Talk:Flanders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flanders is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Dear reader, dear editor,

I've the impression that this page contains several severe errors that, moreover, all suggest either an important ignorance about institutional changes of the last decennia, either an anti-Flemish bias:

  • After correctly stating that "Flanders (...) is the name for the Dutch-speaking northern region of the federal state of Belgium", you the completely omit that, just as well also the Flemings in Brussels are fully part of Flanders. You thus completely forget about the Flemish community.
  • You state that Flanders has nearly six million of Belgium's 10.3 million inhabitants; this appears to deny the existence of Flemings in Brussels, numbering between 150 and 200.000.
  • You state: "In Flanders, a strong separatist movement, called the Flemish movement, is active.". This is a gross simplification of real opinions in the Flemish movement. Being a member of the general council of the 'Overleg van Vlaamse verenigingen (OVV), I must add that the common denominator in the Flemish movement is equal rights and autonomy for the Flemings; some want to achieve this trough independence, others trough federalism, and still others trough confederalism.
  • Finally, contemporary institutions and history are heavily neglected.

Yours sincerely, Rudi Dierick, Kazernenlaan 22, B-1040 Brussels

Be bold in updating pages. If something is wrong in the article, go to the article and click "Edit this page" at the bottom of the article. Proofread and then save the page. --kudz75 05:33, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


The current text is quite out of date (e.g. no single reference to the European Union!), still stressing historic Flanders and very incomplete on contemporary Flanders; However, whenever I try to update, a certain older versions gets uploaded again. Anybody who can explain me how and why that happens? Rudi Dierick, Etterbeen, 2 Aug. 2004

Contents

[edit] 'Contemporary Flanders' versus 'Contemporary belgian Flanders'

I've check common practices in several encyclopedia (like in French Larousse, English Longman and Encyclopedia Brittanica). I did not found any single example where the adjective referring to the current state is used, except for cases were it is today a relevant distinction that needed to be made, e.g. 'North-Korea' versus 'South-Korea' as the term 'Korea' might is confusing. Given that the term 'Flanders' is currently used for >> 99,9% to refer to the contemporary Flemish people and the area where they live, or to the current Flemish political institutions (its government, parlaiment and administration), and only sparsely for the 'French-Flandres' and even more rarely for the Ducth 'Zeeuws-Vlaanderen', and as these two special cases are typically called by their 'full name', this is, including the prefix, I it feel keeping the 'Belgian' is just redundant overload. I've changed the text accordingly, and added some urgent contemporary updates. Rudi Dierick, 2 Aug. 2004

[edit] Flanders today is not only Belgian

I think the introduction is really misleading. Today, Flanders is still a region divided between Belgium, France and the Netherlands [1] [2] [3]. I don't understand why Belgium should monopolize the term Flanders. I propose four articles:

  • Flanders, historical and global perspective
  • Flanders (Belgium), the Flemish region of Belgium
  • Flanders (France), and
  • Flanders (Netherlands)

In Belgium it might be obvious that Flanders refers to the Flemish Region, but it is certainly not the case outside Belgium's boundaries. --Edcolins 21:14, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) --

Seems a good idea, but I would then prefer Flanders to be a disambiguation page. And put the historical Flanders into Flanders (county).

Donar Reiskoffer 09:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dear, having separate sections on both historic Flanders, on French and Dutch Flanders is certainly a good idea. However, setting the current contemporary Flemish community on a similar footing (and presentation) in this encyclopedia, does sound very bizar, misleading and out of proportions as the term Flanders is used in 99,99% of the cases uniquely for the current Flanders (the Fl. community, its people and its institutions). You can easily check how many times this is the meaning you can find on internet (using Google search), and how many times the other meanings.
That research demonstrates that when people speak about contemporary French- and Ducth Flanders, they nearly always add the prefixes 'French', 'Dutch' (or even more, in Ducth 'Zeeuws'; 234O resp. 525 occurences). I did not find any single occurence of the word Flanders without such prefixes when referring to French-Flanders and Dutch-Flanders! For a good encyclopedic article on French-Flanders, see http://www.rabbel.info/fflanders.html.
Using Flanders in the historic sense of the word clearly confuses people. One year ago, I made an extensive check on how 'Flanders' was reported in English-language encyclopedia. Stunning and horrific: most indeed referrred to the historic meaning, but ONLY to that one. Some even went that far as to state that 'Ghent' was the CURRENT capital of Flanders! Therefore, there is a big need to clear up those huge and massive factual errors. For all these reasons, a scientifically correct article on Flanders should speak primarily about contemporary Flanders, and then clearly list other meanings. Kind regards, Rudi

[edit] Belgica

The intro of section 'History' had just gotten a subtitle: 'Early history'. This put my attention to its factual inaccuracies, which I corrected. To avoid needless changes, let me point out that at the height of the roman empire, indeed Belgica was the most northeastern province. Then around the start of the decline of the empire the province became subdivided so that Germania Inferior became the most northeastern province. That however, was well after Julius Caesar's references in 'De Bello Gallico' to the Belgiæ, which are the earliest (well-known and often referenced) historical records on the areas that later became County of Flanders as well as still later the Belgian region Flanders. — SomeHuman 25 Aug 2006 15:38 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war I

I've entirely changed the sentence stating "The "Flemish Region" has its own regional government, parliament and institutions, ...". This is complete, utter nonsens. As clearly and explicitely established in Flemish and Belgian legislation, the "Flemish Region" does not have any single member of parliament, nor any single regional minister! Since the fusion of the regional and community institutions, thete is only one single, mono-cameral Flemish Parliament, one single Flemish governement, and one single Flemish administration. Rudi

Who are you? Please sign your posts (cf. your talk page). It is otherwise impossible to properly discuss. --Edcolins 21:32, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
As from now, all my posts should appear dully signed as registration was done in the meanwhile. Who I am, a Fleming, not a member of any political party, but with good friends in all non-extremist political parties, and a regular contributor with opinion articles to Flemish dailies as De Tijd, De Standaard and De Morgen. Most recent, a proposal on variable fines for traffic offenses in Tijd.

:: And who are you?

Hello, This page needs clarification on the origins (and difference between) of the Flemish Community, the Flemish Region, as well as the merger between the two. It is my understanding the Flemish Region absorbed all competences and responsibilities of the Flemish Community, whereby the Flemish community institutions were taken over by the Flemish Region. The Flemish Region represents the inhabitants of the Flanders Region as well as the Dutch speaking community in the Brussels Capital Region. Therefore the statement the the Flemish Region has its own (regional) parliament, government and institutions or administration, is correct without having to tirelessly adding "Flemish" to every word. --Matthewdikmans 09:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just some facts:
1. Flemish Community and Flemish Region fusionned their institutions. Neither absorbed the other. Given that the political parties are represented all over the Flemish Community (incl. in brussels), as in social, cultural, scientific life, it is as good as impossible to find any large Flemish organisation or institution that restricts its operations to the Flemish regionand, the Community aspect largely dominates Flemish political identity.
2. Flemish Region represents ONLY the inhabitants of the Flanders Region; the Flemish Community represents the inhabitants of both Flanders Region as Dutch speaking community in the Brussels Capital Region.
3. Since that fusion, the Flemish region has NO parliament, no governement, ...
4. You're entirely right about not having to tirelessly adding "Flemish" to every word.
As you sugegsted ("clarification on the origins (and difference between) of the Flemish Community, the Flemish Region"), I will include a seperate article on this.
Just one real fact : Flemish region, the belgian institution transfered all its competency to the flemish community. that is what really happened, as it is authorized by the belgian consitution. That is why the Flemish region doesn't have a government or a parliament. 20.138.1.245 12:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war II

I've had to re-insert factual information that a certain Mr. Collins for whatever bizar reason deleted, claiming it was nt factual'. However, I still maintain :

  • it is 100% factual that Brussels is the capital of Flanders and that Brussels lies in Flanders -see belgian legislation, freely available on internet). The only cases known of people pretending that Brussels lies outside Flanders and, that Flanderes therefore has no right to establish its capital in that city are those who insist, because of French-speaking nationalism, sheer ignorance or whatevr other reason (the actual reason doesn't matter) on denying any consideration for the Flemish community (cfr. Belgian constitution);
  • it is 100% factual that Belgian institutions put regions and communities on a similar footing (where E.Collins apparently prefers to censor away the Flemish community, in order to be able to 'justify' his claim that Flanders choose its capital in a city where it is a stranger ("Altough, the city of Brussels does not belong geographically to the "Flemish Region", it is the capital of Flanders."); for the same reason, it is not correct to state that only the three regions form Belgium; correct is that the 3 regions + the 3 communities do;
  • Flanders is, according to international and Belgian law free to establish its capital everywhere it has legal power to do so; this means, including Brussels where it has indeed legal powers explicitely granted by the Belgian constitution.
  • Contrary to what E.Collins suggests, the university of leuven was not just the biggest French-speaking university, but also the biggest Ducth-speaking one!
  • Contrary to what E.Collins suggests (trough omission), the Flemish region has NO government of its own, nor a parliamentary assembly of its own, nor any civil servant; it the whole Flemish nation, people or however you want to call the whole of all Flemings that has a Parliament, a governement, an administration etc. His insistence on just the regional competencies is indeed an erronuous, and 100% politically partisan point of view (French-speaking nationalistic).

....

Please explain then why the term "Flanders" is not mentioned in the Belgian constitution...
And look I've never ever removed "the City of Brussels was the capital of Flanders" [4]. Are you convinced?... Gosh, what the hell is this? --Edcolins 20:50, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Simple reason, but what is the relevance of this question?
Reason is that the Belgian constitution is a compromise between Flemish who wanted to model the federalised institutions along community lines (claiming that best represents the actual structure (social, cultural, political, ...) of Belgian society, while most French-speaking politicians wanted to model the institutions along regional frontiers. Thus, Belgian constitution established both regions and communities and an equal footing of hierarchy (neither stands above the other); then, trough an internal, democratic vote within the Flemish community, the Flemings unified their institutions. This is thus an act of self-determination. Some French-speaking nationalists tried to attach this fusion before the courts, but they were rebuffed. More important: since, the Belgian governmenet + parliament as well as the executives of the other regions and the German-speaking community have consistently recognised these unified institutions. Also governements of many other states have recognised the unified Flemish institutions. Therefore, they are 1000x more the reality then the Flemish region and the Flemsih community who, as said earlier,; don't have any single MP, nor any civil servant of their own.
The only exception on this widespread recognition is the French-speaking community who refuses to acknowledge both the terrotorial integrity of Flanders, as well as, indirectly, the linguistic frontiers established in the Belgian constitution. Trough this refusal, the French-speaking community is the only state ('deelstaat' in Dutch) executive i the entire European Union that does not recognise its immediate neighbour. So, what does any democrat have to conclude from this singular, exceptional refusal of recognition? So, again, what is the relevance of your question?
Concerning who removed my information on Brussels being the capital of Flanders, it appears I was confused. I should recheck the version history of this again. Rudi Dierick,
And, before you forget: who are you?
Very nice, giving instructions one doesn't obey onself?


Brussels is also the capital of the French community of Belgium. The Flemish push for use of bilingual names for Brussels districts and at the same time insist Brussels is "their" city in spite of it being no less legally French-speaking (plus it has an 85% French-speaking majority). No historical Flanders had Brussels as a capital, so what is their claim based on? Flemish people should really start using an empirical and non-didactic approach to Belgian realities.

[edit] Is Flanders also a nation, or just a region and, "sometimes also its inhabitants"

According to the Wikipedia definition, which clearly says that concepts as nation, ethnic group and the likes are no exact concepts, I think Flanders should indeed qualify to be described as a nation.

