Talk:Flanders - Definition and Overview

Dear reader, dear editor,

I've the impression that this page contains several severe errors that, moreover, all suggest either an important ignorance about institutional changes of the last decennia, either an anti-Flemish bias:

• After correctly stating that "Flanders (...) is the name for the Dutch-speaking northern region of the federal state of Belgium", you the completely omit that, just as well also the Flemings in Brussels are fully part of Flanders. You thus completely forget about the Flemish community.
• You state that Flanders has nearly six million of Belgium's 10.3 million inhabitants; this appears to deny the existence of Flemings in Brussels, numbering between 150 and 200.000.
• You state: "In Flanders, a strong separatist movement, called the Flemish movement, is active.". This is a gross simplification of real opinions in the Flemish movement. Being a member of the general council of the 'Overleg van Vlaamse verenigingen (OVV), I must add that the common denominator in the Flemish movement is equal rights and autonomy for the Flemings; some want to achieve this trough independence, others trough federalism, and still others trough confederalism.
• Finally, contemporary institutions and history are heavily neglected.

Yours sincerely, Rudi Dierick, Kazernenlaan 22, B-1040 Brussels

Be bold in updating pages. If something is wrong in the article, go to the article and click "Edit this page" at the bottom of the article. Proofread and then save the page. --kudz75 05:33, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

The current text is quite out of date (e.g. no single reference to the European Union!), still stressing historic Flanders and very incomplete on contemporary Flanders; However, whenever I try to update, a certain older versions gets uploaded again. Anybody who can explain me how and why that happens? Rudi Dierick, Etterbeen, 2 Aug. 2004

'Contemporary Flanders' versus 'Contemporary belgian Flanders'

I've check common practices in several encyclopedia (like in French Larousse, English Longman and Encyclopedia Brittanica). I did not found any single example where the adjective referring to the current state is used, except for cases were it is today a relevant distinction that needed to be made, e.g. 'North-Korea' versus 'South-Korea' as the term 'Korea' might is confusing. Given that the term 'Flanders' is currently used for >> 99,9% to refer to the contemporary Flemish people and the area where they live, or to the current Flemish political institutions (its government, parlaiment and administration), and only sparsely for the 'French-Flandres' and even more rarely for the Ducth 'Zeeuws-Vlaanderen', and as these two special cases are typically called by their 'full name', this is, including the prefix, I it feel keeping the 'Belgian' is just redundant overload. I've changed the text accordingly, and added some urgent contemporary updates. Rudi Dierick, 2 Aug. 2004

Flanders today is not only Belgian

I think the introduction is really misleading. Today, Flanders is still a region divided between Belgium, France and the Netherlands [1] (http://www.bartleby.com/65/fl/FlanderBe.html) [2] (http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=389839) [3] (http://www.nordmag.com/nord_pas_de_calais/flandre/flandre.htm). I don't understand why Belgium should monopolize the term Flanders. I propose four articles:

• Flanders, historical and global perspective
• Flanders (Belgium), the Flemish region of Belgium
• Flanders (France), and
• Flanders (Netherlands)

In Belgium it might be obvious that Flanders refers to the Flemish Region, but it is certainly not the case outside Belgium's boundaries. --Edcolins 21:14, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) --

Seems a good idea, but I would then prefer Flanders to be a disambiguation page. And put the historical Flanders into Flanders (county).

Donar Reiskoffer 09:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dear, having separate sections on both historic Flanders, on French and Dutch Flanders is certainly a good idea. However, setting the current contemporary Flemish community on a similar footing (and presentation) in this encyclopedia, does sound very bizar, misleading and out of proportions as the term Flanders is used in 99,99% of the cases uniquely for the current Flanders (the Fl. community, its people and its institutions). You can easily check how many times this is the meaning you can find on internet (using Google search), and how many times the other meanings.

That research demonstrates that when people speak about contemporary French- and Ducth Flanders, they nearly always add the prefixes 'French', 'Dutch' (or even more, in Ducth 'Zeeuws'; 234O resp. 525 occurences). I did not find any single occurence of the word Flanders without such prefixes when referring to French-Flanders and Dutch-Flanders! For a good encyclopedic article on French-Flanders, see http://www.rabbel.info/fflanders.html.

