which is speaking French for ages (an other cause or an other origin of the liguistic problems and surely the most important cause of these problems). An other participant already removed what Charles Woeste want absolutely write: "non recognition of the Dutch". See . These words "non -recognition of the Dutch" are not very right. My proposal would be for instance "Toward te recognition of Dutch". The Walloon movement is not the unique cause of  the difficulties of Dutch in Belgium, far from that.  In fact Dutch was recognized since the beginning, but not plenty as an official law. I ask  to Charles Woeste to think of that.  It is not right  to say "non recognition of Dutch" because the Flemings were speaking in this period about Flemish and not Dutch. If he wants absolutely to say what is the origin of the "linguistic problems" he ought to quote the Belgian Congress who was not in favour of Flemish (or Dutch) as an offical law in Belgium. That is the very origin of the linguistic problems and many Flemings (and of course Walloons) are the people who wrote the Belgian Constitution. It is not the Walloon Movement...José Fontaine (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC) See also Talk:Belgium
 * Wikipedia is not its own source. What you wrote on other pages is irrelevant. What you wrote up here too is irrelevant. 1) The definition of Belgium's linguistic problems are political problems based on linguistic legislations and demands. It is not the co-existence of different idioms. 2) There are two sources who explained that the linguistic legislations and its related political problems are mainly from the french occupation of the Low countries. 3) Claiming as you do that political problems intrinsically linked to modern politics existed ten centuries before the modern states are erroneous. 4) The Walloon movement was not at that time claiming the non-existence of dutch language or so-called flemish dialects in Belgium, it was opposed to the recognition of a standardized dutch language. José Fontaine mixed things, concept and definitions. CharlesWoeste (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't quote what I wrote but what many participants are saying. And on Wp we must work together. The difference between a "Provincia Walloniae" and a "Provincia Flandriae" (Provinces of religious orders along the linguistic border) is a fact of the XVII century, long before the French occupation and based on the difference of the langages into the South of the Low countries (between Flanders and a Walloon country). How would it be possible to have linguistic problems and political problems linked to these problems if  there are no languages used by a population or a people mainly linked to these political issues? It is good sense. The words "French occupation" are not neutral because the word "occupation" is used in the Belgian history only for the German occupation after the Rape of Belgium (1914-1918) and the occupation of the Nazis (1940-1944). I think  there is absolutely not only one source  which is using the word "occupation"  for the French period. The sources of what I am saying are absolutely not Wikipedia.  I never read the words "Non-recognition of the Dutch" especially  during the years 1880-1894 and especially bya Walloon movement, a period when the Walloons (following Maarten van Ginderachter who accurately quotes 1884-1902), were almost excluded from the Belgian Governments. When a word as "recognition" is used  that means a recognition by the State, by a powerfull  party or Que sais-je?. José Fontaine (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What many participants are saying? Wikipedia is not a democracy and it is not a book where everybody can wrote what he wants. Your point of view is irrelevant. Thus, we should not take it in account. The linguistic organization of two religious orders can't be included in political problems in modern states. And for the term occupation, you're obviously lying because it seems that you've already talked about that in french-speaking wikipedia and other persons gave you sources using that word like in the page of fr:Mons (Thanx google). And I will add some additional for you : even french historians talk about french occupation : Marie-Thérèse Bitsch in her Histoire de la Belgique: de l'Antiquité à nos jours or Hervé Dréillon in his L’occupation française en Hollande (because french republic and directory didn't occupied militarily and didn't exaction only in the Austrian Low Countries). And in English, since that's widely recognized that a foreign and belligerent regime in another country is named occupation : Michael Rapport and his Belgium under French Occupation: Between Collaboration and Resistance, July 1794 to October 1795. And for Henri Pirenne's words, you can easily find the expression «occupation française» in his books (e.g.). You're really got a problem to put sources for the use of ONE word. CharlesWoeste (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are banned from french-speaking wikipedia for your POV-pushing and your OR, I can only advice you to not follow the same way here. CharlesWoeste (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems firstly we must have discussions about verifiable contents or informations, of scholars for instance, and not about the behavior of the participants (eg  two years for me, it is too much). In any case what happens on  fr.Wp is much more complicated than what you are saying. I am able to defend me and my reputation of honesty, but that is not the goal of the talk:pages. I think we must avoid "les arguments ad hominem". Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems too regarding the Arbitration Committee that you were famous for flooding on talk:pages. I am just reading what's on fr.wiki And for the ad hominem attacks, they are not. I am plainly reporting what have been said about you on fr.wikipedia.org One more thing : before adding information, please verify its relevancy. CharlesWoeste (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of Pirotte