Wikipedia: 'A nation is a group of people sharing aspects of their language, culture and/or ethnicity.', explaining also that ' Today too, however, many nations exist without a state, such as the Kurds, Gibraltarian and the native American nations, whereas many states comprise several nations, such as Belgium and Spain. (...) The idea of a nation remains somewhat vague, in that there is generally no strict definition for exactly who is considered to be a member of any particular nation. Many modern states show a great diversity of cultural behaviours and ethnic backgrounds. England may furnish a classic example: a territory which is not a state, since it has no government of its own, and which has large immigrant populations and diverse cultural behaviour, yet which is often described as a nation.'

Flanders, contrary to the English nation, the Kurds and many other nations, does have it's own governement, its own parliament etc. It also has its own set of political parties (who together get 99% of the votes in Flanders) and its own, distinctively Flemish set of large culural and scientific organisations. In terms of social organisation, whenever the Belgian legislator did not impose belgian-scale organised organisations (as for trade unions, mutual healt insurrance etc.), the dominantscope of organisation is by far the Flemish level.

Also most contemporary historians like Lode Wils (a Fleming), and philosphers as Philippe Van Parijs (UCL, French-speaking) consider Flanders as a distinctive nation, using the common notion that Belgium is a single state with two nations inside it!

[edit] On Brussels and Flanders

Some French-speakers and sympathisers regularly vandalise the description of the ralation between brussel and Flanders. Constitutionally, Brussels is both a region in its own right, and a bilingual area, thus making it a constituent part of the Flemish Community.

(No, Flanders - the joint Region/Community - has Community competencies in Brussels with regard to people identified by the language of their identity cards as Flemish. Brussels is a separate region in which both Flemish/French Communities (Communities as per the Belgian Constitution) are active with regard to Community competencies, e.g. education and culture. "Constituent part of the Flemish community" is a misleading statement). Simon

However, some people insist on a presnetation of things that Brussels ONLY in its terroiroarial/ regional aspect, and not in the much wider aspects of politics, culture, ... Therefore, I feel a much more accurate, neutral description is " ... Brussels, a city and a region the Flemings share with the French-speaking Belgians.". Moreover, stating that Flanders chose is capotal outside its own territory is, because of the constitution, factually wrong (plain error). In the other hand, stating Flanders chose is capotal outside its own region is incomplete in that it censors the equally vald community institutions. In addition to the regions and communities, which are 'just' institutios', there is also the objective reatity of:

  • political parties, which precisely reflect that dual nature of the Brussels population, with French-speakers and Flemings both represented;
  • the unified Flemish institutions that, because of their constitutional competencies in among other community affairs, is egally perfectly 'at home' in brussels;
  • the social reality with Flemish univesities, schools, libraries, ... in Brussels.

Given all these reasons, presenting it as if Flanders has its capital outside its territory or its region is a partisan and racially biased and discriminating presentation of things: it s as if the Flemings in brussels do NOT deserve respect for the equal political rights, and as if, only the French-speaking community in Brussels would have the right to say it is 'at home' in brussels. this directly means that in that point of viewx, Flemings have a lower status, which means discrimination and racism.

I reworded the introduction to make clear that the fact that Brussels is part of Flanders is controversial. Sorry to hear that it may appear disrespectful to you, but many things appear disrespectful to many while appearing natural to others. --Edcolins 17:51, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Introducing different sections, and keeping only the core information in the general article looks indeed an nice improvement. Nevertheless, there was still some redundant information (e.g. twice stating Flanders is a region in the introduction) I've tried to remediate about these minor glitches and added some details on the two 'Flanders' provinces. I think you also did a good thing to add the sentence that 'Flanders' as a term has different meanings to different people. And don't worry about me: whatever is objective fact, one should never object to any objective description of it (this is: I might prefer that Flanders tomorrow has certain sovereign powers in a loose confederation, e.g. in language, culture and education; that, however, should not hinder me in contributing to a description of what Flanders currently is that is very different from how I would like Flanders to be). So, in your description, I don't see anything 'disrespectful to me', just a few things that are not 100% accurately described (especailly the difference the Flemish Community as an autonomous institution, existing since 1970 and with its current powers only since 1988), and the social, cultural and political nation/community that existed already from clearly before this institution. --Rudi Dierick 19:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is indeed some truth in stating that the fact of Brussels being part of Flanders is controversial. However, why "Brussels is part of Flanders" is controversial is maybe not so clear yet. As far as I see it, the controversy does not stem from different opinions, or projects for the future, but from th more nationalistic rench-speakers nott accepting the existence of the Flemish Community (and especially its competency over the Flemings in Brussels). As such, they object against a very objecive fact, being the existence of an institution established by belgian law and all practical implications of this:
  1. First of all, this way of formulating this ('that Brussels is part of Flanders') is only the point of view of a small minority among the Flemings, mostly restricted to a few political parties (including the Vlaams Belang), both not the majority view, nor part of any official policy;
  2. Official policy and the majority view both say that Brussels is a region that we share with the French-speakers; as such, Brussels is 'also' and partially, Flemish; in the sens that the Flemings living in brussels are not 'abroad', but living in their own (non-sovereign) flemish state; that was what was also included in my description;
  3. However, that constitutional reality (and Flemish majority view) is hotly disputed by all more nationalist tendencies among the French-speakers that fiercely hate an dispute the idea that there is any autonomous Flemish authority that might have any legal competency in brussels; and this is the core of the current political issue.
  4. Those disputing claims run counter to the constitutional fact that there is indeed such an autonmous Flemish authority with legal powers in brussels, the Flemish parliament and the flemish governement for their competencies for the Flemish Community. --Rudi Dierick 18:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Rudy, I understand you like to insist that Flanders is a nation and a community of people. I respect this, but I believe it is probably better to first state that Flanders is a region, and afterwards that it also refers to the nation and the community? It would indeed better reflect the common meaning of the term "Flanders" outside Flanders. See for instance, dictionary.com [5] and britannica [6] which only mention the meaning as a region, and also google:

  • "Flanders is a region" - 94 google hits - [7]
  • "Flanders is a nation" - 1 google hit - [8]

--Edcolins 16:01, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

The terms used for other people that are described in Wikipedia (and elsewhere) as 'nations' have similar frequencies when using better and more appropriate search terms! Just use 'Flemish nation', and then compare the actual 'attributes of other nations (asque nation, Scottish nation, nation québécoise' with the attributes of the Flemish nation/community. Moreover, there is still no single scientific or authoritative source provided here that justifies such removal of that term, so far from 'sufficient evidence'.
in addition, it looks like this argument takes the very common and persistant misunderstandings (and plainly erronuous and out-of-date information) as a justification for not writing better, more accurate and up-to-date articles. Over a year ago, I did an extensive verification of how Flanders was described in English, French and Dutch encyclopedia (online). Appaling! Nearly all of them did refer to the mediaval county, several to Flanders as a territory (most often without specifying which territoriy), several already knew about the current institution of the Flemish Region, but NONE already knew the about the slightly older institution of the Flemish Community. Worse, if I remember well, the Encyclopedia brittanica even stated Ghent was the capital of the current Flemish region. You can understand I did send some emails suggesting an update. So, to conclude, errors in other sources are not good treasons for me, on the contrary. --Rudi Dierick 12:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As to your second point, that Flanders is less knwn as a nation, this is clearly true. However, in order to account for all the actual social, cultural and political reality and to avoid misunderstandings with the 'Flmish Community' as an institution, I prefer to keep the general article distinctive from the articles on the particular current institutions, and still describe Flanders as a nation. Based on all arguments put forward yet, that appears from termonological point of view most suitable. And of course, I fully agree that in such an article, one might add that the degree to which Flanders is considered and seen as a nation differs quite well among people. --Rudi Dierick 12:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We kinda have the smae problem with Rudi on the french version of wikipedia. I personaly think that root of the problem is the fact that Rudi insist of saying that the word Flanders refer to the people, the Flemings, more than the region. But it is something that Rudi seems to not be able to accept, and constantly misinterpreat as a negation of the rights of the flemings in Brussel.

Thanks for our quite precise and clear re-wording about ypour point of view. neverteless, I do insist that the current Flemish Region is only a relatively minor institution (no parliament, no political parties at all, no social nor cultural organisantions,...) and that speaking of the pure territory does give the partisan view that the Flemings in Brussels would be living outside Flanders. Moreover, it is also an objective fact that the current political institutions (parliament, governement, ...) do represent ALL Flemings, including those of Brussels. Therefore, I feel a nuanced presentation of the facts should stress more the actual community (in both sociological/political as institutional meaning) then something that is largemly seen in Flanders as of secondary impoirtance. --Rudi Dierick 12:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And again, as you clearly should know, the French-spraking politicians would by favor prefer the Belgian federal ssystem to rely only on the regions, and NOT on the communities, whereas the Flemings would prefer much stronger community institutions (e.g. NO fiscal powers for the communities today; few for the regions, and e.g. the national state still controlling >95% of the actual weigth of total labour charges!). That are the two pints of view. Aside from these, and on the area of OBJECTIVE facts, one cnnot deny that the current institutions are very cntralistic in financial, fiscal and social security areas (as the French-speakers alsoprefer it), but that on the other hand the Flemish institutions are predominantly community-based. So why not base the articles mainly on these objective facts (and then, in a secondary parapgraphs of relevant articles, discuss those two dominant points of view, Flemish and Walloon/French-speaking)? --Rudi Dierick 12:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I personally do not agree at all with that, and I'm not the only one, but, as a solution proposed by others, we are currently making a disambiguation page refering to the different meaning of the word Flanders by specificaly saying on each article if it refer to the community, or the region. There is still alot of work to do, but maybe the same kind of solution could be used here. Good luck.83.134.197.182 19:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 'we' in your explanation suggests this is a pre-arranged effort by people that know each other (or by one person that uses several aliases).
Independently from that, I think it would be more honest that Wikipedia is not influenced by such partisan scheming between anonymous groups. Moreover, the other recent such initiative (in french) involved a quite severe reduction of practical ease use as the general information on Fladers was firdst hidden, and then only accessible via a complicated search term. Therefore, I strongly plead to keep a general article on Flanders that clearly mentions the homonymy page in its introduction. --Rudi Dierick 12:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The 'we' refer to different users of the french version of wikipedia that do not know each other.
The persecution syndrom is one of the signs of paranoïa. I suggest you consult a doctor asap.20.138.1.245 15:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I come from the french wikipedia as well, and although being a little bit reluctant on the use of the term nation here, as it has a stronger meaning in French - related to nation state (which is in itself a source of incomprehension), I find your article very good and balanced as it is now. I hope it will enlighten some of us. -- BenoitL 22:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the term "Flanders" is indeed not used in the Belgian Constitution per se. The terms "Vlaamse gemeenschap" (Flemish Community (oldest)) and "Vlaams gewest "(Flemish region (altough region in Dutch is "regio", not "gewest") were used. These 2 entities were fused and have 1 parlement (Flemish Parlement) and 1 government (Flemish Government). This is explained on the official governmental websites www.vlaanderen.be and www.flanders.be. The administrative capital of Vlaanderen is Brussels, though shared with Belgium, the Brussels Region, and the European union. This means that ALL important governmental buildings (Flemish parlement, seat of prime minister) are located in Brussels, just like for example 1 of 3 the dutch-speaking court of appeals. I explained this in part in the introduction. There is no mension of any other capital. I consider it misleading to state that Flanders is used to denominate the de facto non-existant region. The confusion is fuelled by major mistakes in very important dictinionaries and enceclopedias. the Oxford dictionary, one of the leading English dictionaries, states that Flanders is the historic County (no modern definition) and that Flemish is an official language of Belgium. Flemish can hardly be used as a group denominator for some dialects, but is defenitely NOT a language from a linguistic point of view and certainly not an official language in Belgium (Dutch is). The same type of confusion resulted in Netherlands being called Dutch in english, derived from "Deutsch". The English then invented another word for Deutsch, German. I suggest to limit the definitions to "historical" and "Modern-day". I left the term "Flemish nation" in, altough that could in my humble opinion be eliminated. --pietervermeersch 12:40, 04 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Out of date sources on Flanders

