Talk:Flemish dialects/Archive 2

An old Flemish Custom. Dutch too, I imagine
Growing up, we had large family gatherings for the Holidays..Christmas..New Years..Easter..Thanksgiving Day. 40-50 people, mostly Flemish. One thing I remember was that the kids ALL sat at a seperate table, not at the Adult table. We could listen but we kept our thoughts to ourselves. This is in regards to the latest addition to this editing war. While I might agree that some article editing can be done without knowledge of the subject matter, THIS certainly is not one. This on-going battle is happening at almost every article that has anything to do with the Low Countries. It is very important and controversial to MANY editors. If Robbie was going to revert, he should have reverted to MY article which was, at least, more grammatically correct than the current one (assuming it hasn't been reverted in the time since I last looked). Now, my effort is lost in the history pages. And I thought it would have been a good starting point for transition. Now, we are long past that.--Buster7 (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You make a very good point.
 * Aggressive editing and reverting does overwhelm more modest, smaller edits by other editors. While in general it are these small edits that will improve the article in an incremental way, with consensus.
 * I am partially to blame for the fuss, so I will take a break from engaging in Dutch or Flemish linguistics and ethnicity articles for a few weeks.
 * I hope this will let the peace return, and help you build the article. I hope the other aggressive editor also reaslises that a more modest approach, and perhaps a cooling down period maybe best for everyone. As I said, I am taking a cooling down period, so this is my last post on these pages for July - Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool off as much as you like, I'm not even considering a break on this article. It's in ruins, and I'm going to do everything to improve it and welcome anyone who wishes to assist me with that in a constructive manner. I find this an insult to most people editing this page; creating the biggest kind of fuss possible, and then going on a 'cooling down period'. HP1740-B (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Deletion
Rather than delete, lets talk. Sentence structure is A-OK. and, topical.--Buster7 (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC) RETRIEVED FROM User talk:Luxem


 * Hallo,
 * Thanks for the note on my talk page.
 * I removed the sentence because it is not grammatically correct. I might have improved it, but the content of it seemed to be superfluous or irrelevant, and I had the feeling that it wasn't entirely correct.
 * The paragraph already mentions that there is one single vocabulary for Northern Dutch and Belgian Dutch, or Flemish. It also implies already that there is a continuum "a larger number of French loanwords...", "Brabantic ... has had a larger influence...".
 * Besides that, I'm not sure either that the sentence is entirely correct. Are you sure that there is absolutely no distinct line between Belgian and Dutch dialects, say between Antwerp and Bergen op Zoom, or Turnhout and Tilburg ? Do you have sources for that ?
 * That being said, I wouldn't mind the mentioning of the continuum in the language, but it should go in the intro of the Belgian Dutch paragraph, since it concerns both vocabulary and phonology. Furthermore, we should add a bit about the influence of the geographical and administrative border, and about the impact the audiovisual media have on Belgian vs. Dutch language development. You don't happen to have sources for that, by chance ? --Luxem (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence is NOT incorrect gramatically, nor is it badly formed as you say in your summary. As any editor could plainly see it WAS a sentence that was being reworked and trimmed of "fat", just as you were deleting it.. The repetitive quality that you correctly perceive is to balance the confusion as to "who is who and what is what" that is prevelent in the article and the actual geographical region. Every attempt to clarify things for our reader should be supported...not deleted. However, I was editing the syntax and flow of the sentence not the content. As a native speaker of English, educated in English structure and composition, I challenge you to tell me where the sentence goes astray?  As to the sources, you will have to get sources from the original editor that added this sentence. Also, please continue this discussion at the discussion page at Flemish (liguistics). That would serve the other editors currently working on this article. Thank You.--Buster7 (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Grammar : correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the word "means" is a verb. Where is its subject ? Luxem (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The phrase preceeding the word "means" acts as the noun. But you and Iblardi have arrived at an acceptable sentence. No need to continue. I am NOT an English teacher. The new sentence is VERY good.--Buster7 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