Thaks dear José for adding Pirotte in the 1880-1898 : Opposition to official recognition of Dutch, it is interesting but it is misused. If the political motivations of the Walloon Movement (WM) are not the soles, the dialectal part of the WM should be more explicit in that section. CharlesWoeste (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You may not remove verifiable informations. Please think of my following remark : the scholars as Rouseau and Klinkenberg want just to say that French was not a foreign language in Wallonia (or the countries which are into Wallonia now). You may not remove informations coming from great scholars and Professors as Rousseau or Klinkenberg. They are more important than the scholars you quoted and I respected your work. You, the mine, no. Did I remove your informations, based on  well-known scholars? No. I don't think you have the right to do so. I prefer to wait a person who can act as a referee (I don't speak of an official arbitrage). And I think it just and right to place the remarks of Pirotte just at the place they were because the whole book of Pirotte is written in order to prove that the Walloon movement is not only a movement which is anti-flamingant. It is just Pirotte says you consider as irrelevant.  You are beginning a war-edition, excepted that I don't want to have this war. José Fontaine (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If a scholar is relevant doesn't mean its use is relevant everywhere. What Rousseau thinks of the use of English in Dinant is a detail and irrelevant here. And your use of Klinkenberg is irrelevant and biased : the intellectual links between French kingdom and the so-called Wallonia is not so special. And one of the first official documents in the belgian territory is from Kortrijk, much more before than Liège : Kortrijk is more walloon than Liège? Intellectual or commercial links were not so spectacular. A contrario your sources are just demonstrating that the linguistic legislations between French occupation and Old Regime (that was much more liberal for that point of view) are completely different. As long as you don't find a source refuting that, you POV is irrelevant. And for Pirotte, I've never said it was irrelevant. You should read what people write, it shows respect to them. CharlesWoeste (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The word occupation
I think it absolutely irrelevant to name the Frenc period an occupation. For many reasons. 1) This word is not used by the BElgian historians 2) This word is used to name the German occupation in 1914-1918 and 1940-1944. I make a citatio, I know it but because thos word is important... José Fontaine (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I recognize that "regime" is also a good word. But what you say about Rousseau is not relevant. It is very difficult to say that the French Revolution was not liberal and that the Austrian Netherlands was liberal. That was a "Monarchie absolue". The liberalism of the "Ancient régime" that is not relevant. And what is mpre, Rousseau doesn't speak about that. He is only saying that French is not a foreign language in Wallonia. If you are saying that the dialects are endogenous and that the French is like Latin or English, you let suppose that French is a foreign language and that is simply not true. But you removed all my sources. Don't you think it is exagerated to ejcet so great historian otr scholars as Klinkenberg, Charlier, Hanse etc.? José Fontaine (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, "endogenous" exists in English but I don't know if the word has the same meaning as in the Belgian laws. I am sure that the French dictionnaries don't know ths meaning. I can accept it, but not in a context which let suppose that French is a foreign language :  that is not right. I have even Flemish Historian you quote (Els Witte), who is saying that the frenchification is beginning during the Austrian period or regime. I regret what you are doing with my contribs. José Fontaine (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, If you have found a source explaining there is a frenchification during Austrian period, it just means that French is a foreign language. CharlesWoeste (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right. But all the countries were ...ified. Because, youu know a common language doesn't happen immediately. The sources you removed (two Professors), that is enough for me with the common sense. You gave me sources in order to justify the word "occupation". Where and when? Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I found these sources and your replies I didn't read or I didn't see. Thank you and sorry! But I hope you will replace what Rousseau and Klinkenberg are saying because the word "endogenous" opposed to Latin and English OK, but opposed to French, that is not OK. I know that the Belgian laws name "endogenous" the dialects, or the regional languages. But in a sense, French was (from the begnning) also a regional language in Wallonia and the first French literary document  was likely written in Wallonia (I hope you would accept this word in the conversation as it is accepted in all the histories of Wallonia, not to say that Wallonia exists from the beginning but  as you see it in all the historical literature for every countries: c'est une façon de parler). For Wallonia (see my previous remark), the policy of the French Revolutionnaries in 1794-1815 was absolutely justified. All the countries - I insist all the countries - adopted a standard language or a common language beyond the dialects or regional langages. France was only a more modern country in this period.  This policy was not improper in the Walloon provinces... In the Flemish provinces, perhaps. José Fontaine (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What you personally think about how justified was the French occupants' linguistic policy is obviously personal and isn't relevant. What's relevant is the facts and their explications by relevant historians. There is no moral POV or any justification/critics about this linguistic policy in this article, and it is better like that. If you find a relevant source that will claim that French (the Ile-de-France idiom) is endogenous in your so-called Wallonia, we will change the formulation. For your two professors, their use here is not relevant : what Rousseau thinks about the use of English language in Dinant is a detail that would only pollute this article. Same for Klinkenberg. What's important is the origins of linguistic legislations and problems in Belgium, obviously Rousseau's feelings on English in Ardennes and the obvious fact that there was intellectual links between France and neighbouring regions are not important in this article. CharlesWoeste (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: "After the invasion of Austrian Netherlands, French revolutionaries began the “francisation” in the context of their jacobinic politics. By the decree of 2nd Thermidor Year II, only the French language is authorized for all official aspects of life, like administration, law, army, press and school whereas at the Old Regime coexisted French with endogenous languages, sometimes with Latin and even English for business." And affter that you wrote two food-notes. The first is for Flanders and for Flanders, it is a very relevant source, OK. The second food-note is quoting six pages of Astrid von Busekist (pp.22-28). But when i read these six pages I don't understand how what you wrote would be based on a relevant source. And, on the contrary, this part of the book of A von Busekist makes a great difference between Flemish provinces and Walloon provinces (or other names ... as you like it). Which is the fragment of these pages you are considering as a relevant source? I find many fragments which are in favour of what Rousseau, Klinkenberg (etc), are saying but absolutely no sentences which are a relevant source for what you wrote. So, it seems to me that we must make a great difference between the Walloon provinces and the Flemish provinces (or as you like it to name these tow diffrent realities), during the French regime and in front of the policy of the French Revolution and the Consulat or Empire. Are you (and people here) really astonished by such a remark? José Fontaine (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I add an other question for (I quote what you wrote) "administration, law, army, press and school" : was there, in these things in the Walloon provinces an other language than French? Certainly not. José Fontaine (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I understand you well, you affirm that it was forbidden to use the walloon, the picard or the luxembourgish in courts of justice, in parlements, in regiments or in school in the southern part of the Low Countries? Or it was never used? This affirmation of yours is excessive. French indeed was widely used in the administration and the schools before the french occupation, we should indeed put it clearly in the article, but surely not with your bias pro-jacobine.  CharlesWoeste (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I put more clearly that French was widely used. CharlesWoeste (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you and OK. I hesitated for the schools. But you say yourself that the schools were in French. Our discussion gives me the opportunity to write relevant sources about the language of different domains. 1) ADMINISTRATION (following Maurice Delbouille, in La Wallonie, le pays et les hommes, p. 100, BXL, 1977 Tome I, Letres, arts, culture : the dialectal traits vanished during the XVIIth century in Wallonia (Debouille used this word I begg y p, and he stress also the fact that this evolution is the same as in the French Provinces as Bourgogne, Lorraine, Champagne etc.)). 2) ARMY the most famous regiment of the Low Countries (in the service of te King of Spain or the Emperor of Austria) were the "Gardes wallonnes". You may become a soldier of the "Gardes wallonnes" on the condition you speak French, even if it was a simple French (I don't re-find the accurate page but I think it was in Rousseau "La Wallonie, Terre Romane", Charleroi, 1993). But Rousseau wrote also (I quote him in French): " Au XIIIe siècle, il se produisit en Europe occidentale un événement considérable: le latin perd son hégémonie, les langues vulgaires deviennent des langues de culture...Que va-t-il se passer dans nos régions wallonnes? Un dialecte (...) va-t-il prendre le pas sur les autres parlers et devenir l'organe commun, la coïnê? Nullement (...) Dès le XIIIe siècle, c'est le français qui est adopté partout comme langue littéraire. Voilà le fait capital de l'histoire intellectuelle de la Wallonie (...) Certes, le français employé dans nos régions sera un français provincial, un français émaillé de wallonismes ou de picardismes (...) Ce qu'il faut souligner avant tout, c'est la VOLONTE qui se manifeste partout d'employer la langue littéraire (...) etc.