Talk:Flemish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Self-reference 2 This is not an article 3 Responses to RfC 4 Requested move 4.1 Survey 4.2 Discussion 5 Cleanup issues 6 RFC/style comments

[edit] Self-reference

Moved from the main page per WP:SELF, the fact that it's already interwikied, and that it doesn't need to be mentioned per normal interwiki practice. --Interiot 14:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of this article was translated from the Dutch Wikipedia article on the same subject.

Hm. I entered it in the article per WP:TIE :

"Please do indicate in the references section of the newly created article that an article in a foreign-language Wikipedia was among your sources. For example, the references section of the article "Paragraph 175" begins, "Much of the content of this article comes from the equivalent German-language wikipedia article (retrieved September 30, 2004). The following references are cited by that German-language article..." Note that something like this (without that last sentence) would be in order even if the German-language article did not cite any references of its own."

(not my italics).

--LucVerhelst 15:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:TIE is very specific, WP:SELF does not deal with this particular type of self-referencing. Section references reinserted. — SomeHuman 18 Sep 2006 18:40 (UTC)

I've removed the reference. Wikipedia is not it's own source. Readers have to be able to find the sources directly on their own, not through other articles. This is especially important in the case of an English-language article referring to a Dutch-language article.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I should also point out that the Dutch article doesn't cite any sources, which kinda spoils the idea of claiming it as a reference to begin with.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your position is unmaintainable Peter, it's like if a Chinese in China tried to explain to a Swedish living in Sweden how he should speak Swedish, and wanted to theorize or simplify the presentation of Swedish dialects with lots of bad assumptions! verdy_p 00:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also you pretend in the comments your last commit that I removed a maintenance tag. That's wrong, I've not removed any maintenance tag that you have just added yourself after this discussion! You're lying Peter, and you are giving extra focus on an issue that you are still alone to defend here, when wejust criticize your own over-simplifcations about a subject where you are only demonstrating your own ignorance! verdy_p 00:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

SomeHuman keeps removing the tags (along with the fact-tags) and I pointed it out in the edit summary without addressing anyone in specific. You just happened to make edits after he did. That's not a false accusation.

Don't pass judgment about the competence of other users based on their ethnicity. You really don't know anything about how well I'm familiar with the Flemish issue. Stick to fact arguments instead of high-pitched personal attacks.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is not an article

This article is a disambiguation page, just like Dutch, German, Chinese, Thai and a great many other similar pages where the name of languages coincide with many other articles (not just adjective forms). Please stop making additions here, and take your beef to Flemish (linguistics), Flemish people, or any of the actual articles. If you want to write about the adjective, do so at the wiktionary article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and our articles are primarily about concepts, not terms.

I must also point out that the recent additions have been vague, confusing and, most importantly, completely unverifiable. I've restored the article to a simple dabpage.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I resent the unilateral decision while many authors contributed to the article in the last five months. You might have suggested merging the article, for instance. Instead you rudely state "take your beef to Flemish (linguistics), Flemish people, or any of the actual articles". This was an article. The most common meaning of a word can be the article and other meanings are on a page with that title followed with " (disambiguation)". Both articles you mention are slightly too specific for the most common meanings of 'Flemish', yes plural: the word can be used for particular well-defined meanings but far more often reflects a less exactly specified meaning with strong connotations that are closely related in the mind of the speaker. That is why Flemish needs a separate article, that allows one to find the proper direction of the Flemish one has encountered. This article allows following the relevant links. A straigthforward Dab will often not be able to let the reader decide, or let him/her follow a link to an article that forfeits 50% of the relevant information as to how Flemish may have been used. The "Flemish language" (note the "") is the one feat standing out as a common factor of the meanings of Flemish and is used in the article as a vehicle to lead along the various historical, traditional and contemporary meanings and the relations and contradictions between Flemish and Belgian. The article is not confusing, but Flemish is. By the way, Flemish is not even a language, it is not a group of dialects as linguists see it either; and yet the variant descriptions in the article are linguistically sensible. I'm not pretending to be very glad with the result so far - I merely corrected some mistakes, it's a work in progress - but it is ridiculous to call the article "completely unverifiable" because just about every statement has several links towards a relevant article. You were obviously not interested in the contents but use WP:V as an excuse to destroy content. Else, which statement would you want to see sourced? — SomeHuman 14 Dec 2006 21:00 (UTC)

It's a variety of language in its noun form, just like Scanian. You're making up a definition that is inherently vague and unencyclopedic. I also don't see any discussion about changing this from a dabpage in the first place. The page has been a disambiguation for most of it's existence and it simply ceased being one this summer without any motivation at all. All that was added was (unverifiable) info that mostly belongs in Flemish (linguistics). The verifiability of the claims you and other have made here is not the issue, and even if it was, it's the responsibility of the contributor to source one's own statements.

The precedent for how to handle language noun/adjective is very clear. Look at the examples linked. Try searching for most other language or major dialect groups. Just a few select examples would be Hungarian, Portuguese, Japanese, etc. The list is very long and the fact that Flemish isn't a widely recognized (national) language is rather incidental. The standard for how to disambiguate controversial varieties of languages is a long-standing practice; see for example Cantonese (linguistics) or Mandarin (linguistics). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages#Structure for the rationale. It's not my edit that's an unilateral or isolated opinion, but rather to turn a dabpage into an article.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Peter had posted on my talk page:

<quote>You're engaging in discussion and rather aggressive editing seemingly without any previous attempts at getting acquainted with standard Wikipedia procedure. I recommend making searching for various language names for hundreds of precedents as well as reading Wikipedia:Disambiguation, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages.
Peter ^Isotalo 22:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)</quote>