move
I don't want to resurrect the dialect/language debate, but the "(linguistics)" tag is inappropriate. Flemish is not a linguistic concept; it is not even a single lect, but two lects which happen to be in Flanders. Can we just move this to Flemish—it is, after all, the primary meaning of that term in English—and move the disambig to Flemish (disambiguation)? We're ending up with people creating "X (linguistics)" articles for every lect that Ethnologue lists but which the academic consensus does not support as a separate language. It's going to be a real mess, and does no favors to our readers. kwami (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an article about the linguistic aspects of Flemish, or of the geographical group of dialects that are commonly called Flemish. The addition "(linguistics)" therefor is appropriate.
 * It doesn't matter that "Flemish" may not be a linguistic concept by itself (though I would tend to disagree about that).
 * I do feel however that the quality of the present article is below par. --Luxem (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The primary meaning of the English word "Flemish" is the language. Adding the tag (linguistics), besides being embarrassingly amateurish, is completely unnecessary. kwami (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If we were to have an article on "Flemish" in linguistics, we'd basically say "In linguistics, Flemish is a term of convenience for two Dutch dialects, East Flemish and West Flemish. (This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.)" A specifically linguistic approach isn't appropriate. kwami (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that "Verkavelingsvlaams" ("Subdivision Flemish") or "Tussentaal" are aspects of present day Flemish/Belgian Dutch, that should be part of this article. The development of the language did not stop in the 1960's-1970's.
 * On the other hand, if we were to change the article name to "Flemish", we should add a paragraph about the other uses of the word, including the discussion on sub-nationality, identification with a social group, political nationalism, etc.
 * --Luxem (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, hopefully that's all covered at the disambig. Currently that's linked as "This article is about Belgian Dutch. For other uses, see Flemish (disambiguation)." I'm sure others can come up with a more appropriate wording, but meanwhile it should be functional. kwami (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How nice of you, Kwami to relegate a language, be it sub-standard to Dutch, that I have spoken for 62 years, to the scrap-heap. This article is about Flemish, not Belgian Dutch. Flemish is a conglomeration of more than 200 varied dialects, not just two. What you propose continues the growing confusion regarding the Flemish Language. It is entitled to its own page ...seperate from Dutch and seperate from Dutch as spoken in Belgium. --Buster7 (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But it does have its own page. I don't understand your point. What scrap heap are you talking about? If you don't like the wording of the redirect, you're free to change it. kwami (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a continued and seemingly conscious effort to degrade the existence of any true and clear explanation of Flemish for the reader/visitor to WP. Not just at this article but at almost any article having to do with Belgium/Netherlands/Low countries. I apoligize if that is not your intent. Born in Belgium and thinking/talking one of the dialects (in its old form prior to its homogenization with Nederlanse into what is called Belgian Dutch or Nederlanse) I'm a bit over protective. While my focus has drifted toward other articles, Flemish is still my homebase, "mij moederland". The disambig page contains almost nothing meaningful. While I appreciate your offer to make a change, it will only lead to mis-understanding and my inability to clearly explain myself and my admitted POV. Been there, done that! ALSO...my mention of the scrapheap is how I feel that most editors treat anything "Flemish"...they discard it as trash and substitute Dutch or Belgian Dutch or some other alteration. It is Flemish. From their viewpoint it's like litter. From my viewpoint it should not be allowed to wither and die. It should be allowed to stand alone.--Buster7 (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish more people had that attitude towards languages. We've lost a hundred incredible languages in the US because they were tossed on the trash heap. My sole reason for moving this page was that it had a ridiculous title. I moved it to a title that I hoped would be neutral. That required a disambiguation between Flemish the language and Flemish the Flemings. If "Belgian Dutch" is not apropos, I'm open to suggestions. "Language" will offend some people. "Dialect" will offend others. That was the reason for the silly "linguistics" tag in the first place—as if Flemish didn't exist outside the field of linguistics. Or we could simply say "See also Flemish people", and sidestep the whole issue.