Using Flanders in the historic sense of the word clearly confuses people. One year ago, I made an extensive check on how 'Flanders' was reported in English-language encyclopedia. Stunning and horrific: most indeed referrred to the historic meaning, but ONLY to that one. Some even went that far as to state that 'Ghent' was the CURRENT capital of Flanders! Therefore, there is a big need to clear up those huge and massive factual errors. For all these reasons, a scientifically correct article on Flanders should speak primarily about contemporary Flanders, and then clearly list other meanings. Kind regards, Rudi

Revert war I

I've entirely changed the sentence stating "The "Flemish Region" has its own regional government, parliament and institutions, ...". This is complete, utter nonsens. As clearly and explicitely established in Flemish and Belgian legislation, the "Flemish Region" does not have any single member of parliament, nor any single regional minister! Since the fusion of the regional and community institutions, thete is only one single, mono-cameral Flemish Parliament, one single Flemish governement, and one single Flemish administration. Rudi

Who are you? Please sign your posts (cf. your talk page). It is otherwise impossible to properly discuss. --Edcolins 21:32, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

As from now, all my posts should appear dully signed as registration was done in the meanwhile. Who I am, a Fleming, not a member of any political party, but with good friends in all non-extremist political parties, and a regular contributor with opinion articles to Flemish dailies as De Tijd, De Standaard and De Morgen. Most recent, a proposal on variable fines for traffic offenses in Tijd.

:: And who are you?

Hello, This page needs clarification on the origins (and difference between) of the Flemish Community, the Flemish Region, as well as the merger between the two. It is my understanding the Flemish Region absorbed all competences and responsibilities of the Flemish Community, whereby the Flemish community institutions were taken over by the Flemish Region. The Flemish Region represents the inhabitants of the Flanders Region as well as the Dutch speaking community in the Brussels Capital Region. Therefore the statement the the Flemish Region has its own (regional) parliament, government and institutions or administration, is correct without having to tirelessly adding "Flemish" to every word. --Matthewdikmans 09:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just some facts:

1. Flemish Community and Flemish Region fusionned their institutions. Neither absorbed the other. Given that the political parties are represented all over the Flemish Community (incl. in brussels), as in social, cultural, scientific life, it is as good as impossible to find any large Flemish organisation or institution that restricts its operations to the Flemish regionand, the Community aspect largely dominates Flemish political identity.

2. Flemish Region represents ONLY the inhabitants of the Flanders Region; the Flemish Community represents the inhabitants of both Flanders Region as Dutch speaking community in the Brussels Capital Region.

3. Since that fusion, the Flemish region has NO parliament, no governement, ...

4. You're entirely right about not having to tirelessly adding "Flemish" to every word.

As you sugegsted ("clarification on the origins (and difference between) of the Flemish Community, the Flemish Region"), I will include a seperate article on this.

Just one real fact : Flemish region, the belgian institution transfered all its competency to the flemish community. that is what really happened, as it is authorized by the belgian consitution. That is why the Flemish region doesn't have a government or a parliament. 20.138.1.245 12:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revert war II

I've had to re-insert factual information that a certain Mr. Collins for whatever bizar reason deleted, claiming it was nt factual'. However, I still maintain :

• it is 100% factual that Brussels is the capital of Flanders and that Brussels lies in Flanders -see belgian legislation, freely available on internet). The only cases known of people pretending that Brussels lies outside Flanders and, that Flanderes therefore has no right to establish its capital in that city are those who insist, because of French-speaking nationalism, sheer ignorance or whatevr other reason (the actual reason doesn't matter) on denying any consideration for the Flemish community (cfr. Belgian constitution);
• it is 100% factual that Belgian institutions put regions and communities on a similar footing (where E.Collins apparently prefers to censor away the Flemish community, in order to be able to 'justify' his claim that Flanders choose its capital in a city where it is a stranger ("Altough, the city of Brussels does not belong geographically to the "Flemish Region", it is the capital of Flanders."); for the same reason, it is not correct to state that only the three regions form Belgium; correct is that the 3 regions + the 3 communities do;
• Flanders is, according to international and Belgian law free to establish its capital everywhere it has legal power to do so; this means, including Brussels where it has indeed legal powers explicitely granted by the Belgian constitution.
• Contrary to what E.Collins suggests, the university of leuven was not just the biggest French-speaking university, but also the biggest Ducth-speaking one!
• Contrary to what E.Collins suggests (trough omission), the Flemish region has NO government of its own, nor a parliamentary assembly of its own, nor any civil servant; it the whole Flemish nation, people or however you want to call the whole of all Flemings that has a Parliament, a governement, an administration etc. His insistence on just the regional competencies is indeed an erronuous, and 100% politically partisan point of view (French-speaking nationalistic).