The external encyclopedic references given were quite funny, but hopelessly out-of-date. They refer to the current Flemish region as an institution (stating when it gained autonomy), but fail to note that there is currently also a Flemish Community institution that is slightly older, and that, contrary to the Region, does have internationally recognised executive institutions as a parliament and a governement. Therefore, give these sources are so out of dta, I wonder if they can be considered as sufficiently relevnt to include then here.--Rudi Dierick 12:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The sources (e.g. "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 2000") might be slightly inaccurate (that should be carefully verified), but they do not present Flanders as a nation. --Edcolins 14:24, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
Well, what is the purpose of this exercise anyway? At the time Copernicus started the world was a sphere and not something flat, there were as good as NO other sources at all that said this too. But was he wrong? No, of course. What I want to illustrate is that the fact that one single said says something (or doesn't) is NOT al all enough to justify a solid conclusion. A solid conclusion can only be reached after a sufficiently in-depth discussion, e.g. going trough some common definitions of a nation and then demonstrating why Flanders does not qualify as a nation. I did that exercise with a few definitions for myself, and concluded that according to all definitions, Flanders does qualify. Even better, I did add in the text of the article a note that how peopleconsider Flanders does indeed vary from one person to another. As such, I hoped aking appropriate care of the variations in how people see reality (not to speak of how the would like it to look like). Can we agree that one source, who's credibilty is not really very strong given it's omission of half of the actual institutional reality, is not sufficient? --Rudi Dierick 17:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The creation of the felmish region date from 1980. At the same times, while the modification of the constitution of belgium, the Dutch Cultural community change his name to Flemish Community and the French cultural community changed his name to French community. The Dutch cultural community is indeed older and was created in 1970.
FYI: 'cultural community' in the meaning of the federal institution, established by Belgian law, and not the Flemish political+cultural+social community that acts and feels to a large extent as a nation. This Flemish nation/community in the second meaning of the word community is both older then the Belgian legislation on these institutions, and also wholly indepdendant of it! --Rudi Dierick 17:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
FYI: I know that it is the federal institution established in 1970, and you know that I know that. You also know that I disagree with your nationalist POV.(nicnac25)83.134.202.145 23:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Right after the modifications of the constitution the already existing Dutch Cultural Community parliament transfered all the competences of the Flemish region to the Flemish community and changed the name of their institutions to Flemish parliament and Flemish government.
Those institutions have regional power exclusively inside the borders of the flemish region and community powers exclusively inside the borders of the flemish region and partialy inside the bordels of the Brussel-Capital region depending of the choice of each individual on each matters.
That is history.20.138.1.245 15:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, and that's exactly how I described it (except for some nuances in the wording; i would not call the current Flemish competencies in the brusels region 'partial', but that might be a detail; the community competencies are xactly as large in both regions, both 'fully competent', so that 'partialy' can only be read as 'competent for part of the population'; thus, that 'partialy' sounds confusing). So what's the point? --Rudi Dierick 17:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
that partialy is not confusing at all, the flemish community does not have exclusive powers inside the borders of the Brussels-Captial region. The choice of depending of the flemish community or the french community is in the hand of each individual. Same with the use of the dutch or french language that can be, for the same individual different for school, for contact with the administration and for the list of candidates for wich he will vote during the elections.
Beside, the region of Brussels-Capital is the only authirty competent for the reginal matters. It as the exclusive powers on the regional matters inside the borders of that region.83.134.202.145 23:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As far as I know, in proper English, you should then use the term 'concurrent powers' or something alike. However, the 'partial' refers to powers that are only part of powers of others autohorities, which is NOT the case. E.g. the Flemish community has exactly the same powers in brussels as the French-speaking community.--Rudi Dierick 22:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

The neutrality of this article is disputed and so this article needs attention. I do think it is biased since Flanders is presented first as a nation and a community of people, while reference sources (such as dictionary.com and Britannica) present Flanders mainly as a region. Metonymic meanings should not presented first. Comments are welcome to find a neutral presentation. Thanks. --Edcolins 14:03, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Ed Colins and other contributors,

1) What is Flanders? I agree that the term "Flanders" is indeed not used in the Belgian Constitution per se. The terms "Vlaamse gemeenschap" and "Vlaams gewest " (in Dutch there are 2 different words, "regio" and "gewest" were used. These 2 entities were fused and have 1 parlement (Flemish Parlement) and 1 government (Flemish Government). This is explained on the official governmental websites www.vlaanderen.be and www.flanders.be. There is no mension of the english term "Flemish Region" to denote the government (NOT the area, which can also be called a region like the ardennes) in official publications, all reference are to Flanders or the Flemish government. I would consider it misleading to state that Flanders is used to denominate the region as opposed to the Wallonia region. In english, the first meaning is an area of land or a division of the earth's surface, eg. "a mountainous region". The term region is only used to denote an administrative region of Scotland. No other mension of a subdivision in the organisation of a country is mensioned (Oxford dictionary). As for references concerning Flanders in English/American dictionaries, One has to be very careful. There are major mistakes in very important dictinionaries and enceclopedias (mainly due to a lack of knowledge). The Oxford English reference dictionary, one of the leading English dictionaries (and made only 400 km from Flanders), states that Flanders is the historic County (no modern definition) and that Flemish is an official language of Belgium. Flemish can hardly be used as a group denominator for some dialects, but is defenitely NOT a language from a linguistic point of view and certainly not an official language in Belgium as is mistakingly stated (Dutch is). The same type of historic confusion resulted in the language Nederlands being called Dutch in English, derived from "Deutsch". The English then invented another word for Deutsch, German. I agree with the other people that the introduction should state that there is some confusion. I also consider it appropriate to mension this is due to differences among English dictionaries and encyclopedias. I would suggest to make a distinction between the historic Flanders (cfr. for example Oxford dictionary) and the contemporary Flanders. For this last one, I would mension that it is the fusion between the Flemish community and the Flemish region. This also fits with the use of the adjective Flanders in both Flemish region and Flemish Community. This in contrast to the Wallonia region and the French-speaking community, where there is a clear distinction between the adjectives used. I suggest to limit the definitions to "historical" and "Modern-day". I left the term "Flemish nation" in, altough that could in my humble opinion be eliminated as the term in Dutch doesn't refer to the people per se like England or Wallonia does not refer to their people per se (Flemish however does). I also personnally think that the mension of the broader significance of "Flemish community" is confusing. The broader significance of the word community is obvious in English. One would however not use the term "vlaamse gemeenschap" to denote the nation (Oxford Dictionary: group of people of mainly common descent, history, and language, etc. forming a state or inhabiting a territory (last one fits Flemish people as they do not share a common language with the French-speaking)). The Oxford dictionary recognizes both the Flemish and the Walloons as a people.

Yes, but you're talking about people and here we are talking mainly a regional entity...
Just a question for example : if Flanders is the flemish people, then what is Israel in regard of the jude people ? Anonymous
Yeshayhau Leibowitz is one of the leading Israeli philosophers who wrote on this. However, the compexities of that very particular case should not cloud the obvious facts here. Facts including that it is very clear what contemporary Flanders is, that there is widespraed ignorance about it, plus widespread disinfoirmation from Frendh-speaking nationalkists who hate to admit that Brussels is ALSO part of Flanders, and historically even uniquely Flemish ....--Rudi Dierick 15:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Flanders as defined in the Belgian legal system is two things: 1. Flanders, the region ("Vlaams Gewest"), and 2. Flanders, the flemish community ("Vlaamse Gemeenschap"), the flemish people living within Flanders (the region) and Brussels (the region). The comparison with the link between jewish people and Israel is flawed. The state of Israel has no authority over jewish people outside its borders. Flanders (the region) does not have legislative power outside Flanders (the region). Flanders (the community) has legislative power over certain person-bound matters of its Brussels citizens (education being the most important), outside Flanders (the region).
Poor observation: if Wikipedia should restrict itself to those thiongs that are defined in constitutions, ..... --Rudi Dierick 15:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
About the word Dutch and the word german. German come from latin germanus, used by Julius Caesar.
Dutch come from Duutsch, the word the people in this area used to spead about themselves.
The word Ducth was used to speak about the german from the 13th century to the 16th when the word moved to name the current dutch, the people of the netherlands in 17th century after they became a united, independent state and the focus of English attention and rivalry. See 1 and 2 for more infos.
On another note, in french, there is a difference between Flandre and Flandres.
And the most common use is like in this centence : "Belgium is divided in 3 region : Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels."83.134.206.70 20:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2) capital The administrative capital of Vlaanderen is Brussels (as defined by law), though shared with Belgium, the Brussels Region, and the European union. This means that ALL important governmental buildings (Flemish parlement, seat of prime minister) are located in Brussels, just like for example 1 of the 3 dutch-speaking court of appeals. I think it is therefore appropriate to mension Brussels as administrative capital with some explanation about the different jurisdictions fo the different governments. [User:pietervermeersch] Jan 06, 2005 (UTC)

