Talk:Flanders/Archive 2

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.

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)

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)
 * 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.
 * 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)

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)

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)

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.

"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 shouldn't be removed. But where to start looking? References should preferrably be in English.--Phlebas June 28, 2005 17:26 (UTC)

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. 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)
 * 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.


 * 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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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.