Talk:Liège/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unemployment

31% unemployment rate? That's dismal. I am missing an explanation for that. --Petzi1969 00:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The tendency for healthy people is to go live in the green surounding, outside the city. That make the statistics grow in liege and decrease in the suroundings. Jrenier 08:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Why don't you include this in the article?--Petzi1969 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not, indeed. Quite hard to explain it good though. Jrenier 16:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Third most populous city

The article said that Liege was the third most populous city in Belgium, after Brussels and Antwerp. That's not correct. Antwerp is the largest city, after that comes Ghent, Charleroi, and then comes Liege. If one would count all the municipalities in the Brussels Capital region as one city, than Brussels (145.000 inhabitants in its own municipality) is the largest city. So Liege is the 4th or 5th most populous city in Belgium. And if you would consider the urban areas as 'the city', then Brussels is still the largest (1.3 million), Antwerp (900.000), and then both Charleroi and Liege have around the 400.000-500.000 inhabitants (Ghent follows with around the 350.000 inhabitants). In terms of agglomerations (metropolitan regions), the largest agglomeration is Brussels (almost 2 million people), after that Antwerp (almost 1,5 million), and after that again both Charleroi and Liege are fighting over place 3 and 4, since they both have around the 600.000 inhabitants (after that comes Ghent, with around the 450.000-500.000 inhabitants). From what I found at the internet (mostly in Dutch), both Charleroi and Liege claim to have the largest urban- and metropolitan area. Some sources: belgie.nl and diplomatie.be. --Robster1983 17:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Charleroi is not even close to be as big as Liège. Charleroi is clearly the biggest city, and Liège clearly the biggest metropolis (including agglomeration). This had been discussed thousand time on fr wiki and is now clear. see this link that use the same source than you. Jrenier 15:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I stand corrected. I started to search the internet for the numbers, which I found. The difference in the agglo-population, between Charleroi and Liège, is more than 100,000, in favour of Liège. I added the numbers to the articles of the different cities (with source, of course). --Robster1983 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

More than 200,000 :-) (Aires Urbaines Liège: 728,000, Charleroi: 481,000). I also added both numbers for Liège, since there are several links on the internet, with several numbers, depending on where you put the boundries. But no matter which numbers one is using, Liège is the largest agglomeration in Wallonia, and third largest in Belgium. --Robster1983 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, especially at Liège i do not sense the reason in taking an agglomeration for means of comparison, as it is really widespread outside the city boundaries . Actually - if you take a look on Google Maps - you can't really tell where you shall draw the boundary... Everything seems to be interwoven somehow - yet not really looking like a city. So by that standards you should actually count whole Belgium as Liège then! :D To me, the city has it's 190 000 inhabitants and the surrounding is what it seems to be: Countryside!

Possible move?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result was moved. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

---

I noticed that Liège is a redirect to here and has been so since 2006. I did also note that there is Liège (province), Liège (car) and Liège (Paris Métro) which are all possible targets for the Liège redirect. However, with the redirect being that stable I see no reason for the article to be disambiguated with the use of (city) in the title. Anybody support a move? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I do. Oreo Priest ^talk 05:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Liège (city) → Liège — That page redirects here. The city is the most common use of the name. I didn't put the redirect up for speedy deletion because there are some edits from WP's early history that I didn't want to be responsible for deleting. Oreo Priest ^talk 05:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• The move proposed above is fine with me and I would also support a move of Liege to Liège (disambiguation) (and a redirect of Liege to the city) since Liège and Liege are easily confused, most of the entries are Lièges, not Lieges, and most English readers searching for the city of Liège are likely to type Liege (without the grave). WP:NC(P) recommends "adding a parenthetical (bracketed) disambiguator to the page name: for instance when both spellings are often or easily confused." Such is the case with Liege. — AjaxSmack 06:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed. The current parenthesized version of the name isn't even compliant with WP:PLACE, anyway. That actually brings up the point that the page probably should be located at "Liège, Belgium" (yes, I'm equivocating heavily here. I don't think it matters much if the city name itself is disambiguatedin this case).
  — V = I * R (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• The problem with this proposal is that Liège can also refer to the state of Liège, a sovereign prince-bishopric within the Holy Roman Empire. This might be delat with by having a capnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • A hatnote to Liège (disambiguation) will solve that problem. Jafeluv (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And if the bishopric has the acute accent, as the discussion at the top of the page suggests, we need a hatnote anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The city is primary topic here. Many readers will type "liege", not "liège", and they should expect to end up in the same article. Jafeluv (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name

Why was the name changed in 1946? Matthew 18:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The difference in spelling (from Liége to Liège) can be related to better describing the prononciation of the name in standard French. LHOON 20:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. What prompted the change - political will? Popular demand? Government fiat? And how was it received - were people unwilling to change the name of their city? I'm interested to learn more! Matthew 23:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This would be an interesting subject indeed. In any case, the change must have been approved by the government as in Belgium the King (i.e. the government) defines the spelling of municipality names.