Brussels is not defined by the law as capital of Vlaanderen, but it's the flemish people whose decided to take Brussels as capital... If they want, they could take Namur or any other belgian city as capital too ! Anonymous
Pity for you, but under the Belgian constitution, the Flemish laws ('decreten' / 'decrets')have EQUAL legal powers as the Belgian laws, and equal powers as the laws of the French-speaking Community, and of the Walloon region (but higher then those of the Brussels regional assembly, which are only 'ordonnanties' : 'ordonnances'). So, the unanimous choice of the Flkemsih Parliament to establish its capital in Brussels has full legal force in the Belgian legal system! For further clarification, just see any academic syllabus on Belgian institutions or a good book on the constitution. --Rudi Dierick 13:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Decret and ordonnance have the same weight, they both have the same strenght as law, but in limited matters. Besides, the word law is restricted to federal legislative power. A law is sign by the king. And all those legislatives power cannot go against the constitution of belgium, and as stated by the conseil d'état the role of capital for brussels is restricted to belgium, the federal state. so the flemish law regarding this matter is irrelevant.83.134.201.6 14:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please tell me in which article of the Belgian law is written that Brussels is the capital of Vlaanderen ? I'm very curious to check it !
I notice that nowhere Flanders(/Vlaanderen) is mentioned in the Belgian constitution but only the Flemish region and the Flemish community.
I'm agree with you : Brussels is the capital of Vlaanderen as it is written above. I'm contesting "by law".
I moved this as you're mixing 2 different contributions, mine is below. Please sign by puting 4 ~ at the end of your comment, thanks.83.134.206.70 20:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dear anomymous contributor: you're asking which law says that Brussels is te capital of Flanders. According to the Belgian constitutions, both the Belgian laws, as the laws from the community and region parliaments qualify as legislation, and, evben more, they are placed on exactly the same footing. That is, there is no hierarchy between national versus community/regional law. therefore, just check the Flemish legislation for the answer on your question, and you'll see that is iw written blank on white that Brussels indeed is capital of Flanders. I very much hope you'll appreciate this contemporary situation, and not insist on considering that only Belgian laws count. --Rudi Dierick 15:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
As defined by the law, Brussels is the capital of flemish community (Vlaamse gemeenschap), belgium, the brussels-captial regio and the belgian french(speaking) community. The flemish region doesn't have a cpatial, neither a flag or an anthem because the flemish didn't choose any .
Wallonia does have a captial and it's Namur.
Maybe in dutch nowadays the term vlaanderen usually mean with brussels, but in english and in french, it is not the case.
The international community has not the slightest problem with recognising Brussels as the seat of the capital institutions of Flanders! So, the only thing you can obtain here is that you will be seen as partisan, frustrated so deeply in your political preferences thjat you cannot keep to the lines of Wikipedia (neutrality!). --Rudi Dierick 13:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The international community also find it weird that Flanders has it's institutions outside Flanders...83.134.199.61 22:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This appears a claim without foundation, without any credible evidence to support it. --Rudi Dierick 15:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
And even if the term 'Vlaanderen' is used to speak about the flemish community, it still have regional comptences (that do not apply in brussels) and community competences.83.134.199.113 02:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, and this is said so in great detail in the relevant articles. So what's your problem? --Rudi Dierick 13:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Then, I repeat my simple question to you : in which article of the Belgian law is written that Brussels is the capital of the Flemish community ? You wrote it. This is why I suppose you can prove it, can't you ? Anonymous
Dear, it is already a while that not only belgian legislation has legal powers in Belgium, but also European legislation as well as flemish legislation. So, maybe catch up a bit? Secondly, what is the point you try to make? The fact that Brussels is the capital of the Flanders has been juridically dusputed, but all those disputes have been resolved in favour of the Flemish choice (auto-determination in its choice), and ow this choice has been largely recognised, both by the international community, by official belgian institutions, as by French-speaking politicians and ministers. So what the point? --Rudi Dierick 13:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Then in which law ? Give me some source !
Dear, aftr you will be so kind to respect Wikipedia rules on signing contributions, I might consider your request. But, be warned? I do find it a silly questiuon, as if you are unable to have a look on the official website of the Flemish gov't / parliament, or on Flanders on line. Your questions stinks. As if contributors here don't have anything else to do then answer basic questions, because a coward anonymous chap is to lazy to do the most basic checks himself. No wonder you don't sign with your own name. --Rudi Dierick 18:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sign isn't a rule, it's just common sence, make Talk easier.
After some search it appear that it's the Vlaamse Raad that defined the capital of the flemish community as brussels, but according to the state council (conceil d'état) it cannot apply in a juridic(legal) level, as the art. 194 of the constitution reserve that right to the federal state.
Official flemish websites aren't really reliable for infos, number of mistakes I've found in the flemish parlement website is just ridiculous.
Now, dear Rudi, I'm gonna have to tell this to you at least once : If you cannot talk without insulting others please Shut The Fuck Up.83.134.205.87 23:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
With regard to such a diplomatic language, what else can we say. I have no time available to answer silly questiuons that you should be able to find the answer yourself by doing the most obvious reaesrch/ Of course, the problem might be that Fklemish legislation is in Ducth, so you'll have to understand Ducth. But, in case that's a problem, why insist on contribution on a topic you are incapable of reading the authoritative sources? --Rudi Dierick 15:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

As a foreigner, when reading this, I can only express my surprise and disbelief. European Union is around for several decades yet. European law is said to already dictate around 40% of national and regional/community law in Belgium. The European Court of Human Rights is widely accpted as a competent institution, and as the highest court of appeal for the respect of human rights all over the EU. That court as well as Belgian law, and Belgian institutions regularly evaluate certain clauses of legislation written by Belgium's regional and community legislators. But, in complete disregard for all this, some people here still insist on considering only belgian law as 'reality'. Poor reactionnaires! So, Rudi, you better stop responding to them. You're wasting your time.

[edit] major re-write

I've just attempted a thorough re-write of this page. It's still imperfect, but I believe it's now more useful for the majority of English-speaking readers who have no knowledge of the intricacies of modern Belgian politics.

I've tried to separae out the different strands, whilst making it clear that they are, of course, interwoven

 --Holdspa 22:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
On the whole, it looks like a good effort. I think your succesfully made the descriptions more concise. I've done some fine-tuning.
Nevertheless, I'm curious about your statement that 'In English-speaking contexts, the term Flanders is normally taken to refer to a geographical area; the precise geographical area denominated by this word has changed a great deal over the centuries. '. Does this go so far as to consider that the Flemings living in brussels are living 'aboroad', meabning outsoide Flanders? This would alos imply that English-speakers generally don't know in what territory ALL flemish political parties are active (the entie people/communuity, and not just the region) and that the Flemish educatiuonal and cultural institutions are either disregarded, censored, or considered as being based outside Flanders. --Rudi Dierick 20:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This English-speaker judges that Brussels is outside current Flanders, and inside historical Flanders. I judge also that modern Brussels is _Belgian,_ and neither primarily Flemish nor primarily Walloon. Your "this would also imply" is wrong--English speakers don't necessarily have trouble understanding complex inter-community relations. These are details, though, and don't deserve to be in the first paragraph. kehoea at-sign parhasard.net
// Do you have any authoritative sources that suppot your claim? for this, I'm not speaking about massively out-of-date encyclopedia that have missed most of contemporry Flanders and its institutions! --Rudi Dierick 20:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Economist has useful English-language resources on Belgium; this article http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1360463 refers to the modern region as Flanders, making a distinction between it and Brussels. If you want to work out what the informed usage of this some of this sort of vocabulary is in English, find an article off http://www.economist.com/countries/Belgium/ that uses it, and work out what it means. Again, kehoea at-sign parhasard.net
Sorry, I beg to disagree: this sources speaks about both the communities and the regions (see fact sheet), and not only about the regions. Moreover, the map in http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1360463 shows Brussels in dashed colours, as if it just belongs top Wallonia and Flanders. In addition, I did not found ANY sentence on those pages that states that Flanders is only the region. And as said elsewhere, as it is the Flemish community that holds all major institutions as parliament, governement etc., why pay attention to the opinion of those who aree either ignorant about this (as apparently more then a few English-speakers), or either refuse to accept this (as many of the French-speaking nationalists)? --Rudi Dierick 15:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I understand that in a Belgian context, 'Vlaanderen / Flandre' can refer to a community of people bound together by language and culture, some of whom live in Brussels, it seems to me from talking to others that the 'English-speaking---Rudi Dierick 22:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)person-in-the-street' (om zo te zeggen) uses the term 'Flanders' only to refer to a geographical area. To refer to the community of people, she or he would probably say 'the Flemish' or 'Flemish speakers'. --Holdspa 20:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pfff, sounds plainly supid to me. the country of the Scotsman is called 'Scotland', the country of the 'Québecqois' is generally called 'Quéec', .... but from this convention of naming the country of a certain people and the peopel after s similar root, there would then be one exception, where 'Flanders' would then, according to the French-nationalistic slogan, be the country of only part of the Flemings, anhd the Flkemings living in brussels would thus be foreigners, living outside Flanders.
If you want to call Flanders a country in English, secede, fight Wallonia for however much of Brussels you can take, and make that part of Brussels forever Flanders. (I suggest not doing this--though; having thousands of people die for the sake of a dictionary definition is not a good idea.) No-one calls New Yorkers living in Washington State foreigners; and with good reason--they're not. As it is, Belgium continues to exist, and any locals living in Brussels are certainly Belgian, not foreigners. They may be Flemish or Walloon as well. kehoea at-sign parhasard.net
Dear, my personal preference is a confederation with a decent and balanced autonomy for the two actual 'states', with a solid, but honest solidarity between them, and with a status 'sui generis' for Brussels that fully facilitates its role as a multiple capital and meeting point, but that avoids it becoming a player in any political manipulation against any of the two main states in Belgium. On top of that, I very much hope that the European integration gets on track again and that the European citizenship will become more and more significant. --Rudi Dierick 15:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
One can only have a good laugh at such an obstination, and such an incoherence! After the laugh, there will then only be left a pity feeling for that intolerant attitude that insists on turning the Flemings in Brussels into foreigners in their own city. The Flamings, by a huge majority, consider Brussels as a city shared with the French-speakers. However, among the French-speakers, there appear to be a few (99% of the time hiding behind anonymous alias, and never citing any actual and up-to-date non-partisan source that conforms their claim. Poor cowards.
I agree with you Holdspa. In French-speaking contexts too, the term Flanders (Flandre) is normally taken to refer to a geographical area. And in this common sens, Brussels is not included in Flanders but it is an enclave of Flanders!!! But Rudi don't like it because he's a Flemish nationalist and he writes nonsense to pretend that it's the truth! --Anonymous
Olé, it's for free, the 734rd attempt to ignore the contemporary institutional reality.

I'm not here to get involved in anonymous insults! I think Rudi's recent addition ('Today, Flanders can be seen .... ')clarifies the different possible meanings. --Holdspa 19:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For insults, Rudi began first : Let read his last contribution in the previous section! (The next reply of it was not mine!) And insults is when it's not the truth.
But I repeat : I agree with you again. By presenting Flanders in the many differents meanings is neutrality but Rudi often(/always) writes only his meaning and clears or disparages the other contributions. Why do you think this article is in need of attention ? Let judge by yourself ! --Anonymous (Oups, I'm about to forget it again ;-p)
Oh nasty liar: I've been very much insisting on describing ALL the different meanings properly, and often in greater detail then anybody else. It's people like Nicnac and some fellow French-speaking nationalists who try to censor ANY mention of Flanders as a community and as something (I call it a 'nation', but I did write that others might call it differently) that goes BEYOND what's foreseen in the Belgian constituition: ALL contemporary Flemish political parties (or their predecessors from before the numerous name changes and splits) did exist from BEFORE the Flemish Community, just as well as most of it's media, it's universities .... Therefore, what I call the Flemish nation does exist independently from the actual institutions. I use the word nation because it is also used in other, comparable cases, and to avoid confusion with a reletively recent institution. Therefore, I consider your remark as a lie and a gross insult! --Rudi Dierick 15:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The STFU of the previous section was from me. I got tired of Rudi insulting people that try to explain to him (for several months now) that there is a difference between what he want Flanders to be as a nationalist (he is one, and doesn't deny it) and what it is in the reality. Nonsense is also a fact. The only way he can descrive belgium and all related topics is from a political point of view, introducing inacurate informations and removing accurate informations everywhere to only confuse people and serve his political purpose.Nicnac25 21:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality still disputed

The neutrality of this article is still disputed and so this article still needs attention. One trend is to present Flanders first as a nation, a community of people or the "country of Flemings" (the last expression may sound odd should Flemings be presented as being the inhabitants of Flanders..), the other trend (insisting on the English-speaking context, and on reference sources such as dictionary.com and Britannica) is to present Flanders first and mainly as a region, i.e. a geographical area. Please do not remove the "neutrality" and "attention" tags until a compromise is found. Constructive comments welcome. Thanks. In addition, an introduction before "contents" table might be nice? --Edcolins 13:25, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

So, what is the remaining dispute, after all factual information provided on this page and on the similar page in French, including references to official Flemish parliament resolutions, and a clear description of the actual social and political make-up f the Flemish society, makeup that is massively underlying the community-based quality of the main meaning of Flanders, alongside the geographic meaning that I've carefully contributed to? For all clarity, I do NOT object to the fact that somebody feels the banner shold stilll be left (on top of the other banner that a page would need attention), but I do criticise the very poor base of relevant facts given to support the different ways of describing what Flanders is. E.g. at one point, the article on the Flemish region was 'tagged' with the The neutrality of this article is still disputed banner but WITHOUT even any letter to explain the so-called dispute. I resent this as purely politically-motivated vandalism!
I furthermore strongly object to certain contributors who clearly do NOT understand sufficient Dutch, nor have even the most basic knowledge of the actual Flemish society, but that still feel they are qualified to override other contributions. --Rudi Dierick 11:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by "I furthermore strongly object to certain contributors who clearly do NOT understand sufficient Dutch"? Do you mean that all wikipedians who do not speak Dutch should be prohibited from contributing to this (English) Wikipedia article? Ouaw, that is a nice candidate for Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. --Edcolins 13:41, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Your jokes are your merit. What I meant is that it appears very difficult to me that somebody who doesn't speak or understand Dutch would be a credible source of information on the country or people. Such a person is forced to rely on second hand sources; it is impossible for him to do any first hand verification of legal texts on the subject, nor to follow its media, ... That's what I meant. Not more and not less then saying I doubte wheter they have -from a purely scietific point of view- the absolute minimum qualifications to make correct contributions.
If an article has only contributors from one specific community it doesn't have a NPOV since it only has that community's point of view ---moyogo 00:58, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
he, let's keep it clear: I did not say that only contributions from one community are to be found here! On the contrary, I very much welcome contributions from ANYBODY who is competent on this matter, regardless from his nationality! What I do object against, are people who are incapable of any in-depth knowledge because of the combination of lack of sufficient knowledge of the subject language, and strong political and partisan opinions (that typically are the anti-flemish). --Rudi Dierick 13:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So why not just split the page and create Flanders_(Place) and Flanders_(People)? --Bob_the_Cannibal 11:48, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe because the word for Flanders (People) is Flemings...