 * But I don't see what difference it makes as long as Flemish is called "Belgian Dutch" in the body of the article. (That's where I got the wording from.) kwami (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your understanding reply. An example of the difference might be if some editor started to descibe what you and I speak as "British". We would argue till the cows came home. Same thing for us Flemish-speaking Belgians. When we speak our "taals" (dialects) we are not speaking Dutch. We are speaking Flemish (meaning one of the many 100's of dialects). To get an idea of the challenge read the talk above (from the beginning(?)). It's like you say: the scholars and linguists won't allow it and then there are the Dutch that revert and don't understand why we don't want what is Flemish to be called Dutch. You bring up a good point. What is needed is a seperate article or series of articles. Something like...[Pre-Dutch Flemish]. Thanks for the push. I may call on you to assist...LOL...someday! (((BTW...where in the US are you?)))--Buster7 (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt you're going to convince the community to accept two articles on the same subject in order to reflect two POVs. It's been tried before, and AFAIK universally rejected or reverted. (I mean, if we don't have pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian articles on the history of Palestine, how can you make the argument for Flemish?) No, what we need to do is explain the different attitudes people have. The basic linguistic definition of a language is mutual intelligibility. By that definition, German and Arabic are language families, not languages (and both Dutch and Flemish are German lects, while Maltese is an Arabic lect), while many national "languages" are dialects (Croatian, Norwegian, Moldavian, Portuguese, ...). But there are also sociolinguistic considerations: what the people themselves think of their language. Any decent article needs to cover both. And of course there are many borderline cases to mutual intelligibility, while few language communities agree completely on the status of their lect. ("Lect", BTW, is jargon that does not prejudge whether a form of speech is a separate language or a dialect.) kwami (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * About mutual intellegibility: people with Dutch & Flemish as native language can understand each other relatively well, while second-language speakers (I'm talking about spoken language, not written, that's the case about the whole of Flemish, btw) have much difficulties to understand what's spoken in the other country. Some more clarification: "Belgian Dutch" reflects the Dutch standard, officially used. "Flemish" reflects what the people speaks. Well, now I'm explaining that... Flemish people originally speak a lot of dialects. None had a standard, that's why Dutch was taken. The most recent developments show that a "tussentaal" is developing - Flemish people (primarily children) are more and more using Brabantian (it's called "Flemish" but it's actually Brabantian) so it's more and more "Standard Flemish" although that doesn't exist officially. I think I'm talking too much now... Summarized, it's very complicated. And oh; I support the proposal to move the page ;-) SPQRobin (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I care nothing about either Flemish or Dutch, I hope I can make some edits without accusations of bias. I'll try changing the wording to make the distinction between Flemish and Belgian Dutch. kwami (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is really messed up. This article is not about Flemish at all, but about Standard Dutch as used in Belgium. It really needs to be cleaned up. kwami (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion page (in entirety) provides a look into the situation of "Flemish" in Wikipedia. It seems as tho there is a constant effort to remove "Flemish" and change it to "Dutch"...everywhere in Wikipedia, not just here. The lack of respect and understanding displayed toward editors who want to present a Flemish existance is insidious and exoniphobic. There is an oligarcal bias to change anything Flemish into Dutch. ((As SPQR states..."its very complicated". There is the written language and then the spoken language)). But, for those editors of Flemish persuasion it is hurtful and uncivil and amounts to exile. We feel as tho our heritage is being excommunicated from the annuls of History. To those editors that understand, please continue in your efforts to maintain the existence of Flemish, which, as you know, is NOT Dutch.--Buster7 (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Flemish persuasion? Interesting word choice... ;) Iblardi (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tussentaal
Occasionally 'Flemish' is used to refer to tussentaal a Dutch sociolect, also spoken in Belgium.

I take the use of the word Vlaams as used in Flanders as the authoritative meaning. Hence it's incorrect to says it's occasionally used to refer to the tussentaal, since it's virtually always used in that sense.