A local newspaper (now having become a local page of the national newspaper La Libre Belgique) has always been called Gazette de Liége, one page about this paper states:

"La Gazette de Liége" (avec un "é", l'accent grave ne sera jamais adopté par le journal, a contraire de la ville de Liège qui s'est alignée sur les recommandations de l'Académie Française en 1946)[1]

which means that the change was done on recommendation of the famous Académie Française, underlining the French language thesis I mentioned first. One should note that the local Walloon language in Liége is very different from standard French.

The whole spelling change is unknown to most of the younger generation for whom it has always been Liège. I stumbled on it seeing Liége in old documents, and want to know more about it too.

An interesting example of the changed spelling can be seen in Paris, France, where there is a street named after the city. One streetsign shows Rue de Liège, a surviving much older sign on the opposite corner showing the old spelling Rue de Liége ! The adjacent metro station, and likely also the street itself, was initially named Berlin, but this was changed in 1914. LHOON 07:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

From french wikipedia : The authority of the city "decided" to change the name, and the king of belgium did change the name. Notice that people from Liège are still called "liégeois". I also learned recently that Cork, called liège in french was also written liége before 1878. Jrenier 18:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC) To the Moderator; Firt of all, I do not wish to try and actively participate in as a source for this site. It is not because I do not think that I could improve certain sites, it is the limitations that would be placed upon my mastery of the internet world that would stifle me I think. So, please do not put the full weight of your power against me since I have tried the other way, and you have threatened me with total exclusion if I would not play your game.

As regards the etymology of the name "Liege" or "Leo...", etc., meaning "people", etc., it is "bunk!", pure and simple. Liege means "Lord" or "ruler", etc., as in the case where one of humble means in the past would refer to a Cardinal or Duke, etc., as My Liege! A simple look up of the word "liege" should have sufficed for this! Secondly, the use of "Leo..." in the next case, can in no way be confused with "people" or "the people!", certainly another look up might well have sufficed but the author of this particular portion obviously did not do so, if so he might well have assumed that "Leo" in this case, means "King" or "ruler" or "Lord" or "Cardinal", or "Bishop!",etc.! It is even mentioned in the article that this place "Liege" was the home of a major Bishoporic(k)! Even one with a special catagory to accompany it. Just look at the representation of Liege that is labeled "Leige in 1649", "Liège

Legia sive Leodium vulgo Liege - Blaeu J., 1649.

From: Novum Ac Magnum Theatrum Urbium Belgicae. (= "Stedeboeck") Amsterdam, J. Blaeu, 1649. (Koeman, Bl63" The very title of the representation in the upper section gives three differing names for this place! They are; "Legia", "Leodium / Leodivm" and "Liege!" Certainly this should be enough for a reasonable person to understand that these three words share the same meaning, even in 1649!

Oh! That major bishoporic was called "Prince-bishhop!" He, was both Noble and Holy!, thus a real "Lord!" Liege, is nothing but "The City of the Prince-Bishop/Lord(s)!"

This sounds pretty silly. The world "liege" as we know it didn't exisit when the city was founded, so why would it have any bearing on the name? You know that sometimes things develop similarly coincidentally and then people attach false origins that makes sense to them. A simple phrase from the 1600s and what you may think is "common sense" does not a source make. Look up folk etymology. Remember, may places in Europe are older than the languages spoken there today so we can't apply modern definitions to their names. 68.175.94.200 (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ronald L. Hughes69.92.23.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

In making the point about accentuation, are we saying the form Liège was not used before 1946? I researched a topic pertaining to Liège that drew on several sources published in the 1800s, and I don't recall any of them using "Liége." I did a Google Book search on Liège with date parameters of 1400–1940, and found lots of sources with the accent grave: here (not all of these are relevant, of course, but examples do abound). Were the two accentuations perhaps both used? Cynwolfe (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Living in Liège, I can confirm this is correct. There is an article in french wiki about this [2]. You even still have a part of "La libre Belgique" newspaper that kept this accent : [3]. Some newspaper about the world expo in 1905 [4] (not so clear, I know). Another example here : [5]. Jrenier (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to remove that

I read : Liège also has a particular Walloon dialect, sometimes said to be one of Belgium's most distinctive. There is a large Italian community, and Italian can be heard in many places. OK But i don't agree with Knowledge of other 'local' languages (German and Dutch) is usually rather poor, while English is not widely spoken compared to other European cities. On 15 june 2010 I was attending a lecture of Adam Hochschild in Liège who spoke English (though he speaks good French). There were two interpreters (without experience) but many people were correcting immediately their mistakes. Is that an evidence that many people in Liège are speaking English fluently? Not at all. But there are absolutely no evidences of the other opinion which is to remove. Compared to other European Cities? For instance Toulouse or Lyon ? Or cities in Spain, in Italy? I want to remove that. José Fontaine (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Gone. Good catch. Oreo Priest ^talk 21:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I din't understand what you mean by the word gone in an unique sentence. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[It's] gone [now]. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand a posteriori! José Fontaine (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I made also a proposal in a few minutes on the page Wallonia José Fontaine (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you identify the buildings?