We are sick and tired of all this itchy non-sense.

Precisely when the world gets a global village and Vlaanderen has and still benefits from a lot of outside investments, you keep reading about this emotional local parochial nationalism.

Vlaanderen wants to be on its own, be the whole of Belgium, the whole of Northern France, and major chuncks of Holland as well, let it be.

By the same token, Wallonia could go back to Carlus Magnus, who issued most of his major "european" regulations and ruled from his palace of Herstal Liège, during most of his healthy age (before he had to join Aachen and the hot water spa's that the Romans had left behind) and conclude that the whole of Western Europe is walloon, including Lombardy. Souvenirs are one thing, present reality is another.

Nobody, with a minimal historical knowledge would question Vlaanderen brilliant past, recent present and achievements in many fields. Now, does that give them the right to act as an "enzime glouton"? It is hilarious at best and annoying at worst.

By spreading and allowing such an attitude, you wind up with this recent severe situation of death threats being repeatedly addressed to a human Flemish company boss for allowing a decent belgian muslim woman, fully integrated, to work in his company : with bullets in an envelope : pretty dirty and smelling, isn't it? Not mentioning militia and associated rightwing brown pest.

There is a difference between nationalism and racism. It is not because there are some Flemings who are both nationalist and racist, that all Flemish nationalists are racists. Furthermore, you cannot judge a society of 6.000.000 people based on one person. You should better judge it on the thousands of Flemings who, immediately after the facts you speak of became known, supported the muslim woman and her employer. CubaLibre 16:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4,000,000 voters, 1,000,000 voting for a racist party. You do the math. Most if not all of the flemish nationalist are racist. The only specification is that they hate whoever speak french. Like it or not, it's just another form of racism. (Before you tell me it isn't racism think of how you would react when someone tell you this : "sorry, I won't sell this to you because you're a dutch-speaker") Nicnac25 13:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Barst Belgie" as some Flemish say openly and a growing number of others let say : so what? chiche? Let Vlaanderen embark or disembark on their infatuated ego trip, lose themselves in a splendid isolation, close to the mounting sea; they want Brussels : so be it. Brussels, in any event, is already much more than that.

They want to drop Wallonia in the process and live on their own : fair enough : let Wallonia swallow it, join France or the Netherlands (why not after all? I suspect the Dutch would rather see them than the Flemish). If nothing else, it will give Wallonia the opportunity to join something bigger and start nice economies of scale, including in the politicians' field.

So, let Rudi and his colleagues go on grumbling and moaning : they'll eventually get the whole thing out of control; they'll project a hideous image of their beloved region, or country or neighourhood, or whatever they want to call it. Already now, for so many stains on their civil rights records, they contribute to eyebrows and question marks being raised on their openness and hospitality. Soon will come the time when they'll be rejected by their neighbours (ask the near-by Dutch and French citizens).

They are hard workers and built great achievements : they'd better use their energy going on doing so : building and not destroying. Somebody, at the pace at which the far right progresses over there, should do them a favor and remind them of the dire straights in which Germany put itself once : Hitler and his gang of scums were also elected freely over a long period of time, until such moment it was too late to go back and the chain reaction was triggered : Vlaanderen deserves better than apprentice arsonists that play with fire and may lose control and then say : Mom, I slipped!

Harry T.

Primo: Flanders *is* using its energy for building: according to a scientific article by Prof. Em. Juul Hannes of the RUG and the VUB, since the Belgian state's conception in 1830, Flanders has *always* transferred funds to Wallonia, and Wallonia has never transferred funds to Flanders. If some Flemings want to have less to do with Belgium, it may be because they are tired of seeing their taxes being badly spent in Wallonia. Some facts:
Flanders is the richest part of the counrty since 1961 and the crisis of coal. Not that long. Nicnac25 13:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 25% of the population of Brussels is unemployed. Most of these people do not speak Dutch -- they would probably get a job immediately if they could speak Dutch.
  • 75% of the shop owner in Brussels don't even speak Dutch. Brussels has the highest salary in belgium and the highest unemployment rate at the same time; I seriously doubt that unemployment in Brussels has anything to do with languages (except maybe for english, which is more usefull in Brussels than Dutch). Nicnac25 13:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do you have any decent reference for those figures you claim?
Actually Brussels is an abberation in that regard. It has an enormous number of job offers compared to any other Belgian regions and yet it has a really high unemployment rate. The main reason being underqualification, and that includes language skills. ---moyogo 01:06, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
This isn't an abberation, it's the normal job market in any western capital city. Same in Paris, same in Washington, same in London, ...
Very strange! When reading international comparisons (PISA, EU, OECD, Unicef, ....) about quality of education, one must admit that ALL report big differences between the quality of education in the various EU and OECD countries, and within Belgium, between Flemish and French-speaking educational systems. Trying to get the very bad French-speaking educational results discarded from this discussions appears dishonest and highly political. One should also note thet in recent years, more and more French-speaking politicians (as mr. Destexhe) and experts, as well as the Walloon and Brussels employers organisations acknowledge the poor quality of the French-speaking educational system. ----
  • 38% of the funds of the RVA (the department which pays unemployment fees) go to Wallonia, while only 32% of the population lives there.
  • racism is the plague of belgium everywhere, and it does have an impact on unemployment, because even if the population repartition between Flanders and Wallonia is 60%/30%, the foreigner population repartition is 40%/50% (in absolute numbers, there are more foreigners in Wallonia than in Flanders). Meaning that proportionaly, there are twice more foreigners in Wallonia than in Flanders, while there is 10 time less industry (and of course job oportunity), and that on both side of the linguistic border, people that aren't white caucasian average male have much more trouble to find a job than anyone else. But the lazy Walloons myth is much easier to believe. Nicnac25 13:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This smacks of ordinary racism against foeigners!
French-speaking Belgium is continuingly relying on the financial support of Dutch-speaking Belgium, and it is not trying to remedy this situation by using these finances to revive their economy.
another myth. federal government spent all his money in wallonia, when, because of the so called equality of all belgian, every single cent of the cost of the rebuild of the Ostende port is paid by the federal government, while it's impossible to make any kind of investment in the Walloon railway because of irrealistic money repartition based on populations instead of costs. Nicnac25 13:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So, if that would be a myth, why then are more and more French-speaking experts and politicians from MR, PS and other parties stating that this current inbalance and level of transfers is not a good sign for the current status of Walloonia and the French-speaking community?
Secundo: Far right has progressed virtually everywhere in Europe the previous years: Austria had its Jorg Haider, the Netherlands had its Pim Fortuyn, etc. Perhaps it is because, in Flanders, the far right has never had the opportunity to actually be in government, and fail, that it still exists. CubaLibre 16:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't think so, I think that the problem isn't that people are for far right, the problem is that in Belgium, in the north like in the south, the difference between party don't exist, and flanders actually have only 2 political wings : far right and everything else. So people that don't agree with the current politic don't have any other choice than far right. Same problem exist in Wallonia, the difference is that far right in the south of the country is so ridiculous only really dumb people will vote for them. Nicnac25 13:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some more facts just for fun : when Wallonia was massively incorporating flemish workers in its heavy industries for more than a solid century, I wonder how you would classify the financial transfers from Wallonia to Vlaanderen in the form of salaries and employers' charges : but this is not the (selfish) point. The point is about a federal state with its up's and down's. Or else as I said : assume and enjoy. Germany or Switzerland also keep transferring from one lander or canton to the other depending on the needs. It varies. So why would federal Belgium act differently, apart again from egocentered and narcissic considerations? Furthermore, by no means whatsoever, should you be proud or re-assured or apologetic or using the fact that the far right is progressing elsewhere to close your eyes on our local situatio, which is so concentrated, as in a caldron. Some decades ago, some weak freaks or sympathisers also let the far right come to power and experiment their own programme of hatred : we know the result. Again, open your eyes, your heart and ,could be, your wallet : so what? You cannot at the same time boast around rich Vlaanderen and complain about drains. If they were so much drain, Vlaanderen would be poor.By the same token, the European budget works along the same principles. Where would we go if the strings of the purses would be attached : how would it have been for Portugal, Spain and Greece if France, Germany or UK would have acted and reacted like Vlaanderen today? How would it be for an independent Vlaanderen? Would it quit Europe because it would refuse to support new members? Where did your car, chemical, harbour and inland activities came from? from Vlaanderen alone? come on! stop it!

Wake up to reality and stop this childish whimsical groaning and moaning : watch yourselves in the mirror as adults instead, while you can, before a too fat face blurs the image.

Harry T.

The biggest problem of Belgium is the same for years now. Whatever is the situation, whatever should be done, politics prefer use the language issue and the community conflict excuse than do their job. And this does apply on both side of the damn linguistic border. and sadly there are still people to buy it. Nicnac25 13:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flanders the Quebec of Europe?

Is this what they mean when they say Flanders is the Quebec of Europe? --Wetman 01:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted cleanup

I may hope my edits "broke open" the article to allow better -and less vague- edits in the future. Phlebas 00:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I might just add that this talk page looks more like a usenet thread: please use it to discuss the article itself, not your opinion on the matter. (Not that i want this mess to enter the article though :)


It's unfortunate that racism and linguistic barriers create such controversy within Belgium. So far to an extent, that this page itself has not led to discussion about the neutrality of it's article, but rather to Belgian politics, concerning Wallonia and Flanders. The topic has taken itself to the route of secession and inequality. How can you be productive and pessimistic at the same time? How can you unify a Belgium when you cannot even agree upon the status of a reigon's citizen? -Allister

Why not actually ask the Belgians themselves how they feel? Idiots.

[edit] "But even in the past there were instances where what is now Flanders was, in fact, referred to as Flanders" ???

The note "But even in the past there were instances where what is now Flanders was, in fact, referred to as Flanders." appears quite relevant to me. I don't now about such references before 1830. I've checked several sources and found none. So, oif anybbody wants to add it, let's first assess if the information is correct, and secondly f it is correct.

