Talk:Flemish dialects/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

'Different linguistic meanings of Flemish'

That chapter now incorporates a distinct practically perceived 'Flemish' speech ('linguistic' used as relating to language, differentiating from other meanings of 'Flemish'), setting it off against the more strictly scientific 'linguistic' view on the ancient regions' differences. This may lead to abandoning part of the next chapter 'Other dialects' and therefrom not clearly distinguishable content of then next chapter 'Language history'. Please note that the distinction between 'separate' or 'same' language is largely artificial: at least the article now states that in Limburg a separate language is spoken (see article Limburg as reference); as another example my own Mechlinian dialect – spoken in the west of, and north-to-south centrally in, the old Brabantian area – mixes 'ge' [Brabantian] and 'du' [eastern: Limburgish, German] (versus 'je' [western and northern: historical Flemish, Hollandish]). The dialects of ancient times may be interesting enough to study, but their differences are now becoming a mere shadow in view of the influences by Standard Dutch and migration on the practical 'Flemish' speech, which is or should be the main subject of the article. SomeHuman 2006-06-12 04:59 (UTC)

Language?

What is wrong?????????? It is very simple. Dutch is the spoken language of The Netherlands and Belgium (and others). Yes it is true that Dutch refers to the Netherlands, but French to France and German to Germany too. But English speaking people don't says Austrian (German in Austria) or Congolese (French in Congo).

The name of the language is Dutch, which is coming from the word "Diets", what means people. (So actually not even refering to The Netherlands.) So there are more reasons to say that in the USA they speak American (Because English --> England) or Mexican (spanish ---> Spain). The name of the labnguage is Dutch, and Flemish are dialects of the old counts of Flandres (the province East- and West-Flandres and parts of Northern France), but not of the "Flemish" province of Brabant (inc. Antwerpen) and Limburg. Flemish are the dialects or is something what is coming from Flandres.

Then AFRIKAANS should be called Dutch too...

Flandres - The Dutch speaking region of Belgium, above the language borders (there are also some little Walloon muncipalities and Brussels, where they speak Dutch) With the provinces of East-Flandres, West Flandres, Antwerp, Flemish Brabant, Limburg and the Capital Region of Brussels.

Flandres (originally) - Flandres was one of the Netherlands or Low Countries, at the Belgium and Northern French coast with the cities Lille (Rijsel), Dunkerque (Duinkerke), Courtrai (Kortrijk), Bruges (Brugge) and Gand (Gent). Because The Netherlands now also exists as an independent country people prefer the name Low Countries as the historic Netherlands (Holland, Flandres, Frisia, Brabant, Limburg, Liege, Hainaut, Namur, Luxembourg, Artois etc.) with each other. (Antwerp and Brussels are not Flemish but Brabantian)

Flemish - Something from the regions above. A collection name of Flemisch dialects in the Dutch language.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.180.177 (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this article is really not about a separate language, I don't see the reason for keeping the title. If no one opposes, I'll move this article to Flemish (linguistics) after a week or so. This title is by far the most neutral, since Flemish dialect is bound to cause protests sooner or later. Peter Isotalo 12:28, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Since no one seems to be objecting, I'll make the move.

Peter Isotalo 08:45, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Fine but really, the language is called Vlaams and we do speak it. It is not Dutch and yes, confusing as it may be Dutch is the official Language... however, to insist in any way or form that Vlaams is not a language is deeply insulting to the people who speak it.Siegfried74 19:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the Flemish language and it, as such is not spoken in Flanders or Belgium. Flemings speak Dutch, and Dutch dialects wether you like it or not. Sander 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• The above type of discussion can go on till the end of Wikipedia (and longer), and still nothing good may come out of it if approached as black and white 'false/true' question. The annoying truth is somewhere in the middle: there are different (real, concurrent) definitions of Flemish, language, dialect (and not just in this context, e.g. some serious sources say there are about 100 Indian languages, other rather 600, depending on the border line betwen lanuages and (group of) dialects)... To be encyclopaedic, we must cater for various prevailing tasts, pointing out all linguistic meanings of Flemish fit within Dutch, but not necessarily interchangeably; the only inacceptable use of the word is for the official standard Dutch language. Thus all Flemish dialects are at the same time Dutch dialects (of which there are many other further north in the Low Countries), and it rather depends on the context (emphasizing historical use, linguistic similarity...) which term is to be preferred.