So I suggest changing this sentence based on an authoritative source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.122.222 (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not virtually always used to refer to tussentaal, to the contrary. In informal settings, "Vlaams" is used to refer to the different dialects or to tussentaal, depending on the situation. In formal situations, the word "Vlaams" is not often used to refer to the language : either "Nederlands" is used, the name of the particular dialect, or the words "tussentaal" or "verkavelingsvlaams". --Luxem (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Standard Dutch in Belgium
I feel like there's something missing in the article. The article explains the difference between dialects and tussentaal, however it fails to indicate that many people in Flanders speak standard Dutch. This is not the same as tussentaal and people don't use the same pronunciation as in the Netherlands, but it's still standard Dutch. If you listen to a VRT news reader. They speak standard Dutch, and yet you can clearly hear the difference between a VRT (Flemish) and NOS (Netherlands) news readers. This is NOT tussentaal, the Flemish pronunciation of words is just as accepted as the "Holland" pronunciation, it's standard Dutch. --Lamadude (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A few issues
Among consonants, the northern Dutch pronunciation of "w" (as in wang cheek) is [ʋ] or [v], in some southern Dutch dialects it is [β].

It’s always a more or less rounded [β].

and schoon (Brabantian) vs. mooi (Hollandic) "beautiful”

schoon is present in all Germanic languages in this meaning… It’s not a Brabantian influence on the other Flemish dialects (they all have that word), it only shows that propagating the Hollandic “mooi” hasn’t succeeded completely yet

Among Belgian Dutch vowels, the diphthong "ou/au" (as in bout bolt and fauna) is realized as [ɔu], whereas northern Dutch realizes it as [ʌu].

You also hear [ɑu] and [au]

Among Belgian Dutch vowels, the diphthong "ou/au" (as in bout bolt and fauna) is realized as [ɔu], whereas northern Dutch realizes it as [ʌu]. Among consonants, the northern Dutch pronunciation of "w" (as in wang cheek) is [ʋ] or [v], in some southern Dutch dialects it is [β]. Probably the most obvious difference between northern and southern Dutch is the northern voiceless velar fricative [x], which is equivalent in southern Dutch to either a voiced velar fricative [ɣ], most often when spelt "g", or a voiceless palatal fricative /ç/, most often when spelt "ch".

''The northern Dutch voiceless fricative is the uvular [χ], not the velar [x] ([x] is used too though, but it's not special for nothern Dutch unless it's a devoiced g that isn't a normal result of assimilation). [ɣ] and [x] is the norm pronounciation for g and ch… In Flanders you hear [ʝ] and [ç] too. The distribution is the same as in German, except that Flemish makes a difference between voiced and voiceless ([ɣ] or [x] before velar vowels, [ʝ] or [ç] before palatal)'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grytolle (talk • contribs) 10:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Where's the dabpage?
Why has this page been occupied by only the language/dialect/variant? Standard practice is to have disambiguation pages for terms that can refer to both a people and the language/dialect/variant they speak.