I already said that Flemish is neither a language nor a group of dialects as linguists see it, certainly not a standard language or a standardized dialect as intended by those guidelines. In fact, significant numbers of both the Dutch people and the Flemish people would stagger at 'Flemish language', also by specialists considered a false concept that all too many foreigners may have, which is why it is between "" in the article. The disambiguation guidelines do allow an article being named by the topic name without further (type) for the primary meaning of a word or name. 'Flemish' has a complex variety of meanings or rather connotations but these are all closely related, there are no commonly used meanings of some entirely different 'Flemish'. Anyone following some vaguely linked [[Flemish]] or doing a search on 'Flemish', is most likely to find in the article what he likes to know and relevant as to where the link was found. Therefore 'Flemish' is to remain an article - regardless the early history of the page: such disambiguation usage is supposed to be put aside when an article handles the primary topic - In theory, there is little need for a disambiguation page because the meanings of Flemish are confusingly closely related and it is far from obvious that someone who follows a link to a disambiguation page, will know which choice would be the proper one. Though 'Flemish (disambiguation)' may have a good reason to exist as it allows going to articles on specific aspects; one only arrives there by a link knowingly and purposefully created to go to a known disambiguation page while realizing that in the context near the link, the reader really can pick the appropriate choice. I'm afraid it is you who should read Wikipedia:Disambiguation and also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). If you still think your idea to be a standard, read also the latter guideline's last sentence. Your sudden and by now repeated revert making 'Flemish' itself a strict disambiguation page, is a complete destruction of an article, not merely a content discussion. In case you do not find an article to sufficiently comply to Wikipedia standards and want it deleted, you should apply for its deletion by proper Wikipedia procedure. — SomeHuman 15 Dec 2006 02:44 (UTC)

We write articles on topics, not terms. If you want to write about the linguistic entity called Flemish (whether it's a dialect, language or sociolect doesn't matter), there's a separate article, if you want to write about the term/adjective, there's Wiktionary. We do not, however, combine topics in vaguely holistic pseudo-articles without distinct definitions. Try adding the material you've written here to Flemish (linguistics) instead. But, again, cite your sources and don't ask smart questions of those who demand them of you. To quote Wikipedia:Verifiability: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

For a completely analogous precedent (other than the hundreds of other language/dialect dabpages), see Scanian. It's only recognized by SIL as a language, is considered a dialect by most and is also a term for someone living in Scania/Skåne. We still keep a separate article for the linguistic entity and discuss the various views of it rather than creating new articles that combine semantics, sociology and linguistics in just one article (and keep the separate articles just for the hell of it).

I've made a note of this dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated, the article is not about a language or linguistics but uses the common factor of a complex of related concepts as a vehicle to guide readers along the intertwined aspects of the term Flemish. This is not a clear-cut term but requires some orientation, which neither a dictionary nor a disambiguation page can provide. The term 'Scanian' is by far more clear-cut and less of a topic than 'Flemish', and does have an article; hence your 'topics, not terms' idea is unintelligible with respect to this discussion. While crying out "Wikipedia:Verifiability" repeatedly, you keep avoiding to question anything stated in the article; just about all its statements link to an article that gives the details and most of these articles are properly sourced, while other statements are overly obvious: We cannot put 3 references per line in articles so as to prove of an area that it is located in the south-southeastern province of a country.

There are several articles about Flanders/Flemish but for instance, though Flanders (county) is and should be about the historic countship and not about the present-day Flanders; at present in many occasions however, the term 'Flemish' still refers to the area of the former county instead of to all Belgian areas where Dutch is spoken (which is one of the more prevailing uses) or to the Flemish Region (which is an equally prevailing usage). Most often, a text or a speaker does not clearly indicate which 'Flemish' is meant. This is true when the topic is geographical, but also when mentioning people and their culture, or the language. This is often confusing even to inhabitants of any area called Flemish, let alone to readers of the English Wikipedia. Therefore what you call a 'holistic' approach is required to allow orientation, and of course a whole article – this cannot be made clear in a mere disambiguation page, which is why several users had started to elaborate on the initial disambiguation page and again whenever someone had reinstated the typical disambiguation page. By now, even with a still unfinished article, you are the only person that tries to get back to a situation that many found inacceptable. There is no need for such as Flemish (disambiguation) (which is of course mentioned at top of the article Flemish) can just as well take care of your valid concerns. — SomeHuman 15 Dec 2006 13:44 (UTC)

I don't think a simple dab-page can fully point users to the full spectrum of meanigs of "flemish", yet I also think this article is too big in certain sections. Perhaps a Flemish (Terminology)-article would be a better name to cover the current information?Rex 14:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

compare with Macedonia (terminology) Andreas  ^(T) 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

'Macedonia' has only very vaguely related meanings that do not mutually coincide. That makes it improper to have an article 'Macedonia' which would jump accross entirely different meanings. The suggested 'Flemish (terminology)' – or compared with the Macedonian example, 'Flanders (terminology)' – would not allow a link 'Flemish' or 'Flanders' to arrive at the page that is most likely to contain the relevant information; it is not a commonly used or even known style either. Normally, the primary meaning (even when it is a complex one) gets the term by itself as title. I agree with Rex as far as elaborations on French and German are not quite Flemish, though I hesitate to reduce those subsections because of their relevance as to influences on Flemish dialects and positioning Flemish politically; improvements are wellcome. — SomeHuman 15 Dec 2006 16:41 (UTC)

PS: Regarding politically positioning Flemish, a major Belgian news topic for the moment is about a Walloon RTBF emission, not unlike Wells & Welles' famous hearplay on invading Marsians, that for two hours pretended the Flemish to have exclaimed the Independance of Flanders, that was not only believed by many ordinary listeners but also had many embassadors run to the phones; the Prime Minister was "not amused". Flemish VRT-TV news (still on right now) blames this assumption of thruth on one-sided opinions on Flanders in the Walloon Region. Perhaps this article can assist in doing something about that. ;-) — SomeHuman 15 Dec 2006 18:41 (UTC)