Indeed, substantuating that line is very important and <!--examples please!--> shouldn't be removed. But where to start looking? References should preferrably be in English.--Phlebas June 28, 2005 17:26 (UTC)

[edit] Merge history of Flanders with history of Belgium

I personally think it is much more interesting to have one article on the history of Belgium than separate articles for Wallonia, Brussels and Flanders.

  1. One major reason is that the history of Belgium article is more linked and therefore more often read just because Belgium is an internationally well defined country.
  2. History of Belgium has very strong overlap with the history of Flanders. In fact, history of Flanders is a part of the history of Belgium.
  3. History of Belgium or its subarticles (like history of the County of Flanders, of the Southern Netherlands or of the Flemish movement) require manpower to be expanded.
  4. I believe History of Belgium would be less biased than history of Flanders because this would be a wiki compromise between the different editors interested in the history of the southern part of the Low Countries including the editors with the Walloon, Dutch, French, Spanish or, other background.

My suggestion is therefore the following : please reduce the history of Flanders section to its minimum and put the most possible information into the history of Belgium, of the Netherlands and of the Luxembourg or of their often common subarticles (which are often very well done : history of the Netherlands is a feature article!) --Vb 16:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally disagree; that would be the same as removing dedicated articles on the histry of Scotland, Cataluna, .... and other states,r egions and national goups that have a very distinctive nature. What would be much better is inded to avoid redundancies; keep every information in that article that's most suitable, but avoid any biased attempt to favour one or another level. Remind the political animosity; moving as much as possible to the higher level -which would lead to much having to be deleted from the articles on belgium in order to move it to the EU- is a very partisan, non-scientific choice; including every relevant bit of information in the most appropriate sections, that's what the neutrality of Wikipedia calls for! So any merging is completely out of the question!
The problem with Flanders is that, as stated in this article, Flanders (from De Panne to Maasmechelen) is not mentioned in history before 1830 -- some speak about 1798 and the boerenkrijg which is not much earlier. This is the same for Belgium which is not mentioned in history before the United State of Belgium in 1789. Therefore, the history of Flanders is the history of a modern purely geographical region and not of a nation, community or whatever. Many - if not most - people living in the southern Burgundian Netherlands moved to the north expelled by the Spanish and the French. The history of Belgium is similar. Except the Bishopric of Liege which seemed to be some kind of stability island but cannot at all be identified with Wallonia, the Belgian territory corresponds to a modern category which is not usefull for analysing the history of the Low Countries. So before the Belgian independence, the history of Belgium is the history of the peoples and rulers passing by this piece of land. Exactly as for Flanders. For example all one can say about the history of Flanders during the 15th century is that this piece of land was called Burgundian Netherlands, summarize the history of this entity and refer to the main article. This is the same for the Spanish Netherlands and so on. This is in fact exactly the same for Belgium. The things are becoming more interesting in the 18th century and one could then begin a more specific history. The problem is that Belgium is so much characterized by the Walloon-Fleming conflict that the Flemish movement is a major part of its history. Writing an history of Belgium without explaining the Flemish movement is a nonsense. Of course, the history of Flanders can be here more detailed but I think one should not forget that an the article Flemish movement exist and should be expanded. You have compared with Scottland : one big difference exists : this is a well defined geographical region. You have compared with Cataluna. In this case the Spanish state exists for much longer times and its history is not a simple enumeration of the rulers and people passing by. --131.220.68.177 15:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
You have spoken about the higher level which would be the history of the EU. You should simply stop at the Benelux or Low Country which is (in my opinion) the only level which is really interesting for discussing the history of Belgium and Flanders before 1830. The problem is that each modern country needs, in an encyclopedia, an history section at least summarizing what is known about its history --131.220.68.177 16:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted some NPOV material

I deleted this :

But even in these circumstances Flanders continued to flourish. The only danger to its position as one of the wealthiest regions in the world came after Belgium became independent in 1830, with the 1845 famine in West Flanders as a sad example.

because it is not clear (cite your source please) that Flanders still flourished after the second half of the 17th century. It seems to me (from looking at the history of the Southern Netherlands) that, afterwards, the Southern Netherlands were more the theater of military operations (War of Devolution, Franco-Dutch War, War of the Reunions, Nine Years War, War of the Spanish Succession) than a flourishing region. Moreover the Barrier Treaty excluded the Flemings to use the Scheldt. If you count the Brabant revolution of 1789, the French invasion of 1794 and the Napoleonic wars, it appears that the 18th century was not that peacefull and wealthy in Flanders. The United Kingdom of the Netherlands does not seem very positive either for its southern provinces since, from the article on the Belgian Revolution, the Dutch didn't take much the economic interests of the Flemings into account. From this historical point of view and taking into account that the Belgian politics did not do anything for its poor provinces of Flanders (I mean the Eastern and Western ones), the famine of 1845 is not that surprizing but more a logical consequence of two centuries of continued poverty. As proofs of this, I would like to point out the abandon of Bruges (which was build up again by the Britons in the 19th century) and the massive exile from the southern to the northern Netherlands during that period.

I think the hole section on the history of Flanders is not NPOV because it is not telling a word about many centuries of Flanders. I think because those centuries are not very positive and not very encouraging the building of a Flemish nation. This is not very particular to Flanders but to any nation in the process of building (like the history of Belgium established by Henri Pirenne and others in order to reinforce the building of the Belgian nation).

The info about the famine of 1845 is important but should be put somewhere else. --131.220.68.177 14:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Towards a modern and up-to-date definition of Flanders

The neutrality dispute is still actual. I've attempted to criticaly rethink my own, earlier contributions. In order to do so, I've checked the definitions of comparables 'areas': federal states with a large autonomy, with their own, very distinctive political parties, media, international recogition, etc. I've used the word 'areas' here in a specific meaning: some refer to them as 'countries (like the article on Scotland, Québec, ...) others as 'nations', 'states', and still others terminology is favoured by others.

Out of that comparative study, folliwing observations:

  1. Such 'areas' have much more autonomy then the German Laender;
  2. They all have autonomous governements and parliaments with legislative powers and control over local authorities as provinces and munucipalities;
  3. They have a more distinctive society then say the states in the USA, Australia or the English-speaking states in Canada and the the Spannish-speaking regions in Spain.

Therefore, it think it would be utter nonsense to define Flanders as a 'region' -especially since the official Flemish region has NO governemùent, nor parliament, whereas the Flemish Community, being the official name for the political institutions of the Flemish nation has both parliament and governement.

It would be even worse to call it an administrative region. That term is used in France for regions that regroup a few departements, that have no parliament, no legislative power, no local autonomy, no governement etc. brief: administrative regions are incomparable with 'states' (or 'deelstaten' in Dutch) as Cataluna, Scotland, Québec, ...

Given that, evenj more then in Québec and Cataluyna, Flanders has its own distinctive political parties, media, universities etc? I think Flanders should d be defined as a 'state and a constituent nation' or something like that. So, with this, I invite all other contributors to take into account as much as possible the actual contemporary nature of 'Flanders and its social, political, cultural and other distinctiv properties.

  • Brussels region has a parliament and a governement. There are not the sub-institutions of flanders. Why ? Cause Brussels-Capital is a region like flanders, not a part of it. In an other side, with the community, flemishs share some competences with french-language-people in this region.
What do you mean exactly? I've been reading these discussions since a while, and I'm not sure I understand the arguments. What exactly are you referring to 'Flanders' in its general meaning (being the sociological, political, ... community and the 'territory' where the Flemings are at home), or the specific institutions (Flkemish community and Flemish region).

[edit] number of Flemings in Brussels

It is complete nonsense to state that there would be between 150.000 and 200.000 "Flemings" in Brussels (pop. +/- 1.000.000).

Although I am a Brussels native who is very familiar with the subject and who is fluent in both French and Dutch, I can't even imagine where the figure of 200.000 would come from. A more realistic figure would be about 100.000, bearing in mind it is only a "guesstimate".

Under Flemish nationalist pressure, the linguistic census disappeared at the beginning of the 1960's, so no official figures are available. Moreover, a sizeable number of the inhabitants of Brussels are bilingual, (or do not speak either French or Dutch as a first language...) and do not fit into either category that Flemish nationalists or their francophone courterparts of the FDF want to impose on them.

If anybody feels capable of defending the figures given now, please feel free to try and convince me of their accuracy.

I propose to omit any precise figure, since none is indisputable.

--Melodius 14:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have quite some sympathy for being very cautious about numbers here. However, providing non at all appears a bit over the top. Given that the authoritative figures (that is, those based on voter numbers, on enrollment for community institutions and on official policies) range between 100.000 and 300.000 (official Flemish gov't policy), I tought 150.000 - 180.000 might be a good actual and reasonable 'indication'.
For you r other remark about those speaking neither Ducth , nor French, that's very sensible, but less relevant when one speaks about the two official communities in Brussels. Turkish and Arab-speakers can be good citizens in Brussels, but they cannot claim belonging to constitutional communities in Belgium. Regards, --Rudi Dierick 16:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Rudi, there are no "authoritative figures" and "enrollment for Flemish community institutions" is an extremely UNauthoritative figure, since that would include people who, e.g., have a free subscription to "Brussel deze week" (that includes half the francophones of my building) or receive the concert programme of the "Ancienne Belgique".

As for the number of Dutch-speakers in Brussels, I've read everything between 20% and less than 5% of the BELGIAN population. By the way Rudi, "Belgian" is important because you can't just extrapolate those percentages on the city's population (+/- 1.000.000) and state there are in between 200.000 and 50.000 Dutch-speakers. About 25 % of the total population has a foreign citizenship, and they should be substracted from that million. Your absolute figures would mean that a third of the Belgian population is Dutch-speaking, which is obviously not true.

A reasonable estimate is somewhere between 7,5% and 15% of the Belgian population, depending upon how you define "Dutch-speaking" (i.e. including bilingual people or not) a figure which is backed up by election results and the number of people who correspond in Dutch with the communes. Admittedly, election results probably overstate the amount of Dutch-speakers and correspondence with the commune understates it, but they are the most accurate currently available. --Melodius 08:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Wouw; and what source can you give for the 7,5%? Any? or none? As long as you do not provide any, I guess it's better to stay in the orders of magniture for which there are sources (as official % of votes on Ducth lists etc.). I therefore removed those wholly unsubstantiated claim of 7,5%. --Rudi Dierick 22:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Rudi, 7,5% is the average of the numbers provided by the gemeentes/communes for Dutch language documents. I couldn't find it on the Internet, but it was published in the press (Le Soir, if my memory serves me right). Like it or not, and especially since the text contains a clear caveat and the "opposing" figure, that number has to be taken into account. --Melodius 11:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Wouw! From proper experience (having lived in Brussels for around 8 years by now with somebody from Wallonia) I must add here that this source is one of those enormous manipulations: I've also experienced municipal services not willing to provide me official documents in Dutch. My wife, nor any of her friends has ever experienced the reverse (no documents in French available). Several municipal administrations have a very bad reputaion in this area. Therefore, I'm very surprised that you consider those figures as relevant. Worse, those official figures are WAY below all other figures (like votes for Dutch candidates etc.). So, insisting on such low percentages appears to me either blazing ignorance, either a very strong partisan stance. --Rudi Dierick 22:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the WRONG figures that some people insist on inserting AGAIN. I did like the "most Brussels natives are of Flemish descent" bit, although it had to go since I am not aware of any genealogical studies about the Brussels population. I thought received wisdom amongst Flemish nationalists was that Brussels had been invaded by "volksvreemd Waals tuig" ? Ah well, one is never too old to learn. --Melodius 15:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vlaams Belang is not "far right"

In the main article on Flanders, under the sub-heading, "Political Flanders," it says this:

"Political Flanders (in Belgium)

"Main article: Politics of Flanders

"Many new political parties during the last half century were founded in Flanders and most often in Antwerp: Daensism, progressive Christian-Democrats; Frontpartij & Volksunie, moderate nationalism; Green!, alternative/Green; Vlaams Belang: far-right nationalism; and ROSSEM, a short-lived anarchistic spark)."