Peter Isotalo 10:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. I will change the title to Belgian Dutch to avoid confusion (and the creation of an extra disambiguation page). Kind regards, --Roofbird (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Edit: I will request a move. --Roofbird (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Following the same rationale you should move Flemish people to Dutch speaking Belgians; which is probably better justified as the "Dutch speaking community" has constitutional rights in Belgium, which does not only include the Flemish but also e.g. Brabantic Belgians. Arnoutf (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be coming in late here, but Flemish (Flaams) is not equivalent to "Belgian Dutch,"  and unfortunately this whole discussion is not separable from political considerations-- and not easily reduced to any classification such as "language,"  "dialect,"  etc. as those terms are also (politically) contested inside the communities and professions which use them. What is spoken on VRT/NOS is simply not what equivalent to what is spoken in cafes and homes -- it may a sort of superset, but the local variants differ in vocabulary and grammatical elements;  and not everyone can understand VRT/NOS. Etc. Further time and thought is needed, to make this article reflect the actual reality of the languages and places involved. KenThomas (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Consensus against move as not in conformity with Naming conventions (common names).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Flemish → Belgian Dutch &mdash; More specific, accurate, neutral, official, less biased, less controversial. "Flemish" can than be turned into a disambiguation page with links to this article, the Flemish people, Flanders, the County of Flanders, etc. In line with articles such as Austrian German, Belgian French, Irish English, Brazilian Portuguese... Roofbird (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More neutral? The claim that Flemish is a dialect of Dutch, rather than, say, both being dialects of Western Low German, is itself entirely controversial. One might as well speak of African Dutch instead of Afrikaans, or indeed English Dutch instead of Anglo-Saxon - after all, the closest relative to the Anglo-Saxon dialects is Frisian.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to be aggressive, the idea seems entirely good faith, and Flemish is one of the dialects of the official language Dutch (which is part of the German language group; but is not a dialect of the non-existing language Western Low German).
 * It think this move is not a good idea, as Wikipedia names its articles for the most common (colloquial) usage. Flemish is much more common than the rather rare Belgian Dutch reference. Therefore I think the move is not a good idea. Arnoutf (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The common name for this language is clearly Flemish. Jafeluv (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am shocked to read so much ignorance. Flemish is not a "language" (separate from Dutch). No dictionary, official publication or scientific publication speaks of "Flemish" as a separate language. Let's use the more accurate "Belgian Dutch" as a title, and immediately add that many think there is such a thing as a "Flemish language". An encyclopedia aims to spread knowledge, not popular myths. --Roofbird (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are shocked about our ignorance, I am shocked about yours. There is no such thing as "Belgian Dutch" there is only one Dutch: Dutch, rules of which are established by the Nederlandse Taalunie
 * Of course as in most languages, there are many dialects of Dutch (Limburgish, Zealandic, Utrechts, Haags, etc etc etc etc). Flemish is a dialect such as these, with the special circumstance that it is separated from the Netherlandic Dialects by a state border.
 * This situation is completely different from other shared languages where the different versions have official status (e.g. US, Canadian, Australian, British English or Swiss, Austrian, German German).
 * On top of this, the Wikipedia guideline is to use the most commonly used phrase for article title, and you have not even tried to show that "Belgian Dutch" is used frequently. Arnoutf (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And the OED, which happened to be at hand, falsifies the claim about all dictionaries. Its definition 1b of Flemish is "the Flemish language". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose...Do not move prior to discussion here. I am in agreement w/ Editor:Arnoutf and others, Flemish refers to the dialects. Any move will confuse the customer rather than inform. Also, @ Editor:Roofbird. Tone down your rhetoric! No need to be uncivil toward your fellow editors. --Buster7 (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Belgian Dutch" may be more accurate and official, but also so very academic. No one calls it that. Agree with Jafeluv. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My impression is the common name is Flemish, but that's just my opinion. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment...Some editor seems to think that this article is abandoned see:Flemish. This article is on the watchlist of many varied editors. The fact that it is not edited everyday should not infer, to any current editor, that there is no interest in it. I am sure, in time, editors will come forward and make their interest known. --Buster7 (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Believe me or not, I am of good faith. Please let me explain. "Flemish" basically has two meanings. It can be a popular synonym for "Belgian Dutch" (label in official dictionaries and wordlists of the Dutch language, academic publications, etc) or as an umbrella term for East and West Flemish (actually any dialect spoken in the territory of the former County of Flanders). "Belgian Dutch" can then refer to Standard Dutch (Belgian variety), or substandard Dutch ("tussentaal"); both being spoken more or less everywhere in Flanders. "Belgian Dutch" or "Flemish" cannot refer to any Dutch dialect spoken in Belgium (such as Brabantian or Limburgish) - or if it does, it is out of confusion (Brabantian and Limburgish are transnational dialects, so they are not "Flemish"). I think we should make that clear in the introduction. If we do so (and I think bullet points would be the clearest way to do so), I think we can keep the title. My intention for changing the title was to avoid common inaccurate terminology in other articles ("the official language was Flemish", "they spoke Flemish", "this movie is in Flemish"...; while actually simply "Dutch" is meant, or, when more specific, another Dutch dialect than "Flemish"). I've been spending a lot of time correcting "Flemish" into East, West, or French Flemish; to Brabantian or Limburgish (where this applies) or to "Dutch", when necessary. This increases credibility of wikipedia while avoiding misconceptions. --Roofbird (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that this confusion should be mediated.
 * I suggest to make a brief notion in the lede (which should be a summary) and then use a section in the main text of the article in more detail along the lines of your explanation above would have my preference
 * (PS I think your tone of voice has evoked the doubts about your behaviour, much more than the content of your ideas) Arnoutf (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nederlands Nederlands
Would this be better translated as Dutch Dutch? —Wiki Wikardo 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