"Flemish" is no more unique than "Russian" or "Chinese". In fact, those examples are far more multi-faceted, involve a thousand more linguistic, ethnic and social topics, and are still better served by the same dabpage as all other language/ethnicty/adjective terms. The content dominating this page right now is written mostly by editors who seem to be deeply embroiled in the whole Flemish issue. The objective seems to be to portray "Flemish" as uniquely complex (or even downright mysterious). So complex, in fact, that readers can't even be redirected in the usual fashion as with any other language/ethnicity, but need to be shielded and protected by information that pre-empts the content of (primarily) Flemish (linguistics), but with the important difference that it has no reliable sources. This seems to serve mainly the purposes of those insisting on these edits rather than those of the average reader.

The disputed content is entirely about language and yet Flemish (linguistics) is being ignored. The information here is also poorly structured, badly written and wanders off into rather unrelated issues like German and French. The page clearly smacks of being a POV-fork, and comparing it to the infinite complexities of a hotly contested geographic term like Macedonia is quite misleading. (Not to mention that this purportedly "vague" term is also a completely normal, if rather long, dabpage.) Whether a Flemish (terminology) is established or not, there seems to be no valid reason to monopolize a very obvious disambiguation page with unverifiable and poorly written content other than the intention of certain editors to make their own opinions on the issue the most prominent while reducing the normal articles into irrelevant sideshows and "see also"s.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Flanders is not a nation, Flemish is not a language, there are 6 million Flemish people but Flemish ethnicity is to most of them a ridiculous concept as it has no subject. Do you misread deliberately? I wrote "vaguely related meanings that do not mutually coincide"; there is nothing "purportedly" vague about meanings of Macedonia; neither did I bring up that topic, thus a comparison is not my idea. Using your misreading as an accusation of my comparing being "quite misleading", in the same sentence as saying of the by me defended page that it "smacks of being a POV-fork" is a personal attack. The primary meaning (whether the article now reflects this well or not and regardless whether you understand or acknowledge its complexity) of 'Flemish' "monopolizes" 'Flemish' (what a peculiar choice of that word: every title on Wikipedia is "monopolized"); that is why lots of disambiguation pages have a title like 'Flemish (disambiguation)'. See also #Responses to RfC. — SomeHuman 17 Dec 2006 05:59 (UTC)

Please see the defintion of nation. I believe you're confusing it with nation-state. The Flemings obviously have a separate history, speak a separate dialect (I've not claimed that Flemish is a language) and a very sizeable minority of them obviously believe they should be a separate nation. Whether Flemish is a language or a dialect is not the issue. It's a separate linguistic entity. It's defined as a dialect or dialect group by most, but it's really no more complicated than most dialect groups. And for the third time, look at Scanian. It's an extremely close parallel to Flemish; considered a separate language by some fringe regionalists (though far fewer than Flemish) and has a separate history. And I doubt you'll find a page where a language/dialect/ethnicity isn't disambiguated at "XXX" rather than "XXX (disambiguation)", but I encourage you to try.

The primary meaning of "Flemish" is not up to you to decide. Nor me. That's why I'm trying very hard to bring back the dabpage, which would be the neutral option. That way readers can decide for themselves instead of having a certain version forced on them. And a highly opinionated one at that. Besides, I doubt you're in a position to act as spokesman for 6 million people.

Oh, and a personal attack has to actually be about some personal trait unrelated to them as a wiki editor or the dispute at hand, not just their behavior or their motivations. When I start calling people "bastard off-spring of a one-eyed goat" or when I bring up wiki-unrelated properties like ethnicity ("filthy Dutchman") or physical appearance ("mine's bigger than your's"), then, and only then, have I resorted to a personal attack. And trust me, that's not about to happen.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to RfC

• The top header here says 'neutrally'. Many users created the article, of which one insists on keeping it and only one destroys it as if there cannot be just as normal a disambiguation page Flemish (disambiguation) beside the article. Verifiability is available through the article's links and no statement is questioned even when asked. 2006-12-15 12:47 (UTC) [Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics Andreas  ^(T) 16:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)]

(The above was added to the mentioned request, as all requests there without signature; it was my addition because Peter Isotalo's request violates the page's demand to state it neutrally, only argumenting his views and pretending my actions reflect 'one user adding information' in disagreement.) Note that several users, of whom some with a good deal of experience on the English Wikipedia, had decided to change the initial redirect, then for a year a short article, than for 2 years a disambiguation page, into a proper article - an initiative of LucVerhelst, an experienced and thoughtful user who had earlier tried to improve the disambiguation page without changing its nature and obviously had come to the conclusion that another approach was the only proper solution. I was not one of these early contributors, but I do support their initiative, effort, and concerns. Without any discussion, only Peter Isotalo suddenly and unilaterally set aside all those concerns and destroyed the input of several authors including e.g. Rex's additions, DocWatson42's minor improvement, and the also largely renewing style by Verdy P. I did not even add any paragraph (except by separating an existing one), but mostly reduced inaccuracies and shortened paragraphs by Verdi; his style had puzzled me for a while but after careful consideration was accepted and after my improvements also got some appreciation from Rex on his talk page's section 'Flemish', worth a look. For the recent discussion and argumentation, see the section here above. — SomeHuman 15 Dec 2006 18:21 (UTC)