....

Please explain then why the term "Flanders" is not mentioned in the Belgian constitution...

And look I've never ever removed "the City of Brussels was the capital of Flanders" [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Flanders&diff=5452015&oldid=5442453). Are you convinced?... Gosh, what the hell is this? --Edcolins 20:50, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Simple reason, but what is the relevance of this question?

Reason is that the Belgian constitution is a compromise between Flemish who wanted to model the federalised institutions along community lines (claiming that best represents the actual structure (social, cultural, political, ...) of Belgian society, while most French-speaking politicians wanted to model the institutions along regional frontiers. Thus, Belgian constitution established both regions and communities and an equal footing of hierarchy (neither stands above the other); then, trough an internal, democratic vote within the Flemish community, the Flemings unified their institutions. This is thus an act of self-determination. Some French-speaking nationalists tried to attach this fusion before the courts, but they were rebuffed. More important: since, the Belgian governmenet + parliament as well as the executives of the other regions and the German-speaking community have consistently recognised these unified institutions. Also governements of many other states have recognised the unified Flemish institutions. Therefore, they are 1000x more the reality then the Flemish region and the Flemsih community who, as said earlier,; don't have any single MP, nor any civil servant of their own.

The only exception on this widespread recognition is the French-speaking community who refuses to acknowledge both the terrotorial integrity of Flanders, as well as, indirectly, the linguistic frontiers established in the Belgian constitution. Trough this refusal, the French-speaking community is the only state ('deelstaat' in Dutch) executive i the entire European Union that does not recognise its immediate neighbour. So, what does any democrat have to conclude from this singular, exceptional refusal of recognition? So, again, what is the relevance of your question?

Concerning who removed my information on Brussels being the capital of Flanders, it appears I was confused. I should recheck the version history of this again. Rudi Dierick,

And, before you forget: who are you?

Very nice, giving instructions one doesn't obey onself?

Is Flanders also a nation, or just a region and, "sometimes also its inhabitants"

According to the Wikipedia definition, which clearly says that concepts as nation, ethnic group and the likes are no exact concepts, I think Flanders should indeed qualify to be described as a nation.

Wikipedia: 'A nation is a group of people sharing aspects of their language, culture and/or ethnicity.', explaining also that ' Today too, however, many nations exist without a state, such as the Kurds, Gibraltarian and the native American nations, whereas many states comprise several nations, such as Belgium and Spain. (...) The idea of a nation remains somewhat vague, in that there is generally no strict definition for exactly who is considered to be a member of any particular nation. Many modern states show a great diversity of cultural behaviours and ethnic backgrounds. England may furnish a classic example: a territory which is not a state, since it has no government of its own, and which has large immigrant populations and diverse cultural behaviour, yet which is often described as a nation.'

Flanders, contrary to the English nation, the Kurds and many other nations, does have it's own governement, its own parliament etc. It also has its own set of political parties (who together get 99% of the votes in Flanders) and its own, distinctively Flemish set of large culural and scientific organisations. In terms of social organisation, whenever the Belgian legislator did not impose belgian-scale organised organisations (as for trade unions, mutual healt insurrance etc.), the dominantscope of organisation is by far the Flemish level.

Also most contemporary historians like Lode Wils (a Fleming), and philosphers as Philippe Van Parijs (UCL, French-speaking) consider Flanders as a distinctive nation, using the common notion that Belgium is a single state with two nations inside it!

On Brussels and Flanders

Some French-speakers and sympathisers regularly vandalise the description of the ralation between brussel and Flanders. Constitutionally, Brussels is both a region in its own right, and a bilingual area, thus making it a constituent part of the Flemish Community.

However, some people insist on a presnetation of things that Brussels ONLY in its terroiroarial/ regional aspect, and not in the much wider aspects of politics, culture, ... Therefore, I feel a much more accurate, neutral description is " ... Brussels, a city and a region the Flemings share with the French-speaking Belgians.". Moreover, stating that Flanders chose is capotal outside its own territory is, because of the constitution, factually wrong (plain error). In the other hand, stating Flanders chose is capotal outside its own region is incomplete in that it censors the equally vald community institutions. In addition to the regions and communities, which are 'just' institutios', there is also the objective reatity of:

• political parties, which precisely reflect that dual nature of the Brussels population, with French-speakers and Flemings both represented;
• the unified Flemish institutions that, because of their constitutional competencies in among other community affairs, is egally perfectly 'at home' in brussels;
• the social reality with Flemish univesities, schools, libraries, ... in Brussels.