(La Wallonie, Terre romane,p. 91) Short translation: "The only common or literary language in Wallonia from the XIIIth century to the XVIIIth century [so, before 1789: I add that] was French or the WILL to adopt French  even if this French was mixed with the Walloon or Picardic dialects..." 3) PRESS: Roland Mortier quotes in his article in La Wallonie, le pays et les hommes, Tome II Lettres arts, culture, pp 75-101, BXL, 1978, many examples of a  periodic press in French : -La gazette de Liège, - Mathieu Laensbergh, - Journal Encyclopédique, - Journal général de l'Europe, - Troubadour liégeois etc.(I think that in reality, for Wallonia, the press was only in French, in this period of course). The theater in Namur was only in French etc. That was the same in Mons in other domains etc. I think also the jacobine-policy was the implementation of the French monarchy (as in many other domains), or it is a banal policy for a modern contry (to give it a common language in order to unify this country). It is certainly against the inhabitants (or the tradition) in Flanders who use the Flemish as literary language (the Flemish whose A von Busekist is writing - this Flemish was next to Dutch, that was not a dialect or a regional language in the sense of the "endogenous langages"). But the French policy in the Walloon provinces was, following Rousseau, and other authors in the line of the WILL of the society in the Walloon provinces. I think the Wp page must make the difference between Wallonia and Flanders. Yet an other remark: I have here a citation of a Flemish author (quoted by Pirenne), who said that the French adinistration was less pettifogging and more efficient.  Less pettifogging or more "liberal"?  I think also we must have a citation of Klinkenberg or Rousseau about this continuationof the French tradition in Wallonia (I want to say: the French-speaking continuation, even if that was only for a minority, but as in every countries...). Sincerely! José Fontaine (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you want with all this suite of citations, mainly from wallingant litterature? One, I asked if it was forbidden to speak something else than French, or nothing else than French was never used. Two, this article concerns Belgium as a whole, not your so-called Wallonia. The Walloon movement is within the framework of Belgium. CharlesWoeste (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here  (see the paragraph "Bias"), is the way we must follow in the case we are in front of different opinions by the scholars. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear José, NPOV doesn't mean you can write anything anywhere. What's important here is the prohibition of any other languages than French in the framework of the whole French-occupied Autrian Low Countries. Why? Because historians put the french and dutch linguistic legislations as transitory phases for the political problematic of languages in modern Belgium. This is not an article on Frenchification of Wallonia (like a Frenchification of Brussels) where it would be useful to write that most of newspapers were in French (for obvious sociological reasons) even before the French invasion. I checked your edits in this article, and it seems that principal redactor (Speculoos) tried to make a chronological article (obvious for a "history of" article), you've messed it up with your Not principally a linguistic issue chapter. Same goes for Wallonia completely disordered. Sincerely, CharlesWoeste (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, You have written "If I understand you well, you affirm that it was forbidden to use the walloon, the picard or the luxembourgish in courts of justice, in parlements, in regiments or in school in the southern part of the Low Countries? Or it was never used? This affirmation of yours is excessive." And, sorry again, very sincerely, I don't pay attention to this part of your reply. BUT, It is likely because it is clear that the historians I quoted as relevant sources (you removed) absolutely don't say that. Absolutely not. What kind of relevant sources for an article about "History" if not the historians? And why did you remove (or reject), these sources which are very relevant also for a chronological article? So we are OK, no? Wallonia (the most interested country in a "Walloon movement", of course), is similar to a French province. So the French policy during the French regime was not against the Walloon tradition. Von Busekist and Pirenne (and they say only a few things about French in Wallonia) have their POV (as Wp define them) and Rousseau, Klinkenberg, Delbouille, oher authors I quote have their POV also... We must gather all these POV, it is the condition of neutrality. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, (for the LAW, it is important to underline that), other languages than French are also forbidden in Belgium (and after only Wallonia) since 1830. The prohibition is only for the LAW, I re-underline this aspect.