You're doctoring my quote. The RfC says "At least one user is insisting...". And, like pointed out before, there has been no discussion as to why the normal dabpage policies should be ignored for this relatively uncomplicated topic. It's not me vs. a few regulars to the Flemish-issue but rather the consensus of a lot of various guidelines and policies vs. this particular page. There are no precedents and all I see here are editors who are trying to make a not-too-complicated issue a lot more complicated without trying motivating themselves. It's a classic example of article-writing intended to please contributors rather than readers.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You obviously try to overwhelm me by attacking at multiple sections/pages, I presume for having an excuse of doing whatever you like on a pretext of one or another of your comments or edits not having been responded to. Your repeated personal attacks towards contributors as if these are writing on Wikipedia for their own sake, and continued maintaining that guidelines force only one proper Wikipedia style, whereas several options exist and some clearly direct towards the style of disambiguation that you want to avoid, your trying to attack the validity of the article on all possible and impossible accounts, including putting no less than three flags on it while modifying the article so as to make it less intelligible, all show you go through great lenghts and amazing means just to force your personal way upon Wikipedia. You also accuse me of doctoring your quote: "At least one user is insisting on adding information" as I stated reflects, 'one user adding information' (note: I did not quote literally, like you I use doublequotes for such). Either 'many', 'several', 'three', 'one' are OK but "At least one" means you have no reason to assume more than one and thus strongly suggests there is only one. Yet now you try to hide behind these 'weasel words' in order to launch a personal attack and yet shamelessly put the 'weasel words' flag on the article. I just spotted your "the intention of certain editors" in the section above: weasel words or sarcastic personal attack? If you would have thought the article really had no good reason to exist, you should have followed my advice to put it up as an article for deletion; instead you ran to RfC regarding 'Language and linguistics', probably hoping to find easier support for a standardized approach of such, even while I argued that the article is not supposed to fall in that category. I am not impressed. — SomeHuman 17 Dec 2006 05:12 (UTC)

Don't be a jerk. I know what I wrote and I'll be the judge of what I meant. You're not in a position to reinterpret what other people mean. End of discussion.

And there's not a peep in the guidelines about having to put up content for AfD. Content can be removed, moved or altered with a good reason. We delete articles, though, but that's not what this is about.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I added an RfC-request to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues as well and tweaked the description to focus on the dabpage guideline issue.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Double Rfc: 1. at 'Language and linguistics', 2. at 'Style issues': Nobody jumped to your assistance, so now you try elsewhere. Your assumption in the above section as to what is a personal attack is not correct, your "Don't be a jerk." is even a violation of what you said in the section above that would not happen; your 2nd Rfc is exactly and deliberately as biased as your first Rfc that I had denounced for its lack of neutrality; your arguments remain as false ares your methods and admitted intentions. PS: Sorry for not logged-in IP-edit a moment ago both here and in the article, of course both are mine. — SomeHuman 17 Dec 2006 14:12 (UTC)

It's not a second RfC, it's an expanded listing and is in fact a more accurate description of the conflict, since this is about an exception to a general guideline more than it is about Flemish as a dialect/langauge/variety. And trying to tell other people what they actually mean by misquoting them is extremely uncivil. Claiming that I, and other readers, should know better because you used just 'citations' rather than "citations" is like claiming you didn't mean something because you secretly crossed your fingers.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a second RfC. And not about an exception, primary meaning = title of the article is the general rule. At most it's about not applying an exception that has become common for some kind of articles, since the reasons for that common exception are less appropriate. I did not misquote because I said "reflect" and as explained mentioned your message without the weasel words. But you do continue to render my words falsely: I did not say that other people should know better because anything I claimed, but because they are by now very likely to be all too aware of your ethics as reflected by your behaviour with respect to the article, your betting on all horses, the style of your comments. — SomeHuman 17 Dec 2006 18:59 (UTC)

For someone so eager to throw around accusations of personal attacks, you seem far more excited about commenting (your interpretations) of my behavior than explaining your own edits.

The rule is that for terms involving both ethnicity and language/dialect/variety, no particular meaning is supposed to have precedence. I've already shown you tons of of examples, and I've never seen any examples to the contrary. This is the only one and that's why you need to motivate the exception. The content here obviously tries to pre-empt Flemish (linguistics) (but without a hint of verifiability), which benefits no one.

I'm taking Rex' suggestion for a compromise and I'm moving the article-esque content to Flemish (terminology).

Peter ^Isotalo 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You launched two different Requests for Comment and had zero support since then, yet you again unilaterally do your personal thing. You have no respect for Wikipedia, its procedures, its editors. By your creation of "Flemish (terminology)" the talk page for "Flemish" got redirected to the one at "Flemish (terminology)" thus then clicking the 'article' tab did not get back to "Flemish" any more. Therefore, it is at least as acceptable to have the history available by going towards the talk page first. Your today's action is undone. SomeHuman 19 Dec 2006 00:27-00:34 (UTC)

You give easy samples, I have better things to do than looking up samples whenever you click your fingers while not being prepared to wait for reactions of myself or other Wikipedians. Acadian, Acadian (disambiguation), Aka language (disambiguation), Apayao (disambiguation), Arab (disambiguation) whereas Arabic redirects to Arabic language, ... These are just a few samples starting with "A", some a bit like Flemish and some very different, that show your assumed "rule" to be fictuous and for good reason. Please, don't loose time argumenting where these are different and above all, do not start moving those pages to finally 'prove' your point. — SomeHuman 19 Dec 2006 01:33 (UTC)

Actually, Flemish (terminology) was Rex' suggestion which seemed to gain favor from Andreas as well.

Those examples do not support your case in the least. They either have a very intuitive primary meaning (Arab, Acadian), or actually mean only one thing as a noun (Arabic). And every single one follows the same pattern of pointing to a well-defined, non-duplicate articles or normal, straightforward dabpages. You're insisting on neither, but rather trying to present Flemish as completely unique and I believe this description is confusing and misleading, especially to those who are unfamiliar with the topic.