I question the characterization of the Vlaams Belang as "far-right." "Nationalist," yes -- referring to it as "nationalist" is fair, of course. But "far-right" can't be justified. The Vlaams Belang is a middle-of-the-road nationalist party. It is neither "far-right," nor "far-left," nor "far-anything." The Tranzi government in Brussels may try to paint the Belang as "far-right" but that government isn't exactly a disinterested participant in Belgian politics: it has its own axe to grind vis-à-vis what the Belang stands for. Is Pim's List "far-right"? Of course not. Neither is the Vlaams Belang.

-- Fred Scrooby, Vermont

If the VB is not far right, nobody is. --Melodius 09:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If you compare the Grand Old party in the US to Vlaams Belang, there are quite a lot of issues on which the GOP is more far right than Vlaams Belang. If you consider Vlaams Belang within the Flemish context, one can safely say it is an extreme right wing party.

I was unaware that the GOP defends collaboration with nazi Germany to this very day. As I wrote before, one is never too old to learn. --Melodius 15:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I don't understand the logical of this article !

  • Why always rewrites many times that the community and the region have common institution ? 1 time is enough, isn't?
Indeed: one good explanation should be enough. And then afterwards, it is the community that absorbed the legal comptencies of the region that should be the main topic as it is the community that has, by far, the largest social, cultural and political impact.
  • Why refuse the fact that Flanders is also a region (as a community) as written in the belgian constitution?
I've observed the various opionions on what is Flanders with some astonishment. Opinions are indeed widely diverging. nevertheless, I haven't seen anobiody stating that the region should be omitted. on the other hand, i've seen some persons (clearly non-Flemings with a dubious knowledge of Flemish institutions) who initially censored out the Flemish community. And that was a very crude and partisan, anti-Flemish interference as the Flemish Community has much more competencies and political importance then the Flemish region. Only constitutionally speaking, region and community have equal standing (for Flanders); however, the region has no parliament, no governement, and no political parties that are typical for the region. On the other hand, the Flermish Community has all of that, and on top of that Flemish media, Flemish universities, and many social and cultural organisations. So, as far as I see, it is the Flemish community that carries most weight. I've always been wondering why that should not be reflected in this article on Flanders.
  • And if it isn't the case, why use the flemish region flag in an mis-titled article ("Flanders") of the Flemish Community?
Similar remark: altough I'm not an expert i flags, I've also been puzled by the insistence of certain to 'reduce' the general article on Flanders to the Flemish region, and it's territory and symbols, whereas the Flemish Parliament basically uses community-wide symbols etc.

[edit] Many, some, the

  • An anonymous user changed 'Although _many_ Flemings identify themselves more with Flanders than with Belgium;' to '_some_ Flemings'. I think this is a good change Bask
Given that the percentages of Flemings favouring independence has risen from 20-25% typically to just over 50% in a recent poll early 2006, it looks just the other way round to me.
  • An anonymous user changed 'More importantly _the_ experiences of the Dutch speaking soldiers on the front lead by French speaking officers catalysed Flemish emancipation.'. to '_some_ Dutch speaking'. I changed it to '_many_ Dutch speaking' Bask
probably more accurate indeed.

[edit] Confusion, confusion

Note: Responses by the original author appear indented and in square brackets. (I've changed this in order to increase readbility; hope you agree, --Lucas Richards 11:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

Dear all,

This discussion has certainly been a useful lesson in the vicissitudes of Belgian politics! Some here have opined that non-Flemish should basically have no input in this discussion,

Where did you read this? I only found one person arguing against contributions from persons who have no or only limited mastery from the Dutch language, as those persons are incapable of first-hand access to the relevant sources (as official documents, laws, ...). Kind regards, Lucas.
[Precisely. This still does not mean that some educated and well-intentioned outsiders with "no or only limited mastery of the Dutch language" do not have a valuable opinion on the politics of Belgium. The "outsider" status is a valuable psychological tool in objectively analysing the situation of any given country.
That's clear. I agree with you that outsiders do have a potential advantage because they're not involved. However, I remember from the discussions between R. Dierick and Nicnac25 that Mr. Dierick made the point that Nicnac and a few other French-speaking Belgians where no neutral outsiders at all, but active, political militants advocating a certain political line. In addition, he criticised that they pretended making objective statements where they proved incapable (or unwilling?) to consult and understand the relevant provisions in the Flemish legislation (which is only in Dutch). --Lucas Richards 11:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed natives from a certain country are often known to open themselves more candidly to foreigners than they would to their own compatriots, and as a result foreigners can end up with a special knowledge of the country that its own natives probably do not have. Outsiders are often more objective than insiders, because they have no stake in the issue at hand.]

and I would like to express my opposition to this view: by the same token, then, non-Chinese should never have the right to express opinions about China, or non-Americans about America. Needless to say this is a very limitative approach to learning, and the considered opinion of outsiders should, on the contrary, always be taken seriously. The proverb says: "what can they know of England, those who only of England know?"

As said, the main argument concerns the fact whether a contributor who cannot understand any relevant official sources in the language of Flanders can have an accurate and objective meaning on this!
[As said, see above]

It appears to me that people disagree so stringently on the subject of Belgium and Flanders because there is a lack of knowledge as to basic political definitions.

This is definitively try. Several persons spend great efforts to clarify on this.
[And still people stringently disagree: so there is no harm in trying again!]

I am going to try and clarify these so that everyone has a better idea of what they're talking about. Please note that this applies to the English language, and that transliterations to French or Dutch may have slightly different cultural and historical connotations.

Nation: a nation is a group of people who generally share cultural characteristics deemed to be significant, most often language and ethnicity. A nation, it is important to note, may or may not have political or legal status. It is reckoned that the people of France are a nation, for instance, and France happens to have a legal political status which reflects this (when this is the case, one speaks of a nation-state). Conversely, although it is equally reckoned that Tibetans form a distinct nation, there is however no Tibetan state in legal existence - Tibet being an administrative part of the People's Republic of China.

Indeed, see also the Scots, the Catalans, the Québeqois, ....

Between a fully self-governing status as a sovereign state and a complete subservience to another nation, there are also several intermediary stages of political representation for any given nation - for instance, the province of Quebec in Canada is not an independent state but enjoys high local autonomy in recognition of the large population of ethnic French there who are substantially different, in cultural terms, from the majority of English-speaking Canadians.

Region: a region is first and foremost a geographical area. It does not necessarily reflect the cultural identity of the people who live in it, and it may not have any political status.

And in certain cases, a 'region' can also be a precise level of federal governement.

Community: a community is a group of people joined together by certain common features. These can be absolutely anything, and often they merely relate to geographical proximity: a neighbourhood can be called a community, or a village, or the people of Europe. Most often communities have no political status or legal representation.

Discussion: The term "Flanders" makes the discussion even more complicated because it encompasses regions which actually belong to different sovereign states than Belgium. The northernmost section of France is often referred to as Flanders, for instance, as is a smaller section of the Netherlands. To simplify matters, one could say that "Greater Flanders" includes all of these regions in addition to Belgian Flanders.

Finally, Brussels makes for a complete classification nightmare because although it traditionally contains more French than Dutch speakers (whether or not this is due to long-lasting Walloon hegemony in Belgium is certainly up for discussion), it is geographically located in Flanders... but by government legislation it is supposed to be half and half (all street signs are bilingual in Brussels, whereas in Wallonia and Flanders they only appear in the respective language of the area in question).

Hmmmm, all French-speaking historians I've read have a very different meaning on the 'traditional' language of Brussels. All state that in 1830, the great majority of the people in brussels were speaking Dutch (or more precisely the local dialect of Dutch as then 99% of the population in belgium spoke only one or another dialect). See also the detailled explanations from Rudi Dierick on this. Lucas.
[Thank you, I stand corrected. The source for this assertion of mine came from Belgians (from both communities) who assured me that there were more French than Dutch speakers in Brussels. This may be the case currently, but not traditionally. I definitely misused the word "traditional" here.]
Indeed, it is clear that TODAY, there are more, but before ....

There is no doubt that the Flemish in Belgium make up a separate nation. They speak a completely different language from the French-speaking Walloons and have asserted their distinct cultural identity in many other ways too - for instance through a general consensus that they are more "Anglo-Saxon", more pragmatic and down-to-earth than their Walloon neighbours.

Whether or not their nation should also include the Flemish of France and the Netherlands, however, is disputable, as these "extra" Flemish do not normally feel much kinship towards their cultural brothers in Belgium and are much less concerned about the internal politics of Belgium. In addition, none have expressed much interest about seceding from their original state and joining Belgian Flanders instead.

Dear, why make it so difficult? Just look at the representative political parties in Flanders and in the French Flanders. Then you'll immediately see that there are NO parties representing the Flemings in France, and that none of the political parties in Flanders have any ambition towards French Flanders. This discussion appears a very theoretical things, typical for people with either a penchant for history, either a poor knowledge of contemporary politics and society. Lucas.
[With all due respect, I think you are the one making it difficult. Political representation is only an indirect form of popular will. By saying "none have expressed much interest about seceding from their original state", I have actually described the situation in a more succinct, accurate and direct way than by delving into the issue of political parties. Furthermore, I don't know how you make that spurious deductive leap about me supposedly having a poor knowledge of contemporary politics and society - I also see this as an ad hominem attack and an invalid value judgement which has no place in this discussion. But let me reassure you on this point, anyway: I have a university diploma in political science, I speak 6 languages fluently and have lived in 8 different countries across 3 different continents. So I think my knowledge of "contemporary politics and society" is probably better than average, thank you very much.]

The Flemish in Belgium are a nation but they do not have a sovereign state (and neither do the Walloons). They are, however, endowed with these intermediate stages of political representation that I talked about earlier. Whether as a "regio/gewest" or a "gemeenschap" they do have the right to decide of their own educational and linguistic policies, their political identification, and the local legislation of their cities, towns and villages.

The rest (which community in Belgium is more privileged, which has more official recognition, which has to pay for the other one, etc etc) is a matter for debate, much of it unfortunately characterised by the continuous tug-of-war between Flanders and Walloonia, as we have seen in this extensive (and often bitter) discussion page.

Hmmmm. The actual opposition is not as much between Flanders and Walloonia, but between Flanders (and especially it's politicians) and the political establishment of the French-speaking community. That means that this opposition runs straight trough Brussels, where the Flemings from Brussels massively insist on remaining part of that Flemish political and cultural community, and where the representative political parties for the French-speakers are all also active in Walloonia. Lucas.
[The point you raise is interesting and informative, so thank you for that. However, there still exists a systemic and generalised hostility between Flemish and Walloons, even outside of the Brussels issue, and I contend that the conflict over Brussels is part of this general animosity. Later on in this post I back that up by mentioning the example of Walloons pretending to be French when they go to Flanders so as not to incur ill-feeling from the other community. You did not comment on this, which I take to mean that you agree.]
Yes, I do agree that there is quite a lot of animosity between Flemings and French-speaking Belgians. In brussels, several of the related conflicts all come into play. It is striking, and very relevant that the mere fact of presenting oneself as a Frenchman, and vice versa (!), removes all (or most) of the street-level animosity. That proves that the animosity of basically an ethnic confrontation between two peoples (nations, communities, ...) and not 'just' a linguistic issue as some French-speaking nationalists proclaim.