And Siegfried, as a Fleming I can testify many of us find it rather insulting (or worrying) when allophones call our language anything but Dutch since that means we can't expect them to know about our complex relationship with the North and mistake us for an insignificant backwater lingo, which was exactly what the Belgian francophony originally intended by calling 'our Dutch' Flemish, as if no Fleming could ever rise above boerish dialects; by now, even they started believing their own lies- I actually had a discussion on the matter with a Walloon (but non-hostile, clumsily 'bilingual') college graduate colleague who couldn't even believe it from a Flemish college graduate es literas. Fastifex 08:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

West Flemish

"...among which the most deviant is West Flemish, which is also spoken in the Zeeland province of The Netherlands."

I thought the most deviant Flemish dialect was West Flemish aka "bachten de kupe" (i.e., "achter de kuip", behind the tub, fig. inside the [river]bend), spoken from the Yser river to the language barrier with French, i.e., in the westernmost part of the province of West Flanders and in all or part of Flemish-speaking France but certainly nowhere in the Netherlands. If the text quoted above is in error, please correct it; if I am mistaken, please explain. - Tonymec 04:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This is total nonsense. West Flemish is NOT spoken in the Netherlands. Someobody look at the geography of this place sheesh! Furthermore the tone of the word "deviant" is insulting.Siegfried74 19:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I begg you're pardon.West Flemish dialects are spoken in the Netherlands as well.In Zeeuws Vlaanderen, part of Zeeland in Sluis for instance. Your tone is the insulting one here. Sander 19:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I see that the introduction paragraph has been restored to a version similar to the one before my intervention. The reason I deleted most of this paragraph was because the statements in it were either inaccurate or irrelevant. This is what it says now:

the word "Flemish" may refer as an adjective to the dialects and as a substantive to varieties, spoken more widely in Flanders, of the Dutch language (which is one and undivided, as guaranteed by the Taalunie, an organisation set up by treaty between the governments of the Netherlands and the Flemish region) spoken in Belgium) which are, mainly for political reasons, sometimes referred to as "Flemish".

"as an adjective to the dialects and as a substantive to varieties" - this I just don't understand. As far as I'm concerned, dialects are varieties (vice versa is not necessarily the case). Also, as an adjective it does not refer to anything, but rather specifies something else (Flemish Dutch, Flemish people, Flemish city, whatever). "Spoken more widely" is a rather odd sentence, which can simply be exchanged for "spoken mainly in Flanders" (because this does not imply that no other languages are spoken there). Then the "one and undivided" part, which sounds rather nationalistic and POV to me. I fail to see the relevancy of the Taalunie here, because the Taalunie is only concerned with standardizing written Dutch, not the spoken language which is the basis of any linguistic analysis; suggesting Dutch is "one and undivided" is also misleading because it ignores the substantial dialectial variety. Finally, "the political reasons". Very few people would use "Flemish" for political reasons; if anything, those people would use the word "Vlaams". Also, "Vlaams" is used very widely in the Netherlands to describe one or more varieties of Dutch in Flanders, without any political connotation. So, these are the reasons why I will change the text once more. Junes 23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel you should read the term "political" in a somewhat wider sense.--MWAK 18:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete redivison like Dutch version

Sandertje 11:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Politics and Linguistics

I've gone over some of the fuzzy prose about "Flemish" and "standard Dutch" on this page and on Dutch language. Really, I would favor an approach that more clearly separates linguistics from politics.

First of all, dialects are not dialects "of a language." Dialects just are, and depending on how close you look, you will observe more or fewer of them. Sometimes, the transitions between dialects will be more fluid; sometimes, there will be marked discontinuities, where transition forms are absent or rare. Dialects are but one example of language variation. Language use also varies by social situation (sociolects), profession (jargon, argot), and between ethnically or culturally distinguished groups that may live in the same areas.

Languages are whatever the powers that be say they are. The status of "language" is like a diploma or license conferred by a government upon a form of language, which may or may not come with a more or less specific definition of that form of language. It so happens that in Belgium, this status has been conferred upon three forms of language, that in conferring this status, the government has named them French, German, and Dutch, and that there does exist an institution that offers a rather specific definition of what is and what isn't Dutch.