And stop removing the weasel- and reference-tags before you've done something about the problem.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Rex suggested a compromise, Andreas gave the Macedonian sample. I did not support the compromise and found the sample hardly comparable, which of course is shown by comparing; you claimed that Macedonian cannot be compared with Flemish and even blamed me for doing so. It is then ridiculous to now pretend that you rely on that suggestion and that sample. You simply want Flemish out of your way at any cost. You put both RfC up after all that, but are not willing to wait for a reaction.

The 'weasel words' tag cannot be taken serious, there is no dodging or half-heartedness in the article; you never gave any example of an improper 'weasel' statement, nor anything else that jeopardizes the neutrality of the article as the tag declares. Many statements are all too obvious, any doubt about one or another piece of informaton being correct is easily verified by following the link. References are not required for a disambiguation page either, and the article 'Flemish' gives an orientation by leading the reader along the different meanings and connotations that have their own articles for further details. Any dubious statements are to be inline tagged by {{fact}}: which precise item(s) of information appear(s) uncertain to you? You should also take notice that I already did some work on the article since your earliest drastical intervention. So I leave the tags out for which you did not provide a single sample of a statement that requires something to be done about. Before modifying one dubious statement about influences on German Limburgish that I had encountered in the article, I am still waiting for Rex' reaction on his talk page. Were it not for your daily interventions disrupting the article, it might even have been improved further.

Your comment about the samples not supporting my case, show your determination to go your very own way regardless arguments. You had said, QUOTE: And I doubt you'll find a page where a language/dialect/ethnicity isn't disambiguated at "XXX" rather than "XXX (disambiguation)", but I encourage you to try. END QUOTE And later on blamed me for not having delivered. Now I have, you wave it away as if not supporting my case in the least. Please stop this kind of behaviour. — SomeHuman 19 Dec 2006 18:26 (UTC)

OOPS. I hadn't even noticed, you already put six 'fact' tags in, besides the general 'no references' at the top. For instance:

"The dialect groups spoken in the present-day Flemish Community (the powers of which are usurped by the Flemish Region, or Flanders) and as such as a whole can be referred to as Flemish, is based on a North/Middle/South separation by countries and institutional linguistic regions.^{[citation needed]}"

This clearly shows that you are not to be taken seriously and only want to damage the article. Do you really doubt that the border between the Netherlands and Belgium, in casu the Flemish region and community, and that between the latter and Wallonia, run east/west and thus cause a North/Midle/South separation; or do you doubt that the forementioned areas are countries and institutional linguistic regions? Even such rather peculiar doubt is taken away if you click on a link. Several other 'fact'-tags were just as clearly WP:POINT, the one here confirms how ludicrous it is to demand sources for what is immediately at hand by links: :

"The French Flemish minor variant, used in northeasterly parts of the région Nord-Pas de Calais in France that form what is called French Flanders – this dialect is considered a part of West Flemish, but it is nearly extinct, rapidly replaced by standard French.^{[citation needed]}"

— SomeHuman 19 Dec 2006 18:50-19:49 (UTC)

You're presenting examples that you've interpreted in a very subjective manner. If you want a very concrete example of why they're inappropriate, you should consider Arab as an especially inappropriate argument. There's no way that anyone would claim that the ethnicity should be placed on the same level as Arabian horse or Arab (automobile). I'm pretty sure you'd go bananas if someone tried to place a breed of dog called "Fleming" on equal footing with Flemish people. The same goes for the completely irrelevant Aka language (disambiguation), which was linked from neither Aka nor Aka language(s) until just now (I amended the problem). Most importantly, though, all of the examples are normal articles or dabpages. What you're insisting on is a mix of everything, including dictionary definitions.

I've included the reference tags because there are a lot of statements which are completely unsupported. It doesn't mean that everything in the particular sentence is problematic, but the claims about "A and B is referred to as X and Y" are. Who claims that X and Y is reffered to as A and B? This is not a trivial matter since you might just as well be stating your own opinion for all I know. Either you have sources for your statement or you don't. Claiming that people can find them in "other articles" isn't satisfactory in the least. If you know where the references are, then just add them. If you don't, you're obviously not in a position to remove the requests for references.

If you want examples of weasel wording, then here you go:

• ...some people then refer to this standard language as 'Flemish', others prefer to call it 'Dutch' and may consider 'Flemish' as inaccurate, or belittling especially if used by an outsider.
• The term Flemish is sometimes used in its limited sense for the West Flemish and East Flemish dialects, and may include the forementioned variants in the French and Dutch parts of the historic Countship of Flanders.
• ...its classification as a Flemish dialect is disputed, as some linguists consider it as a German dialect) [sic].

And this is all from an article which doesn't cite a single source.

The example you've given just now, where you speak of "usurped" power is also problematic since it seems to express a great deal of resentment without backing it up. It may be true, but like with the rest of the content, no one can actually tell if it's a widely held belief or just a minority opinion.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't go bananas as quickly as you think, Peter: My user page makes clear that I am a proud Mechlinian who natively speaks Mechlinian. The Mechlinian is also a shepherd dog, a race I rather like actually – though for a sheepdog a nervous and difficultly trained animal. In fact I added the dog to the section 'Specialities' in the article Mechelen last month. I feel stronger as a Mechlinian than as Flemish or Belgian, so I would not mind a race of dogs called Flemings, but the Mechlinian is a variant of the Belgian sheepdog. My home city was first known in English as 'Mechlin' (hence an inhabitant or one who originates from there is a Mechlinian), in the first century of Belgium's existence especially on postcards as 'Malines' (French), and now best again by the name in its local dialect and Dutch, this time even spelled identically: 'Mechelen'. Since speakers of English more often learn French than Dutch, the dog I call a Mechelaar in Dutch and Mechelèr in my dialect, is better known as Malinois than as Mechlinian, in each language and dialect the term can refer to the dog as well as to myself.