In my humble opinion as a foreigner, however, the issue of Belgium may be best resolved by outright secession. The creation of independent Belgium in 1830 was borne mostly of a resistance by the Walloons to the idea of being subservient to a Dutch, Protestant throne. The Flemish of Belgium had little say in the matter, and for the next hundred years at least Belgium was ruled autocratically by the Walloons, who oppressed as many elements of Flemish culture as they could.

The Flemish gradually emancipated (especially when Walloon economic dominance dwindled as their heavy industries failed to compete with those of the developing world) and the unfortunate result today, as I see it, is an enormous and inefficient mess. The Flemish are vengefully trying to establish as much control as possible over a lumbering and outdated state structure characterised by a mushrooming bureaucracy and an institutional tendency towards old-fashioned centralism. The consequence is an organisational nightmare: no one really knows what government organ controls what in Belgium (not even, as it would appear from the contributions to this discussion, the Belgians themselves). Belgium has two posts for every ministry, one Flemish and one Walloon, and four different legislative assemblies, all of that for a country the size of a smallish American state. As such Belgium's is one of the most wasteful, bureaucratic, contentious and ineffective governments in the European Union.

Since the decision to create a Belgian state was made with little consideration for the majority Flemish community, one could very well argue that Belgium has no legitimacy. More than that, over the past forty years the two communities have shown very little willingness to cooperate with each other, and instead spend all their time throwing petty spanners in each other's works. The Flemish are doing their level best to avenge themselves for every slight they suffered during the 120-year period of Walloon supremacy, and the Walloons are stubbornly continuing to behave as if nothing had changed.

Naieve point of view. There was indeed a now widely acknowledged discrimination of Flemings; on the other hand, there are no scientific accounts of current situation that support the statement you made ('The Flemish are doing their level best to avenge themselves'). The latter appears just propaganda and dissatisfaction from certain French-speakers who resent the loss of privileges they had and who defend the last few remaining privileges (as the extra-territorial voting rights that French-speakers living in the mostly monolingual Flemish municipalities of Hal-Vilvorde enjoy (and that Flemings can nowhere enjoy!).
[I have never denied that there was discrimination against Flemings, so I don't know how you interpreted that. See earlier part of my article ("Belgium was ruled autocratically by the Walloons, who oppressed as many elements of Flemish culture as they could"). As for the Flemish trying to avenge themselves, I am afraid that there cannot be "scientific accounts" to back this up, because feeling wronged and seeking revenge is exactly that - a feeling! I take as proof of that feeling the obviously angry and defiant attitude displayed by the Flemish when it comes to most cross-community issues in Belgium, as well as the fact that they tend to go more extremely against the Walloons, rather than seek compromise - I live in Northern Ireland, and believe me, I have a long experience in identifying sectarian hostility and vengefulness when I see it! I don't know how you figured that my take on this was "propaganda" - I'm not Belgian, so why would I take sides in this? You seem to think I favour the Walloons, but I really don't. Indeed I have clearly described my belief that they also deeply unreasonable in their own way (see same paragraph: "the Walloons stubbornly continue to behave as if nothing had changed").]
Looks like I gave another meaning to the term 'avenge' then you, and most probably sloppy use of certain terms is to blame for that. Apologies! --Lucas Richards 11:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The enormous row that recently erupted over the status of Vilvoorde (a suburb of Brussels technically in Flanders which, as a natural consequence of the expansion of the city, has happened to become settled in majority by Walloons)

This appears a factual error; it is only one of the quarters from Vilvoorde, the one lying inside the highway ring that prbably has a majority of French-speakers. --Lucas Richards 11:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Secondly, the known category that you are probably referring to is 'French-speakers' and not 'Walloons'. --Lucas Richards 11:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

fully shows to what astronomic lengths the two communities are prepared go in trying to annoy each other. In the meanwhile it is the country at large that suffers. Hostility is so widespread that many Walloons wandering around in Flanders now pretend to be French in order not to suffer derogatory treatment. Because of its petty ethnic wars, a country at the heart of Western Europe which should have been sophisticated, cosmopolitan and outward-looking is becoming inward-looking and dogmatic.

Given that the basis for the existence of Belgium is flimsy and undemocratic and that neither community in the country has shown the maturity to try and get along with the other, the best thing to do would be to separate. Things can then begin from a clean slate and both communities can set about establishing a governmental structure which is rational and efficient, instead of the massive quagmire that all Belgians are stuck with today. Of course, even then there is the possibility that Brussels might become the Jerusalem of Northern Europe, and that both communities will continue to bicker for the next eight generations about who has claim over what!

I hope my contribution has been useful. Either way, I dearly wish for a successful resolution of the Belgian conflict, starting right here on Wikipedia!172.210.92.253 13:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flanders

Just to point out a minor mistake: in the Russian version the ancient county of Flanders is constantly referred to as 'duchy'. Ik should say = графство.

Why this endless discussion among Flemish/Brussels/Walloon/ignorant contributors? Just consult the (obligatory) objective information on the whole issue on the Belgian minnistry of Foreign Affairs' site? The whole constitutional reform of Belgium, the competences, etc. are clearly defined. Read and compare www.flanders.be and www.wallonie.be / www.pcf.be/ and keep the mere facts. — 193.191.138.240 18 Sep 2006 (was unsigned, undated)

Section title 'Flanders' on the talk page of 'Flanders', I assume it's about Flanders then. Should I report errors in this English Wikipedia on the Russian Wiki? Official == objective, simply because it's obligatory. Nice to know. — SomeHuman 18 Sep 2006 18:12 (UTC)

[edit] Fuzzy lead

Can someone tighten up the lead? It's starting to float off into a very general and vague discussion of the word "Flanders" (rather than the geographic region). For example, that one of the primary meanings would be "the community of the Flemings" seems to be a very marginal interpretation. It's somewhat like claiming that England is also "the community of the English". Please keep geographical regions, however disputed, separate from peoples.

Peter Isotalo 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I'm afraid you're showing you don't really know much about Flanders nor Belgium... ;-)
You see, the word "Community" in Belgium (and Flanders) has a very precise legal meaning. Belgium is a federal state, with both "Regions" and "Communities" as its constituants. A Belgian Community is -to a certain extent- similar to a US state. I understand that the concept is a bit hard to grasp for non-Belgians, but it's a system that has worked. The situation in Belgium wasn't that much different from Northern Ireland or the Basque Country, or even former Yugoslavia, but we hardly knew the violence these regions have known...
You might want to read more about it in the Communities and regions of Belgium article. An excerpt : "Belgian Communities do not officially refer directly to groups of people – there is indeed no subnationality in Brussels – but rather to the political, linguistic and cultural competencies of the country.
All Communities thus have a precise and legally established area where they can exert their competencies: the Flemish Community is competent in the Flemish and Brussels regions; the French-speaking Community in the Walloon (French linguistic region) and Brussels regions, and the German Community only in a small part of the province of Liège (Wallonia), bordering with Germany, which is the German linguistic region."
I'm afraid that to compare the Belgian Communities with "the community of the English" is nonsensical.
--83.182.213.188 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a very popular misunderstanding among many people who edit articles about all things Flemish that the terms involved have to be described primarily from the point of view of the people living in the region. This article is supposed to be about the meaning of "Flanders" that is most familiar to the majority of the English speaking world. What you're talking about seems to be talking about exclusively Belgian affairs. There's no problem in describing this legal term in the article, but not in the way it's done in the article. It amounts to a rather obvious POV issue.
And I should add that it makes for a rather poor read. For one thing, it begins with an etymology and doesn't even explain that it's actually about a geographic region rather than some sort of ethnicity. I'm going to do what I can to improve it and bring it up to the standards recommended in WP:LEAD.
Peter Isotalo 10:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course, Wikipedia should transcend the POV of the people living in Flanders. But the fact is -and this should be a part of the article, if you want to write a complete, correct and NPOV article- that the word "Flanders" has several meanings, one of which is the Community.
I don't see why it should be removed from the article, just because some people do not yet fully understand the concept.
I agree that the introduction needs some work, but please don't cut things because you don't understand them.
--193.190.154.22 11:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I've already edited the introduction a bit. What do you think ? --193.190.154.22 11:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't ask it to be removed completely. In fact, I said it should be mentioned, just not as prominently as it is now. The meaning "Flemish community" is not what I would consider to be a "main meaning" in the English definition of Flanders. If you look up "Flanders" in English language dictionaries and encyclopedias, it's considered to be a region, not a community of Flemings. I suggest describing it not as a primary definition, but pertaining to its legal and cultural status in Belgium.
The layout of the entire lead is, however, the biggest problem. It reads though it were an article in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia, with definitions presented as bulleted lists rather than prose. And it doesn't even begin with the rather obvious sentence "Flanders is...", but a lengthy etymology and then a description of the political status of the region in Belgium. For a general idea of how to construct a good lead about a region, have a look at Prussia (region), Galicia (Central Europe) and Wallachia. (I am aware they aren't exactly analogous to Flanders, but that's beside the point.)
Peter Isotalo 12:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It has now been over a month and little has been done to improve the lead. Only the rather long etymological information has been removed and the lead is still formatted like some sort of dictionary entry and taking a very misleading stance of what "Flanders" actually is. Flanders is a geographical region, not some loosely defined ethnic community, as is suggested in the lead. The community of the Flemings is supposed to be handled in Flemish people and Flemish community. I have added a cleanup tag and I expect it to stay until the problem has been amended.
Peter Isotalo 10:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The notion that "Flanders is a geographical region", and nothing else, is POV. It is a political statement, taking one side in a socio-political division/cleavage within Belgium and Flanders.
You need to read up on Flemish and Belgian political history before contributing to this article if you don't understand that.
--83.182.215.204 16:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
In English "Flanders" is a geographical entity. Just look it up in dictionaries and encyclopedias. It's still no more an ethnic community than Prussia or Galicia. That it happens to be the central regions of the Flemings is a different matter. You can't call Flanders a community any more than you can call England or Bavaria one. If anything, the stance taken currently is the POV:ed one. There's absolutely no problem in describing the historical or current situation without fouling up the lead.
Peter Isotalo 08:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"It's still no more an ethnic community than Prussia or Galicia." This is where you are wrong. Because of its social and political history, the word "Flanders" is not only used to describe a geographical area or a administrative subdivision, it has a much broader sense.
Now personally, I don't care much for these connotations, but one can not deny that the word is used in that sense.
--83.182.194.67 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've already explained why it doesn't seem like an especially common meaning of "Flanders" in English usage. Most of our readers are not Flemish and would not want to get swamped with the minute aspects of an exclusively Belgian ethnic conflict in first sentence of the article. In English "Flanders" is a geographical region, either historical or modern, and not some loosely defined "ethnic community" separate from the Flemings themselves.
Peter Isotalo 12:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide a verifiable source for that assertion ? That the meaning of the word "Flanders" in English is restricted to define the geographical region, excluding all other meanings ? --83.182.246.193 15:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A quick glance in dictionaries and encyclopedias (dictionary.com, Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta) will do the trick. I can't find anything about "the community of the Flemings there". But it's not up to me to prove that you're wrong. It's up to you to prove that you're right. We can easily confirm that Flanders is a region, but we don't know that it's commonly referred to as anything other than a geographical entity. And, again, we're still talking about the listy, crufty and POV:ed nature of the lead, not what can or can't be included in the article as a whole.
Peter Isotalo 08:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/l/a/Talk%7EFlanders_e82c.html"