Can you help me to identify five block buildings which are on Image:Pano Liege guillemins 5juin.jpg at about 1/4 from a right border? Nowadays they look very ugly and unused. What they were in the past? I guess, they are here: [6] Thanks! Miraceti 10:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

it might be a school. check also wikimapia.org Jrenier 15:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a scholl:http://www.lesrivageois.be/--81.247.232.27 (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Panorama Sept 2008.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Panorama Sept 2008.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Liege attack

No doubt this is going to get its own page, if I know anything about current events on Wikipedia, but I filed it under "history" so far. All there is at present are live reports on newspaper websites. My best guess at present is that the attack must have taken place at about 1:20 PM CET. Note that The Guardian uses GMT, beginning 12:43, which would have been about 20 minutes after the attack. --dab (𒁳) 14:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Lots of people called Nordine Amrani seem to live in Belgium, but Amrani (عمراني) is apparently a North African name, so it stands to reason that we are looking at an Islamist terror attack. --dab (𒁳) 14:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous and extremely xenophobic assertion. The mere fact that the alleged perpetrator has an Arab-sounding name doesn't make this a terrorist attack. Not everything North Africans do is religion-related. You should be ashamed of yourself. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

WTF ?! it's not an "islamist attack", and it's not "history", it's a little criminal (already condemned for drugs and weapons affairs), most probably acting alone for absolutely no religious reasons! until the contrary could be proven, that story has nothing to do on wikipedia! --Fredb24 (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

this is a talkpage. I am just saying this is the overwhelming probability. Of course the article only mentions referenced opinions. So how long, do you think, before this possibility can be referenced to a third party? And for what reasons, other than religious, would you lob grenades at civilians and then shoot yourself in the head?

I see what you mean though. This character was convicted to a 58 month sentence in 2008 (and apparently released early). He was convicted for being in possession of weapon parts and a number of assembled weapons, and he is described as a weapons expert in some organized crime outfit. He seems to have lost it in prison, one way or the other, clearly not acting as part of the mob now. --dab (𒁳) 14:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

would you really have made the same assumption if he was named "john smith" ? calling "reason to look at an islamist terror attack" the fact that he has "that kind of a name" is really close to racism imho...

anyway, that random criminal event doesn't deserve a place on wikipedia, unless the future would made it a part of "History", and i really think you should have waited for more informations instead of rushing to be the first to talk about it... --Fredb24 (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

um, a "random criminal event"? As in, a bicycle theft? This was an attack with 3 dead and >60 injured. You want to have a look at Category:Spree shootings and List of rampage killers for comparison. Also, Wikipedia rather prides itself to be up-to-date.[7] --dab (𒁳) 14:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

i meant more like in "a bank attack" or something like that, but yeah, i admit this event is slightly different ((i apologize, i live in liege and we just had two hours of stress with media almost talking about a third world war, for something that was over just 3 minutes after it started when the only involved person killed himself... so now i tend to relativise a little bit "too much", i stop here and go back to work, have a nice day :) )) --Fredb24 (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

so, apparently there was only a single attacker. The reports of several attackers were probably born from the general confusion. They still spread in the English language agency reports, but the French language ones now say there was just one attacker, who shot himself right after the attack. --dab (𒁳) 14:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is precisely why we need to be mindful of WP:NOTNEWS and not rush to add things like this before all the facts are known. Speculation, especially of a racist nature, even on talk pages, should be avoided. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Liege"

The usage of Liege is under discussion, see Talk:Liege (disambiguation) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Sorry if this remark is misplaced, but I am not a seasoned contributor. I just want to let someone know that I visited (I think) the French Wikipedia entry for Liege and found the name of the city changed to "Cork" in most instances on that page. Looks like some sort of childish vandalism, but I am not able to set it right myself. Maybe someone who visits here regularly may be able to help fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.213.3 (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is fine, and thanks for the tip. I checked both French and Dutch Wikipedias; there's no record of this being the case. If you can point me to the page in question, I can try to fix it. Thanks, Oreo Priest ^talk 09:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Liège

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

Might be worth noting that the Limburgish word for "People" is Luuj, as spoken e.g. in Maastricht. The word for Liege is "Luuk" 88.159.77.240 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The English overname for Liege was firstly: Luke, seemingly from the Dutch: Luik

Lukes is also a word for goods from Luik/Liege, byspell, luke iron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.162.35 (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

But why? did the town's name: Liege get rewritten to: Liege. WHY?

It reads: "Until 17 September 1946, the city's name was written Liége, with the acute accent instead of a grave accent"

It needs whyfors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.183.116 (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)