I was sure you did not grasp the meaning of weasel words. You think that 'some' and 'sometimes' etc are weasel words. They are only so if they are used cowardly, e.g. "some scientists" instead of naming them or limiting those to one or more specific groups of scientists; or "The king sometimes made some statements on this subject" instead of showing dated quotes of what the king said. "Some people" cannot be replaced by a list of millions of names, nor is the particular use linked to a specific group; it is not possible to establish percentages without very original research. But samples can be delivered that show many people stating A and of lots of others stating B while contradicting A. For this, the English language has the words 'some' and 'others', and are not WP:WW. Also the used "sometimes" simply means what it says, it cannot be replaced with 'between 5 a.m. and 3 p.m.' or 'around dinner time' or 'in the second half of the 20th century' or 'while people are upset'... The statements in the article are clear and not half-heartedly, as far as I can spot only using these words in the proper way. If you would give a practical example, I could give a practical response on where the reference is. But if a link evidently gives access to a whole article that relevantly details what is shortly stated, the statement does not require a source; else each article would require 90% references for 10% content. Therefore, your tagging is incorrect and for weasel words rather grotesque, though 'some linguists' indeed seems truly weasel talk. But that is precisely the one phrase that I had stated here above on 2006-12-19 18:26 (UTC) to have doubts about and for which I asked help from Rex on his talk page, so it's intellectually dishonest to pick out precisely that phrase I pointed out to be in error.

I do not quite follow your logic about 'Title (disambiguation)' pages for which you had asked samples, now complaining these all being DAB pages... Of course they are, and that is what 'Flemish (disambiguation)' is also. Whether that page is required or not is a different matter: perhaps 'Flemish' can fully serve that purpose, perhaps it can't and shouldn't. That's why I moved your initial (last week's) disambiguity text to that page name, and did not destroy the content as you had then done to the article content.

— SomeHuman 21 Dec 2006 04:00-04:10 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup issues

While there was no consensus for the dabpage issue, the article still needs a lot of work. Here are some issues:

• There is no lead and no actual delimitation of the article. What is the actual topic?
• The section "Flemish language" includes much information that is actually about neighboring dialects of languages other than Dutch. What is the purpose of this information? How does it relate to whatever topic the article is about?
• There are no references of any kind. The linguistic information is full of statements about how and where different terms are used, but without anything to support any of the claims. There's also used of rather partial wording like "usurped".
• Poor flow in the prose and plenty one-sentence paragraphs. Grammar needs work ("...lots of differences with standard French...")
• Much of the linguistic information is made out of bullet lists with very complicated and non-standard layout. And there are run-on sentences, with or without bulky and rather complicated parentheses:
  • Note that French Flanders is larger than the Flemish-speaking area (now in only small parts of today's French department of Nord, as near Dunkerque) and includes for example the metropolitan area of Lille (see the official name of the TGV railway station: Lille-Flandres) which has never spoken any Flemish dialect (except in the Belgian part of this now continuous urban area), but rather a dialect of French locally named Ch’timi.
  • The Belgian French minor variant (that linguists consider being the same language as standard French, not very different from regional variants of standard French in France), but it is used very often instead of standard French in the federative region of Wallonia in Belgium (and legally accepted like standard French, in an ongoing process of unification with mutual influences between international or regional minor variants of standard French).
• There's also what appears to be conclusions drawn by editors rather than supported by sources.
  • Since the notion "Flemish" is a container for a number of quite different dialects of Dutch (and sometimes of German, due to the historical cultural continuum from West to East!), it has little sense linguistically to treat it as one entity. "The Flemish language" does not exist, although the notion is used as such in everyday language.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good and useful criticism, Peter. (I may disagree with a few items, though.) I was not too happy with the comprehensive subsections on the French and German languages, those do not quite belong here - hence I never bothered too much about obtaining a decent quality standard therein. The conclusions drawn by editors (just one: Verdy P, I think) largely correspond to "Though the term 'Flemish' is used often, its different definitions regularly cause ambiguity." - which is my opening phrase of the "Flemish language" section that further on shows the ambiguity as the reader can judge for him/herself. I did not remove that largely duplicating criticized paragraph because the one below it (which also needs some work) refers to it and also to the French and German. I assume perhaps getting rid of those or at least some serious cutting would be most appropriate though - and it will help to see what the topic actually is. But that very last paragraph is not entirely without merit and I must try to bring this in context without maintaining the stuff that does not belong in the article.

I had already put a {{fact}} at the Lille phrase, in Dutch the city is called 'Rijsel' and the Dutch language certainly went deeper (Cambray aka Kamerijk, assumedly even Amiens) into present France than is claimed in that paragraph ; the named local dialect is probably much more recent; but I do need to obtain decent sources before changing it.

The 'usurped' has been used to describe the, let's say absorbing, of powers; but here too I like to find the term that is most appropriate and one has to crawl through a bit of legalese to work that out (though I'll have a source then).

