Talk:Flemish people

What's wrong with ....

What's wrong with "Flemings often feel quite well at home in countries as France and Switzerland, the first especially for a certain way of life, the second more for a multi-lingual modern society that attaches great importance to work ethics."?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudi Dierick (talk • contribs) 13:38, 31 December 2004 (UTC)

blanking etc.

Just to clarify something, pretending one isn't blanking when one deletes 15560 bytes from an article is plain ridiculous. Add to that deletion of most of the infobox, a paragraph explaining the difference between the county of Flanders and the modern region, over 2/3rds of the Culture and Etnicity section, the related ethno-linguistic groups section, the official language section, reducing the flemish movement section by roughly 50%, and so forth. I don't think I have to mention the other deletions. To that is added the deletion of sources (4 in the infobox alone, more throughout the article). Considering how on this talk page it has become apparent that you have no consensus for your massive changes, in particular the non-recognition of a flemish ethnicity, your behaviour is entirely unacceptable.--Caranorn (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is 'there' doesn't mean it matters or is correct. Please explain to me what the demand for German speakers in Belgian companies has to do with a supposed ethnic group, then you'll know the true meaning of ridiculous. Until you grasp that meaning; don't insult others with it.HP1740-B (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, when going for massive changes, it is better to get either a consensus on the new version, or to implement changes paragraph after paragraph, with justification of each change. I think that the current version of this article is full of defects, but understand that changes as extensive as those you are trying to apply will probably be simply reverted on a glance. No (or almost no) one reads attentively such changes, because usually, they are the work of a vandal. Obviously, this is not the case, so simply breakup the changes in smaller pieces, and apply them independently.CyrilleDunant (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this very frustrating, it would be better is people who observe the change, would look at what's in them rather than if there is a loss of 'bytes'. HP1740-B (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand it is frustrating, but collaborative editing also means that you must work in such a way that input of other users can be given in a fine-grained way. Such is the nature of the Wiki.CyrilleDunant (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Pan-Netherlandic Dutchification

There seems to be a problem with "Dutch creep" on a number of pages (I first noticed it at Dunkirkers, of all places), driven by a conviction that Flemings are "Dutch", and that the "common English word" for speakers of Dutch and Dutch-like dialects is "Dutch", regardless of their country of origin, their own sense of identity, and indeed of what English use might in fact be. My glances through article histories suggest that the process began in March this year, but to some extent it resurrects the controversies that User:Rex Germanus revelled in before his regretted ban in December 2007 (it's a shame for Rex that his kindred spirits weren't editing yet back then). I tend to stick to biographical articles, and occasional gnome-work, so I have no idea what the best way of dealing with this is - especially as it affects several different pages, wasting the time of various editors whose fields of interest are largely unconnected. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the pattern. It is interesting. Iblardi (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No pictures of famous Flemish people in the infobox?

As in the article Ukrainians. Is this done by intend (or lazyness :))))? Would you vedetten like to see it there? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

flemish is duch!!!!!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.20.195 (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sentence in lede section

Hello, I was curious about this sentence from the lede... In colloquial South-Dutch, a difference in terms exist - "de Vlaanders" refers to the territory of the old county of Flanders, while "(het) Vlaanderen" refers to the territory of the Flemish region or community. I am sorry, I don't know any South Dutch colloqial or otherwise, but in my ignorance, I assume "de Vlaanders" here means "the Flems" and "het Vlaanderen" means "home of the Flems" or similar. Is that right please? Any help appreciated. I think we should explain with precision to an en-audience. thanks Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

De Vlaanders and (het) Vlaanderen can only be translated as "Flanders" in English because English only has one plural form. FlanderS etymologically means "flooded landS". Dutch can have two plurals for some words: one formed with an -S (VlaanderS) and one with an -EN (VlaanderEN). In this case, both plurals took on a different meaning. Vlaanders refers to the historical county of Flanders which encompasses a partially different territory than the current Flemish region or community. In short, the medieval county included (only) contemporary West-Flanders, East-Flanders, French-Flanders and Zeeuws-Flanders. The modern Flanders comprises West-Flanders, East-Flanders, Flemish-Brabant, Antwerp, Limburg (and often but not always) Brussels BUT NOT French-Flanders and Zeeuws-Flanders. Because there's only one word in English for two different territories, it's confusing. Once you start using two words, it's less confusing. Perhaps I'll better remove the sentence as it does not seem to help at all :) ScalaDiSeta (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation ScalaDiSeta. I just thought maybe that last sentence was very difficult for casual English-language readers. The explanation is also pretty complicated, but then it's a complicated subject! Maybe there is a simpler way to explain that last sentence - we can have a think about it! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Approximately 75% of the Flemish people are by baptism assumed Roman Catholic,"

- makes little sense in English. Does it just mean "Approximately 75% of Flemish people are baptised as Roman Catholics,..." ? Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)