proposed edit+fmt?
not confind2pol.borders!
 * cuntryz/regions dundisplay
 * iso-vls >w-vl[babelbox+wp[but dundisplay--i&#39;v&#91;&#91;RSI&#93;&#93;&gt;typin=v.v.hard4me!!&gt;contactme thruMSNpl&#91;sven70=alias (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea about the proposal, or indeed the language of this thread. Arnoutf (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

archivin
oldethreds?--i&#39;v&#91;&#91;RSI&#93;&#93;&gt;typin=v.v.hard4me!!&gt;contactme thruMSNpl&#91;sven70=alias (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Considerable differences
From personal experience as well as linguistic background, I have to disagree with a few points made on this page. Not to needlessly refuel the debate, but I feel a few important factors have been overlooked:

1) The Taalunie promotes the proper use of Dutch in regions where Dutch is spoken. There is nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean that Flemish cannot exist as a different language just because it's closely related to and spoken in a region that also has the inhabitants speak Dutch. Flanders is such a region. Children learn Dutch in school, but it is really their second language, their first one is the "dialect".

2) The discussion that "Dutch" stems from "Diets" is only relevant about the English name for the language "Nederlands" (Netherlandic, ABN), and not to the concept of the language itself.

3) What defines a dialect? Different pronunciation, different vocabulary. What defines a language? In most cases: different grammar as well as different vocabulary. This is exactly the kind of distinction we see when comparing Dutch to Flemish. Flemish has distinctly different grammar used compared to any northern Dutch dialect. Even the difference between Northern Brabant (Netherlands) and Brabant (Belgium) is significant, while they were considered a single province in history.

4) All Flemish-Dutch speaking regions have very little trouble understanding one another. Not so when crossing the border with the Netherlands. Even just a few km from the border, there is a sharp contrast in pronunciation, spelling, grammar and vocabulary.

5) Why is Flemish not considered a language then? One only has to look at history for the answer to that: The sharp cultural border dividing the French-speaking part of Belgium, which has the ruling governmental body, and the Flemish speaking part. The bourgeoise has always found the Flemish people "peasants" and of course their language was considered inferior. Flanders ended up between a rock and a hard place, linguistically speaking: inferior according to the governmental body (which still holds true if one looks at decisions made for considering Hollandic-Dutch as standard for VRT instead of Flemish, and considering the hard battle by the Taalunie), and put under pressure on the other side by the "superior" trading nation of "Holland" - where even the different pronunciation of otherwise grammatically and vocabulary equal Dutch south of the rivers is considered "less proper".

I am speaking from a rich, hands-on background here. I am not Belgian, but I have lived on the Belgian border a good portion of my life. I have seen and experienced the sharp contrast between not just ABN and Flemish, but even the local Dutch dialect of the region (Brabants) and the Flemish language right across the border. It is not a gradual transition at all, as some state. The differences are glaringly obvious, well-defined.