Given all these reasons, presenting it as if Flanders has its capital outside its territory or its region is a partisan and racially biased and discriminating presentation of things: it s as if the Flemings in brussels do NOT deserve respect for the equal political rights, and as if, only the French-speaking community in Brussels would have the right to say it is 'at home' in brussels. this directly means that in that point of viewx, Flemings have a lower status, which means discrimination and racism.

I reworded the introduction to make clear that the fact that Brussels is part of Flanders is controversial. Sorry to hear that it may appear disrespectful to you, but many things appear disrespectful to many while appearing natural to others. --Edcolins 17:51, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Introducing different sections, and keeping only the core information in the general article looks indeed an nice improvement. Nevertheless, there was still some redundant information (e.g. twice stating Flanders is a region in the introduction) I've tried to remediate about these minor glitches and added some details on the two 'Flanders' provinces. I think you also did a good thing to add the sentence that 'Flanders' as a term has different meanings to different people. And don't worry about me: whatever is objective fact, one should never object to any objective description of it (this is: I might prefer that Flanders tomorrow has certain sovereign powers in a loose confederation, e.g. in language, culture and education; that, however, should not hinder me in contributing to a description of what Flanders currently is that is very different from how I would like Flanders to be). So, in your description, I don't see anything 'disrespectful to me', just a few things that are not 100% accurately described (especailly the difference the Flemish Community as an autonomous institution, existing since 1970 and with its current powers only since 1988), and the social, cultural and political nation/community that existed already from clearly before this institution. --Rudi Dierick 19:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is indeed some truth in stating that the fact of Brussels being part of Flanders is controversial. However, why "Brussels is part of Flanders" is controversial is maybe not so clear yet. As far as I see it, the controversy does not stem from different opinions, or projects for the future, but from th more nationalistic rench-speakers nott accepting the existence of the Flemish Community (and especially its competency over the Flemings in Brussels). As such, they object against a very objecive fact, being the existence of an institution established by belgian law and all practical implications of this:

1. First of all, this way of formulating this ('that Brussels is part of Flanders') is only the point of view of a small minority among the Flemings, mostly restricted to a few political parties (including the Vlaams Belang), both not the majority view, nor part of any official policy;
2. Official policy and the majority view both say that Brussels is a region that we share with the French-speakers; as such, Brussels is 'also' and partially, Flemish; in the sens that the Flemings living in brussels are not 'abroad', but living in their own (non-sovereign) flemish state; that was what was also included in my description;
3. However, that constitutional reality (and Flemish majority view) is hotly disputed by all more nationalist tendencies among the French-speakers that fiercely hate an dispute the idea that there is any autonomous Flemish authority that might have any legal competency in brussels; and this is the core of the current political issue.
4. Those disputing claims run counter to the constitutional fact that there is indeed such an autonmous Flemish authority with legal powers in brussels, the Flemish parliament and the flemish governement for their competencies for the Flemish Community. --Rudi Dierick 18:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

Rudy, I understand you like to insist that Flanders is a nation and a community of people. I respect this, but I believe it is probably better to first state that Flanders is a region, and afterwards that it also refers to the nation and the community? It would indeed better reflect the common meaning of the term "Flanders" outside Flanders. See for instance, dictionary.com [5] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Flanders&db=*) and britannica [6] (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9003009) which only mention the meaning as a region, and also google:

• "Flanders is a region" - 94 google hits - [7] (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Flanders+is+a+region22&btnG=Search&meta=)
• "Flanders is a nation" - 1 google hit - [8] (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Flanders+is+a+nation%22&btnG=Search&meta=)

--Edcolins 16:01, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

The terms used for other people that are described in Wikipedia (and elsewhere) as 'nations' have similar frequencies when using better and more appropriate search terms! Just use 'Flemish nation', and then compare the actual 'attributes of other nations (asque nation, Scottish nation, nation québécoise' with the attributes of the Flemish nation/community. Moreover, there is still no single scientific or authoritative source provided here that justifies such removal of that term, so far from 'sufficient evidence'.