I'm not sure when exactly I'll have the time for all this, but I will do some more work on this article. — SomeHuman 5 Jan 2007 00:32 (UTC)

Why were the tags removed? Nothing has been really been fixed, just rearranged and slightly reworded[1]. There's no topic specified and an "orientation for general meanings of Flemish" is still just a different way of telling that it's a verbose dabpage. The "See also"-section, taken straight from Flemish (disambiguation), only makes it more obvious. And, of course, still no a trace of references, despite the considerable amount of information. How long is this page supposed to be in this state and for what reason? It still seems though it is being kept in this condition to satisfy a few firebrand editors, not readers.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is the other way around: The 'Flemish (disambiguation)' page copied the "See also"-section from this page. It is not my idea to have a specific disambiguation page as you know, but if it exists it is logical that it has links towards the same articles that are related to the topic. If anything, that is if a specific disambiguation page has merit, it should state non-related or far-related topics and then have links to more articles. But the sense of having that page by that title was sufficiently discussed and I don't see how its existence can do any harm. The 'Flemish' article being what you call a verbose disambiguation page, or rather comprehensive explication with sufficient background to understand the differences and relationships between aspects or meanings of Flemish, is not new. I'm afraid that three weeks may sound appear a long time for you, but I explicitly asked for some time and in the last 3 weeks I had my hands rather full. Anyway, I assume I will now be more available for WP and some improvements are supposed to follow within the next couple of weeks. By the way, the tags were not removed but brought on top of the sections that after the small but meaningful improvement, still required the tag. (Note that the one tag there asks for both cleanup and sources.) Kind regards. — SomeHuman 28 Jan 2007 12:10 (UTC)

I was trying to provide a chance to fix the problem because I thought something would be done about the quality, but it appears that this is not going to happen any time soon. It does not take three weeks to acquire sources for this type of basic topic, and even if it does, I don't see why you would remove the tags, since they could incite others to fix the article and inform readers that they should be wary about the facts stated here. I don't understand what would possess you to try to sweep this under the rug. Keep in mind that you still don't own the article.

And "sufficiently discussed"? There was no discussion when the article was filled with "background" and there wasn't even a majority supporting the idea in the RM vote. If we were to ignore the fact that we voted on a subjective fait accompli-version rather than a neutral dabpage which had been around far longer and is in line with all other similar... no, identical language/ethnicity terms, this would never have happened.

And you have some really strange notions about the edit history. Read up, please. It's been a proper dapage since September 2004. The verbosity you and others inserted came along only this summer, and that was based on the last version of the original dabpage, not the other way around.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter, it started as a DAB page and after several attempt to make that work, contributors took another approach. Moreover, you know this: it's been explained in my 'oppose' vote to the requested move. A lot of of the 'background' was weeded uot by myself and such till where the tag states the rest of the section to need cleanup and sources. The part above the tag does not need further cleanup. What has been discussed is your unreasonable demand of sources: WP:V is met because each statement has a very obvious link to an article that corroborates the statement and handles the related issue in depth, as said on December 15, 2006. You had been challenged to deliver a disputable statement and you put in 6 'fact'-tags so little convincing that it supported my claim of not requiring further sources and your behaviour to be clearly WP:POINT, see December 19, 2006. As I said earlier, there is one 'fact'-tag in the already cleaned-up part of the article, which is the way to indicate a non-verifiable statement, not by putting a banner on top of what is otherwise verifiable. Do not forget that the "Flemish language" section starts by links to main articles: such are references as well (else those would require a banner). If 15 days is not the near future, than how urgent do you think this to be, the page not having been edited by others in weeks and only us coming to its talk page? So have patience and do not again put in banners where these can only harm; any time I have to spend here, only postpones the delivery of a quality article. — SomeHuman 30 Jan 2007 23:40 (UTC)

You're acting quite unilaterally on this one. I'm far from the only one who sees a problem. If you're not prepared to deal with it, let others do it for you. The tags are supposed to encourage this.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am once more trying to bring in more opinions on this by listing this dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC/style comments

The page as it stands is a strange hybrid of a disambiguation page and an article. It seems to me that the part about the Flemish language should be merged into the Flemish language article, and the remaining part should be made into a dismabiguation page. Several of the see also links should be included as disambiguation links (especially the ones with the word Flemish in them). The relevant guideline is WP:DISAMBIG. CMummert · talk 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

See sections "#This is not an article", "#Responses to RfC" (there had been one Rfc at 'Language and linguistics' and one at 'Style issues' like this third Rfc — all by Peter Isotalo), "#Requested move", and finally "#Cleanup issues". I do not intend to give the same argumentation once more. I'm now working at the article as Peter Isotalo realizes very well, and this time Peter Isotalo is not going to succeed into making me fed-up looking at 'Flemish' by going through the same discussion over and over again with him or whomever he calls in for the occasion. Sorry for your trouble, CMummert, but enough is enough. I had put up the deadline in my last two comments here above and intend to keep it, regardless Peter Isotalo's continued nagging and inappropriate taggings entirely disregarding often repeated counter-argumentations, and I do no longer care how many Rfcs that by now appear all to clearly construed in order to prevent me for doing the job that was set out to do as for which in an earlier Rfc I had volunteered and was asked to fulfill. — SomeHuman 3 Feb 2007 23:57 (UTC)