Wolfbeast (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You make a lot of reasonable arguments, yet you miss one essential thing. A reliable source naming Flemish as a language distinct from Dutch (like Frisian). Without such a reliable source (however convincing your arguments maybe) your position is built on original research, and can for that reason not be allowed in the article. Arnoutf (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a talk page... does everyone immediately have to cite 10 references? One source: http://www.vlaamsetaal.be/artikel/193/waarom-vlaams-i-p-v-nederlands- -- and Flemish SIGN language is officially accepted, with its own vocabulary and grammar - How can that exist if the language it is based on does not? http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlaamse_Gebarentaal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.171.136 (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That first link is to a site that is specifically targeted at establishing Flemish as a language separate from Dutch; hardly a reliable site. It's kind of funny how they try to defend the fact that the site is actually written in Dutch by saying people still have to get used to their (i.e. made up) definition of "Algemeen Vlaams". About the sign language link: sign languages are in general only very loosely related to, and certainly not based on the official, spoken(!) language of the country in which they developed. For instance, American sign language is not mutually intelligible with British Sign language, but is instead closely related to French sign language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.247.68 (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

But much more importantly: There is no 'Hollandic Dutch', the first formalised Dutch language was almost completely based on the language spoken in Brussels at the time. Then Antwerp and Brussels and only about 200 years later did the first 'Hollandic' elements start showing up, due to the Statenbijbel (and even then based on the dialect spoken in parts of Holland that was almost entirely inhabited with refugees from what was then still the southern part of The Netherlands and what is nowadays Flanders). The only reason, let us be honest here, why people from Flanders want to call Flemish a separate language rather than a dialect is your point 2: Somewhere along the line (after the Napoleonic Wars) 'The Netherlands' got separated into two parts and only one of the two resulting parts was called 'The Netherlands'. And the people in Flanders can't stand that it wasn't their part and that the language they speak is not named after the region they live in. Yes, there are differences in pronunciation, but the differences in pronunciation between Flanders and 'above the rivers' are just as big as the ones between The Netherlands above and below the rivers and between Flanders and The Netherlands below the rivers. And those pronunciation differences affect more than just Dutch (Belgians also pronounce English words according to Dutch phonetics, while the Dutch pronounce them according to English phonetics, does that make 'English spoken by a Belgian' a separate language too?)Robrecht (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've another good reason why most of the points you raise are not very valid. I'm from Noord-Brabant and also from right on the border with Belgium and the local people from both sides of the border understand each other just fine.
 * Robrecht wrote: "Belgians also pronounce English words according to Dutch phonetics, while the Dutch pronounce them according to English phonetics, does that make 'English spoken by a Belgian' a separate language too?" Man, that quote made my day, especially since you seem to believe it yourself. I can pick out dutchmen speaking English miles away, while I myself am usually mistaken for an Englishman, Australian, South African or Newfoundlander (mind you that my English is above average, and definitely not a reference for all Belgians, but they are generally harder to pick out than Dutchmen. Nychus (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal (nothing to do with Dutch)
It seems like this page is in a strange place. 'Flemish' really just means 'from Flanders', including the languages spoken (this page). Most other country adjectives are a disambiguation page, with the language being its own page; see French, German, Dutch. If I write Antwerp is a Flemish city, we would end up here, which is obviously not what is meant.

I propose we move the page to something like Flemish (language) to make the page Flemish a proper disambiguation page like the three pages I listed above. I'm not married to the specific title, and other suggestions are welcome. Thoughts?  Oreo Priest  talk 17:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, especially since there is also a page about Flemish people, to which this article, strangely, doesn't link. I think "Flemish (linguistics)" would be preferable to "Flemish (language)", considering that it is a regional variety of Dutch rather than a language proper. Iblardi (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (Of course, in the case of Antwerp you could simply link to the Flanders article by typing "Flanders|Flemish" between single square brackets.) Iblardi (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I know how to overcome the technical restrictions if I already know that the page 'Flemish' is inappropriate, but it's not obvious that it would really be the page only on Belgian Dutch. Also, I think your proposed title is better than mine.  Oreo Priest  talk 21:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Article now split into the linguistic and colloquial senses: Flemish vs Belgian Dutch dialects. Asked at the language project for review. I would prefer 'Belgian Dutch', but we'll need to delete that redirect before moving it there. (I don't much care what we call the articles. We could adopt the ISO convention and distinguish "Vlaams" in Flanders from "Flemish" in all of Belgium for all I care, but the unified article started off with a dab section for its lead, which was not appropriate for a WP article, and hardly any of it dealt with Flemish in the linguistic sense. — kwami (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)