in addition, it looks like this argument takes the very common and persistant misunderstandings (and plainly erronuous and out-of-date information) as a justification for not writing better, more accurate and up-to-date articles. Over a year ago, I did an extensive verification of how Flanders was described in English, French and Dutch encyclopedia (online). Appaling! Nearly all of them did refer to the mediaval county, several to Flanders as a territory (most often without specifying which territoriy), several already knew about the current institution of the Flemish Region, but NONE already knew the about the slightly older institution of the Flemish Community. Worse, if I remember well, the Encyclopedia brittanica even stated Ghent was the capital of the current Flemish region. You can understand I did send some emails suggesting an update. So, to conclude, errors in other sources are not good treasons for me, on the contrary. --Rudi Dierick 12:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As to your second point, that Flanders is less knwn as a nation, this is clearly true. However, in order to account for all the actual social, cultural and political reality and to avoid misunderstandings with the 'Flmish Community' as an institution, I prefer to keep the general article distinctive from the articles on the particular current institutions, and still describe Flanders as a nation. Based on all arguments put forward yet, that appears from termonological point of view most suitable. And of course, I fully agree that in such an article, one might add that the degree to which Flanders is considered and seen as a nation differs quite well among people. --Rudi Dierick 12:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We kinda have the smae problem with Rudi on the french version of wikipedia. I personaly think that root of the problem is the fact that Rudi insist of saying that the word Flanders refer to the people, the Flemings, more than the region. But it is something that Rudi seems to not be able to accept, and constantly misinterpreat as a negation of the rights of the flemings in Brussel.

Thanks for our quite precise and clear re-wording about ypour point of view. neverteless, I do insist that the current Flemish Region is only a relatively minor institution (no parliament, no political parties at all, no social nor cultural organisantions,...) and that speaking of the pure territory does give the partisan view that the Flemings in Brussels would be living outside Flanders. Moreover, it is also an objective fact that the current political institutions (parliament, governement, ...) do represent ALL Flemings, including those of Brussels. Therefore, I feel a nuanced presentation of the facts should stress more the actual community (in both sociological/political as institutional meaning) then something that is largemly seen in Flanders as of secondary impoirtance. --Rudi Dierick 12:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And again, as you clearly should know, the French-spraking politicians would by favor prefer the Belgian federal ssystem to rely only on the regions, and NOT on the communities, whereas the Flemings would prefer much stronger community institutions (e.g. NO fiscal powers for the communities today; few for the regions, and e.g. the national state still controlling >95% of the actual weigth of total labour charges!). That are the two pints of view. Aside from these, and on the area of OBJECTIVE facts, one cnnot deny that the current institutions are very cntralistic in financial, fiscal and social security areas (as the French-speakers alsoprefer it), but that on the other hand the Flemish institutions are predominantly community-based. So why not base the articles mainly on these objective facts (and then, in a secondary parapgraphs of relevant articles, discuss those two dominant points of view, Flemish and Walloon/French-speaking)? --Rudi Dierick 12:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I personally do not agree at all with that, and I'm not the only one, but, as a solution proposed by others, we are currently making a disambiguation page refering to the different meaning of the word Flanders by specificaly saying on each article if it refer to the community, or the region. There is still alot of work to do, but maybe the same kind of solution could be used here. Good luck.83.134.197.182 19:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 'we' in your explanation suggests this is a pre-arranged effort by people that know each other (or by one person that uses several aliases).

Independently from that, I think it would be more honest that Wikipedia is not influenced by such partisan scheming between anonymous groups. Moreover, the other recent such initiative (in french) involved a quite severe reduction of practical ease use as the general information on Fladers was firdst hidden, and then only accessible via a complicated search term. Therefore, I strongly plead to keep a general article on Flanders that clearly mentions the homonymy page in its introduction. --Rudi Dierick 12:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 'we' refer to different users of the french version of wikipedia that do not know each other.

The persecution syndrom is one of the signs of paranoïa. I suggest you consult a doctor asap.20.138.1.245 15:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I come from the french wikipedia as well, and although being a little bit reluctant on the use of the term nation here, as it has a stronger meaning in French - related to nation state (which is in itself a source of incomprehension), I find your article very good and balanced as it is now. I hope it will enlighten some of us. -- BenoitL 22:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the term "Flanders" is indeed not used in the Belgian Constitution per se. The terms "Vlaamse gemeenschap" (Flemish Community (oldest)) and "Vlaams gewest "(Flemish region (altough region in Dutch is "regio", not "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. The administrative capital of Vlaanderen is Brussels, 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 3 the dutch-speaking court of appeals. I explained this in part in the introduction. There is no mension of any other capital. I consider it misleading to state that Flanders is used to denominate the de facto non-existant region. The confusion is fuelled by major mistakes in very important dictinionaries and enceclopedias. the Oxford dictionary, one of the leading English dictionaries, 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 (Dutch is). The same type of confusion resulted in Netherlands being called Dutch in english, derived from "Deutsch". The English then invented another word for Deutsch, German. 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. --pietervermeersch 12:40, 04 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Out of date sources on Flanders