 * You can be sorry that you don't care about one half of what I wrote, but that's not correct and honest. And an historian's opinion about the use of Flemish by the jesuits in west-flanders in 18th century wouldn't be relevant here, as your historians' opinions about french use in autrian low countries are not relevant. CharlesWoeste (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Refereeing"
I'm a bit tied up right now, but I can take a look at this when I get a chance. Both of you are clearly heavily emotionally invested in the topic, which makes neutral judgements difficult. I know a good deal about Belgium, yet I am not Belgian or even European, so I would think I would be as good a "referee" as you could reasonably expect on Wikipedia. And though it was José that suggested I take a look, I will by no means automatically take his side. If you look at our edit histories, you'll find I've deleted or modified things he has contributed before, when it is best for the encyclopedia. At any rate, I can't get to it right away. Cheers,  Oreo Priest  talk 05:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Implementation of the relevant sources put by Speculoos in the page
Finally, when I read the relevant sources Speculoos put in the page, I remark they make the difference between Flemish provinces and Walloon provinces. I change the page only according all these citations : A. von Busekist (foodnote [4]) and the other (foodnote [5]). Astrid von Busekist, as all the scholars use the name Wallonia which is not my so-called Wallonia. I beg your pardon but that name is absolutely not my POV it is the POV of everybody. Every body is using this name. I don't understand why you don't agree with that. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. That's relevant. CharlesWoeste (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC) What Busekist said about French Republic doesn't imply that the same decisions were taken during French Empire. I correct your false assumptions. Please, do not analyze originally the sources, as it was already said to you here and in fr.wiki. CharlesWoeste (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not Busekist it is . I am happy you say "good". It is the first time for years and years you said this kind of things to me. Thank you. But you remove all the historians I quote. I am not happy with that because it  is not neutral. You accept Busekist or Pirenne or    but not Rousseau, Klinkenberg and so on. Why? You ought to change that. Your way of thinking is also a way to show these scholars as not honest or not capable people (you said "wallingant lieterature"). It is unacceptable. And I have no times to discuss about the table you erased,  perhaps the most clear thing in this whole page. To be clear, It is the most important  thing for me (on the condition you are neutral and this table is absolutely neutral). I want to ask to Oreo Priest his opinion. I agree with your opinion that "Not only a linguistic issue" is a bad title but the table was a very good table. It is the best explanation  for the most important aspect of the Walloon movement and the informant of the Belgian government on 3 may 1918 thougt of an other solution than federalism: to erase democracy. It is not quoted in the page but I say it because in a sense I can understand this informant who understood both Flemings and Walloons. It is rare. And neutral. Your translation of his message is better than the mine, thank you.  José Fontaine (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know me? CharlesWoeste (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I Know fr:Charles Woeste... José Fontaine (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a big fan of his political and literary works, but I am not him. And I don't understand what you can say "It is the first time for years and years you said this kind of things to me." And for Rousseau and Klinkenberg, they are relevant in wikipedia, but where what they said is relevant. Here, not really for what you gave to me. CharlesWoeste (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Pov-pushing