None of these things are obvious from the start. There is no institution, for example, that has a monopoly on defining English, even though some, but not all, governments of countries where forms of language are commonly used that are referred to as English may designate "English" as an official language, usually without going into detail about which dictionary or grammar to follow. In countries where languages do not have the major political and historical significance that they have in Belgium, the choice of language even in formal functions such as government and education may not be regulated at all. Many universities, for instance, will accept theses in whatever language a particular thesis committee agrees to accept. I recall that in one class that I took in the US, which involved 12 different small discussion groups that students could choose from, one of the groups was taught in Mandarin Chinese upon the whim of a particular teaching assistant.

Given all of this, we should stop making statements such as "the Flemish and the Dutch speak the same language", and say more specifically things like: "the official language in Flanders and The Netherlands is Dutch, as defined by the Taalunie; while many dialects are spoken within these territories, the form of language perceived by speakers as Dutch and most commonly used in government and education conforms quite closely to this standard."

The reason I care so much is mainly that readers who are not used to language being such a strong political issue as it is in Belgium can be really confused by statements about what "the language is" and how people speak "the same language" if it isn't explicitly clarified what all the terms mean. Unsigned comment by 194.109.198.99

I've removed the part that said "As a rule of thumb, it is best always to use the term "Flemish" as an adjective of origin or geography, but never as a language. Although some people may stress that Belgians and Dutchmen "speak differently", the differences are actually quite marginal compared to the differences between the varieties of English spoken in one county of England and another, less than 100 miles away!" because the first part is a personal opinion and the last part is simply false. Krommenaas 22:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnologue says that Flemish and Dutch are different languages

Ethnologue clasify Dutch and Flemish as separate languages. What do you think about this?

• Flemish language
• Dutch language

--Er Komandante 10:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethnologue, has a rather strange method of determining if a language is a dialect or a dialect is a language.I often feel as if they use the more philosophical meaning of "language" ie, a means of comunication ... Sander 14:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to investigate the question, and another surprise: it has appeared recently a West Flemish Wikipedia. The language map of Ethnologue is this one: [1]. And I have found the request for this flemish wikipedia: meta:Talk:Requests_for_new_languages#West_Flemish_.2816_support.2C_1_object.29. Er Komandante 09:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Beware: what the ethnologue calls "Flemish" here is West Flemish. The map is very interesting. It reflects the deep truth that "Dutch" is another word for Brabantian. :o)--MWAK 18:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethnologue is wrong, they seem to think that everyone in West Flanders speaks only West-Flemish, and no Dutch. Clearly that's completely wrong. Most people speak both, or they speak Dutch with a West-Flemish accent, which is something completely different than speaking West-Flemish. I have lived in Kortrijk all my life and I can't speak West-Flemish at all. --Lamadude (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

'General Dutch' or 'Common Dutch'?