The external encyclopedic references given were quite funny, but hopelessly out-of-date. They refer to the current Flemish region as an institution (stating when it gained autonomy), but fail to note that there is currently also a Flemish Community institution that is slightly older, and that, contrary to the Region, does have internationally recognised executive institutions as a parliament and a governement. Therefore, give these sources are so out of dta, I wonder if they can be considered as sufficiently relevnt to include then here.--Rudi Dierick 12:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The sources (e.g. "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 2000") might be slightly inaccurate (that should be carefully verified), but they do not present Flanders as a nation. --Edcolins 14:24, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Well, what is the purpose of this exercise anyway? At the time Copernicus started the world was a sphere and not something flat, there were as good as NO other sources at all that said this too. But was he wrong? No, of course. What I want to illustrate is that the fact that one single said says something (or doesn't) is NOT al all enough to justify a solid conclusion. A solid conclusion can only be reached after a sufficiently in-depth discussion, e.g. going trough some common definitions of a nation and then demonstrating why Flanders does not qualify as a nation. I did that exercise with a few definitions for myself, and concluded that according to all definitions, Flanders does qualify. Even better, I did add in the text of the article a note that how peopleconsider Flanders does indeed vary from one person to another. As such, I hoped aking appropriate care of the variations in how people see reality (not to speak of how the would like it to look like). Can we agree that one source, who's credibilty is not really very strong given it's omission of half of the actual institutional reality, is not sufficient? --Rudi Dierick 17:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The creation of the felmish region date from 1980. At the same times, while the modification of the constitution of belgium, the Dutch Cultural community change his name to Flemish Community and the French cultural community changed his name to French community. The Dutch cultural community is indeed older and was created in 1970.

FYI: 'cultural community' in the meaning of the federal institution, established by Belgian law, and not the Flemish political+cultural+social community that acts and feels to a large extent as a nation. This Flemish nation/community in the second meaning of the word community is both older then the Belgian legislation on these institutions, and also wholly indepdendant of it! --Rudi Dierick 17:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FYI: I know that it is the federal institution established in 1970, and you know that I know that. You also know that I disagree with your nationalist POV.(nicnac25)83.134.202.145 23:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right after the modifications of the constitution the already existing Dutch Cultural Community parliament transfered all the competences of the Flemish region to the Flemish community and changed the name of their institutions to Flemish parliament and Flemish government.

Those institutions have regional power exclusively inside the borders of the flemish region and community powers exclusively inside the borders of the flemish region and partialy inside the bordels of the Brussel-Capital region depending of the choice of each individual on each matters.

That is history.20.138.1.245 15:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and that's exactly how I described it (except for some nuances in the wording; i would not call the current Flemish competencies in the brusels region 'partial', but that might be a detail; the community competencies are xactly as large in both regions, both 'fully competent', so that 'partialy' can only be read as 'competent for part of the population'; thus, that 'partialy' sounds confusing). So what's the point? --Rudi Dierick 17:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

that partialy is not confusing at all, the flemish community does not have exclusive powers inside the borders of the Brussels-Captial region. The choice of depending of the flemish community or the french community is in the hand of each individual. Same with the use of the dutch or french language that can be, for the same individual different for school, for contact with the administration and for the list of candidates for wich he will vote during the elections.

Beside, the region of Brussels-Capital is the only authirty competent for the reginal matters. It as the exclusive powers on the regional matters inside the borders of that region.83.134.202.145 23:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, in proper English, you should then use the term 'concurrent powers' or something alike. However, the 'partial' refers to powers that are only part of powers of others autohorities, which is NOT the case. E.g. the Flemish community has exactly the same powers in brussels as the French-speaking community.--Rudi Dierick 22:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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 (http://dictionary.reference.com/) and Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/)) 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

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 (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Dutch) and 2 (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=german) 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 (http://www.senate.be/doc/const_nl.html) 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)

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 ciommunity 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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

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)

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.
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)

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 (http://dictionary.reference.com/) and Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/)) 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)