I see that José Fontaine pushed his POV without referring to anyone, although almost all he pushed has been discussed here. I witness that he only feigns to collaborate like he did on fr.wp where he has been banned for pov-pushing. CharlesWoeste (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you collaborating with me when you say that I feign for instance, and when you are speaking about what happens on fr.Wp three years ago? That has nothing to do with this page and what you say, incidentally, is not true. I work with honesty to this page implementing the sources you placed on it and following the plan you placed in the beginning of the page. You erased a table which is directly linked to the content of the page. If there is a Walloon movement, it is important to illustrate the causes of it  and among them Wallonia as a minority. That is all the most famous of the Walloon militants in this period Jules Destrée claimed with a majority of the Walloon members of the Parliament (I am able to give the source).  And also men who are not Walloon militants as Emile Vandervelde. What do you think? I prefer we discuss about the content of the page and not about the behavior of other contributors on an other Wp, me included. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did you break the chapter Origins in three chapters, one empty and two for the two principal paragraphs (one paragraph for French occupation and another for Dutch domination)? The structure is already heavy, useless and counterproductive to make a chapter for each paragraph. And for the table, I don't see anything new from what it is already in the text with Van Ginderachter, it is making the text more heavy than before. And for the title you renamed, it is biased : the fear of being a minority existed from 1893, that's in the source you use, at the page you used! Honesty? The editor that made this page you're trying to transform made a relevant distinction for the period based on the first political affirmations for an administrative separation, they realized long before that they were a minority. CharlesWoeste (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK for one § (until now) for the origins. But I think we must say that the Walloons realized they were a minority. Why? Because, the POB thought that with the Universal suffrage "pur et simple" (one man, one vote: before 1919 that was not the case because there are some "men" with two or three votes as for instance the families'-fathers, the owners etc.), there would be no more problems of minority/majority. But we know thanks to Claude Renard (La conquête du suffrage universel en Belgique), that Destrée calculated that even in the case of one man, one vote, Flanders would remain a majority and Belgium  would remain a country with a permanent catholic majority (or conservative majority, or rightist). So he wrote La Lettre au roi. For the origins, following several authors as Pirenne but alos many others, we must speak about the older division before the French Revolution. I will make a proposal about that or change the page with verifiable informations. It is sure that if we are speaking of the origins, the Frenc regime is not the unique origin. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In 1893, it is already the universal suffrage, but indeed with a provision for plural voting. And what you're saying it is already said in the text : «There is so, among French-speaking elites during that short period, an awakening of political necessity to create a French-speaking unilingual Wallonia in order to avoid to be put in minority everywhere in Belgium after the recognition of Dutch as an official language.» and Maarten Van Ginderachter is clear : Deze ‘minorizeringsangst’ werd aangewakkerd door de toepassing van het algemeen meervoudig mannelijk stemrecht vanaf 1893. I would prefer you to work on the missing part of the article than spoiling the existing part. CharlesWoeste (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean?
If you can read and understand the following section I urge you to rewrite it so that it is understandable:

"The majority of walloon militants, and this for a few years, have considered whereas the catholic conservative majority in North is installed for a long time and that makes sterile the leftist majority in the South, which the newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws underlined during the project of flemishisation of the University of Ghent: «Again we draw the attention of everyone to the tactics of the opponents to Flemish Movement: they know that they are swept everywhere in Flemish areas - consequently they must excite the Walloons»"

Thanks, Schwindtd (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit
After looking at the article, it is clear to me that a copyedit is not really possible, so I replaced the copyedit tag with other tags. Parts of the article seem to have been automatically translated. Many parts of the article are not clear enough to know what is even being said. This article probably needs to be re-written by an expert who is reasonably capable of writing in english. Aaron north  (T/C) 01:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Liège International (1905)
I am not sure, but is the Liège Exposition in 1905 mentioned the same one as Liège International (1905)? (I always try to find places to link to new articles, and this was a potential from a Google search) Icarusgeek (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)