What counter arguments? Your main line of argumentation is that Flemish is utterly unique and impossible to compare to anything. There's nothing to argue against in such a claim, because there it's just subjective speculation. There's no consensus for the poorly written dabpage hybrid layout, and every time I ask for another RfC more outside observers keep agreeing with this view. (It's not like I have to call in "allies" or actually campaign for it.) Unless you can show proper consensus for the deviant pseudo-article you're taking forever to write (and refuse to reference) I'm going to revert the page back to the dabpage version and let you work on a subpage until you've actually finished whatever you're aiming to do and convince others why it should be the only exception to WP:D.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved SomeHuman's work in progress to Flemish/rewrite for the time being and reinstated the normal dabpage. I am going to insist that the page be kept in this state until there is actual consensus for the hybrid article/disambiguat page and not for the reverting of a format that had no consensus to begin with. The idea that a six-month stint without prior discussion should magically be considered the consensus version is absurd. The RM vote and the RfCs clearly show that SomeHuman's line only has a rather weak minority support at the moment, that it has no real backing by guidelines and policies, and that it is supported primarily by a lot of nationalist argumentation.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As Peter Isotalo obviously owns 'Flemish' and continues to make the same false accusations over and over again as if I claim that 'Flemish is utterly unique' (I already stated that for instance 'Chinese' could be better served with such article) and as if my arguments are nationalist (and even 'primarily'), while he kept incorrectly changing the section-tagging towards whole-article tagging; while I for once declared not to respond on his intended annoyances, changing an important section title of which I had earlier (2006-12-14 21:00 and 2006-12-15 02:44) stated its doublequotes to have good reason, and once more destroying the most proper link to Dutch language; and while I still kept quiet, finally once more unilaterally reverted to his personal page against two of his Rfcs (one in which I was given the time of 'a few months', which minimally coincides with what I asked later as '15 days' and which time Peter Isotalo refused to respect; the other Rfc —disregarding the former Rfc, and by someone who had his recommendation ready before even realizing that the 'main'-linked article 'Flemish (linguistics)' exists and assumes we might not be aware of WP:DISAMBIG to which Peter and I had already linked on December 14— wanting to merge the article content into that one, which Peter Isotalo did not do), has caused me to acknowlegdge this page to be the property of Peter Isotalo: I do not wish to work under such circumstances. I'm sure there cannot be many 'hybrid disambiguation' pages, as Peter Isotalo personally guarantees those to disappear. — SomeHuman 11 Feb 2007 17:09 (UTC)

I had not seen this article before I saw the RfC I responded to. I was surprised to find that there was a main article on the Flemish language because this article, as it stood until recently, was clearly out of agreement with the overall project consensus on the role of disambiguation pages. I thought I might go ahead and split out the material that clearly needed to be taked off of the disambiguation page, but then I was shocked to see there was already an article for that material, but for reasons unknown to me this article was duplicating it. CMummert · talk 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any kind of consensus for granting individual editors a certain amount of time to do as they please with the page on the talkpage. Besides, I don't see how it would be compatible with WP:OWN in the first place. And I can remind everyone that I'm not even pushing my own prose here, but a previous version that I had basically no influence on.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If CMummert would have checked anything (article talk, article history, talk history, and such for the disambiguation page), then CMummert would have known, and thus not be so "shocked to see there was already an article for that material". And that it was not the article 'Flemish' that had been duplicating the disambiguation page, but Peter Isotalo's disambiguation page that copied from the cleaned-out article. The third Rfc by Peter Isotalo worked for him: Someone was finally found who likes commenting without hindrance by knowledge. I never tried to WP:OWN the article, Peter Isotalo owns it and as far as I'm concerned, he can have it. — SomeHuman 12 Feb 2007 22:26 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to understand that the shock was from the revelation that someone had been irrational enough to duplicate an existing article on a dabpage? And to make things perfectly clear, this is how the page looked before it got seriously bloated.

But I guess you're going to conjure up yet another cantankerous conspiracy theory to brush that off as well. I can hardly wai... *gasp* Shiver me timbers! What's this!

Peter ^Isotalo 23:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No. There is no conspiracy: you act all by your own. You do willingly and knowingly deceive people by continually suggesting things about me that are pure lies and repeating such even after having been corrected, because you know very well that there are more CMummerts than people who actually verify facts. I never called 'Macedonia' a vague term but said it to have meanings that are "vaguely related", to which you then refer as a "purportedly vague term". I've not been making 'nationalist' argumentations, I never claimed 'Flemish' to be 'utterly unique', I never 'conjured up' anything, I never suggested a 'conspiracy', you insinuated by "I don't see any kind of consensus for granting individual editors a certain amount of time to do as they please", that I had imagined such idea, knowing that I was asked whether I could clean up and improve the article in the direction you were fighting against and for which I had answered (quote) "given a few months and provided the article keeps its visibility as primary meaning by the present title, I will improve it and hope others do so as well." (end quote), after which the Rfc you had called was closed as 'no consensus' (smart: "I don't see any kind of consensus"). Such does however leave the article in place and one would definitely expect me to work at it; and you did not respect that but kept tagging it and making changes you knew to be particularly annoying, and then reverted it to the largely useless disambiguation page still within the time I had said to need (I do not doubt that you noticed that condition I had given). And you of all people know that 'Flemish (disambiguation)' was created only because you insisted on having a traditional dab page and had been edit-warring by repeatedly reverting the article to what you wanted and now have again, but that is not what you connivingly suggest here above. — By the way, your links to modifications are just as clever: the ridiculous one was a first attempt by Verdy P who then made a few dozen improvements on that same day, which series I later improved; the link at your signature dates from long before that editor or I ever touched the page, precisely as this one; you just forgot to mention those little facts. — SomeHuman 13 Feb 2007 00:38-02:30 (UTC)

The point I was making was that the dabpage existed far longer than the hybrid project and I wasn't the one who championed the idea.

Now, even if we disregard the fact that there is a broad and well-established consensus that dabpages are supposed to be minimalist navigation pages, not full of article content, it would still be a pretty shoddy article. It was written in stilted prose with plenty of fairly irrelevant and unencyclopedic information, confused layout and without a single reference. Just get over the fact that you're not entitled to personally decide how individual dabpages should be written and start working on improving Flemish (linguistics) instead.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thus the point you were making was besides the point, it's very well-known and that too you know. Even if your whole point of view would have been completely correct, it would still not make anything of my former comment less relevant & true, and that includes others having decided. And I'm not the only one not to accept your viewpoint as the more valid. — SomeHuman 14 Feb 2007 04:59 (UTC)