Talk:Charles Rogier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

[edit] Citations

from Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium#Article improvement drive

• Charles Rogier : the Dutch article about him [1] quotes him as saying that the French language must become the only language in Belgium and that other languages must be eradicated. That's an important quote but I refrain from translating it into English because... I can't find any source. The only source is from the official Belgian senate... but the text is a proposal, written by Vlaams Belang members. I've tried to address this issue here [2](in Dutch) but for now without result.

  That citation (from the same source, the proposition of law to the Senate by a VB senator) is also copied in the French article fr:Charles Rogier. Unfortunately Senator Joris Van Hauthem did not provide the source of his citations (fr, nl). It's only mentioned it was in a 1832 letter from Rogier to Jean-Joseph Raikem. This paper Le Québec entre la Flandre et la Wallonie : Une comparaison des nationalismes sous-étatiques belge et du nationalisme québécois gives the book by Robert Senelle, Edgard Van De Velde et Emiel Clement: The Flemings, A People on the Move, a Nation in Being, Lannoo, Tielt and Bussum, 1981, which also claims it's a citation from a 1832 letter from Rogier to Raikem. However, this aménagement linguistique dans le monde page (fr), gives a different origins for the citation: a letter from Rogier to Lord Palmerston, instead of Raikem, also giving another citation from that 1832 letter to Raikem. I'm not sure how we could easily verify either of those sources. What is Senelle et al. made a mistake and others propagated it? It's most probable ALM made a mistake but we never know. --moyogo 16:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny thing: http://www.liberaalarchief.be/nieuws_klnieuws1106.html concords with the Senelle et al. and the others, disagreeing with ALM. It also notes that the historian Leonard Willems could not find references to both letters from 1888 for the Lord Palmerston letter citation and from 1866 for the Raikem letter citation. This is discussed at the Dutch talk page too. --moyogo 16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if it's true that it's very important and it should be in all articles about him, but for now it seems there isn't any credible source?Evilbu 15:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the link above as it was pointing to the wrong page (http://www.liberaalarchief.be/nieuws_klnieuws1106.html).