Talk:Lodewijk van Beethoven

Dutch or Flemish
When one indicates nowadays if someone (from the past) was Flemish or Dutch, they indicate the place they lived or were born. Look at our List of Dutch people, listing only people from the current Netherlands, no matter when they lived, while e.g. the List of Flemish painters lists people who lived and worked in what is currently known as Flanders. At the time of Lodewijk van Beethoven, Flanders wasn't even a part of the Dutch Empire, but of the Austrian Netherlands, making him an Austrian of nationality and a (current) Fleming (then Brabantian or Mechlinian) by locality. To see someone without any bond with the current Netherlands listed as Dutch gives a very strange impression (giving the right language but the wrong location), while listing him as Flemish immediately conveys both his language and his location. No one would call Rubens a Duthc painter, would they? Fram 10:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is weird. If they spoke Flemish (a variant of the Dutch language) and came from the territory of what is now Belgium then they are "Flemish" in English. For the same reason we don't call Belgian Francophones "French". --Folantin 22:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: there's an entire book on this subject: The Fleming in Beethoven by Ernest Closson (English translation, Oxford University Press, 1936). Plus Britannica says that Ludwig van Beethoven's family was of "Flemish origin". --Folantin 07:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Flemish is not a variant of Dutch, a commonly made mistake. You both confuse nationality/place of birth and ethnicity. First, there is no 'Flemish nationality', there is no independant Flanders, hence the only nationality would be 'Belgian'. However, Belgium did not exist at either at the time of Beethovens birth or death. Nationality is hence not an option. Region or place of birth of ancestry is another option, you want 'Flemish' (yet link it to Flemish people ... who did not exist at Beethovens time) but he was born in the region of Brabant, not Flanders (yet you use the modern sense of "North of Belgium") see how complicate this gets? This why I used ethnicity, that way you cover northern france, most of the low countries and parts of western Germany ... you can't be wrong. In any way, linking to Flemish people is, as they did not exist.Rex 14:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not interested in nitpicking arguments. If you say he was "Dutch" to an English speaker, that implies he came from the Kingdom of the Netherlands (or "Holland"). If you say he was "Flemish", then people know he came from what is now Belgium. Which he did. Which is why both Britannica and that book call him Flemish. --Folantin 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They did not exist? Your pet article, Dutch (ethnic group), even says that "The economic golden age, and spread of Calvinism, redefined "the Dutchman" across Europe a "Hollander" rather than a "Fleming" as had previously been the case.[75]" Fram 15:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed what is contradictory about that? As for 'nitpicking', not at all. I'm merely being exact. Lots of words have multiple meanings. That's why we can link the same word to multiple articles, to be more precise. Point remains, you can't use/link Flemish people here. It would be like linking T-rex to bird.Rex 16:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, mate. Flemish it is and Flemish it stays. Beethoven's biographers Lewis Lockwood and Maynard Solomon both refer to his Flemish ancestry. Even the family tree this page links to talks about the "Flemish province of Brabant". --Folantin 16:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But I don't have a problem linking Flemish to Flanders, if that makes you more happy. I thought your problem was with the use of "Flemish", not specifically with the use of "Flemish people". Fram 19:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. My main objection is that Folantin incorrectly and falsely linked it to Flemish people, which is incorrect here. Folantin propagates a mix of ethnicity and place of birth. Rex 17:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, no I don't, matey. He was Flemish so that makes him a Flemish person. I don't care whether that's an ethnicity, nationality, cultural group or whatever. It's perfectly plain what it means to English speakers which is why the sources I quoted used it. The trouble with Wikipedia articles is that anyone can edit them and I notice you've been at work on the Flemish people page. Still, no matter. Link to Flanders if you like. So long as he's not "Dutch". The guy spent most of his life in Germany anyway. I'm still not sure why we have an article on this incredibly minor musical figure (though I can guess). --Folantin 18:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're either Irish or Scots, matey, so either you've watched too many Popeye episodes or had a rather bad English teacher who never explained the proper personal pronouns to you, as I'm not a, or your, matey. You're a clear adherant of, national history, which is fine but doesn't always come close to the truth. Lodewijk was a Dutch person in the full historical meaning of the word, indeed, you claiming he was Flemish in both ways says it all.Rex 18:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your mastery of English certainly isn't up to much, Rex. "You're a clear adherant of, national history". Well, since I'm not Flemish and you're Dutch (unlike L. Van B.) I'll let others figure out who's the nationalist round here. --Folantin 19:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you cool it folantin, I don't take kindly to such comments. You've been warned. If you'd read properly, you would have seen that I wrote national, not nationalist history. National history is the history which countries drew up after enlightment, more or less claiming everything that happened within their borders as history of their contempory people. This is why certain Dutch, French and German history books alls claim Charlemagne as being of their respective nationality. Non national history, the most objective form, will say he was Frankish.Rex 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one losing my rag here and I have absolutely no interest in your Dutch chauvinist POV-pushing. Reputable English-language sources from academic presses refer to him as Flemish so that's the way he'll stay. --Folantin 15:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I have better sources I am a POV pusher? I think not. Thing is, both sources are 'compatible', after all in those times a Dutchman born in Flanders was a Fleming. Simple, if you want it to be. But that's a rather big 'if'.Rex 20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)