User Rex Germanus started again to stubbornly replace 'Common Dutch' with 'General Dutch'.
Rex, I like to assume good faith thus you should have a good look in your own User talk:Rex Germanus/archive2 for our earlier discussion about 'General Dutch' or 'Common Dutch'. On Wikipedia you can find only 'General Dutch Youth League', 'General Dutch Fascist League' [or 'General D. F. Association', or 'General D. F. Union', or 'General D. F. Federation' for (Dutch language old spelling) 'Algemeene Nederlandsche Fascisten Bond' that makes clear it has nothing to do with the language, but must mean either 'General Federation of the Dutch nation's Fascists' or, theoretically, 'Dutch nation's Federation of General Fascists'], 'General Dutch Workers' Unions (ANWV)' [or 'General D. W. Association'], 'General Dutch Law' and 'General Dutch Company'.
These are all general somethings in the Netherlands or of the Dutch people and have nothing to do with the language. The single exception might be 'General Dutch Alliance (Algemeen Nederlands Verbond, ANV)' though I'm sure you're first interpretation of the term even in Dutch would have nothing to do with the language – and I think that organization wanted a 'Groot Nederland' (Flanders and the Netherlands back in one nation) thus 'General as well as Netherlandic Alliance', perhaps this particular translation would be improved by 'General Netherlandic Alliance'.
As stated before, the interpretation of 'Algemeen Nederlands' as 'general purpose Dutch' makes no sense because any other language is just as 'general purpose' and there are no such terms naming languages as 'General English', 'General German', or even 'General French' (though the Académie française acts more strictly than the Nederlandse Taalunie in standardizing the language). It is then clear that 'algemeen' in 'Algemeen Nederlands' means that the standard language is 'gemeen aan alle' or 'common to all' the speakers of one or another dialect native to the Dutch nation named 'The Netherlands' or to the Flemish region in Belgium, hence 'Common Dutch'.
I don't like that the language 'Nederlands' (the Netherlands was/were once the 'Low Countries' of which my home city in the nowadays Belgian region Flanders had been the capital for a while, and thus 'Nederlands' feels as much mine as yours) is called 'Dutch' (as if belonging to the Dutch people who are never Flemish, and thus as if the Dutch people would have colonialized my people by enforcing their language) in English, you don't like its standard language being called 'Common' (as if it might be vulgar and depreciated) and I assume you would oppose to Mean Dutch as well.  };-|>
We however, do not make the English language and have to convince the hundreds of millions of its users to forget 'Dutch' and 'Common Dutch' when referring to the language in general and its official standard respectively, and to generally accept more proper terms (Netherlandic and Mutual Netherlandic — or Shared Netherlandic? [Universal Netherlandic sounds best but would be over-the-top and it's not 'Universeel Nederlands' in Dutch either]), before we can put things our way in the English language encyclopedia. Anyway, the Dutch word 'algemeen' (as in 'Algemeen Nederlands') comes from 'al gemeen' ('all common' or in fact 'all vulgar' which is usually interpreted as strongly depreciating) but you don't think about it like that because we use 'algemeen' in a far more neutral way; this is also the case for English speakers regarding 'common' in most contexts. — SomeHuman 2006-07-29 11:18 - 12:36 (UTC)

Netherlandic? No, that sound kind of ridiculous. Thing is, "common Dutch" somehow sounds like "the speech of the commoners/plebs/proletariat" and I have seen many translations of AN with general. Translating "algemeen" heavily depends on context. A quick test, and this online translator translates algemeen as general.

Rex 12:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid your link does not work, but is it not rather ridiculous to even suggest that an online translator would be so capable to understand a context, as to be infallible in choosing the most appropriate translation where several different meanings of a word exist? In any case, one of the better online multi-language translation dictionaries that I encountered, in its its primary dictionary, reads 'algemeen' as synonym of 'gemeenschappelijk; gezamenlijk' as well as of 'universeel' and its translation for either interpretation is 'common'. (If you wonder where the shown secondary dictionary got its translations besides again 'common', click underneath on 'Translations of algemeen in other languages' and look at Latin). You deliberately step away from attempting to disprove any of my arguments and only confirm my assumption about the origin of your objection to 'common', which I explained to be mainly your personal interpretation and not something speakers of English are likely to see that way. It is not quite proper to then come up with as badly chosen an excuse for the, frankly, WP:POV translation that does not occur anywhere else on Wikipedia either. I'm glad though that you did not again revert this time and participate on this discussion. We will both have to learn and live with the quirks of the English language regarding ours. — SomeHuman 2006-07-29 13:40 (UTC)

It's funny, because that online dictionary link you provided translates general as algemeen...

Rex 13:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course Rex, how else? 'Algemeen' has more than one meaning thus the dictionary should give both 'general' and 'common' and each of the latter words should give 'algemeen'. Unfortunately there are not many good free Dutch/English and English/Dutch translation dictionaries online, this one however has a rather extensive vocabulary, be it not as comprehensive as to be ideal. You may have too look into 5 or so online translation dictionaries or simply use a good English language dictionary and look for 'common' and for 'general' and compare whether each gives at least one meaning that matches the Dutch language Van Dale for one of the meanings of 'algemeen'. I'm quite confident about the results.
By the way, why do you see 'Netherlandic' as rather ridiculous? First of all, the term is very close to the name of the language in that language; second, it also refers to the old situation (other than 'Lowlandic' which I think already has a linguistic meaning different from 'Dutch') that is the actual cause of us having a language in common; third, 'Netherlandic' is still occasionally used as an adjective referring to present-day particularities, of which few would more than our language deserve that term (see just this small grip, there are lots of others: [2], [3](Canadian, strictly about Dutch people, used just as 'English' may refer to the language spoken by Americans etc, or to the English people, [4], and especially some that use the term exactly the way I suggested: [5] (best read that article for its content as well!). — SomeHuman 2006-07-29 14:29 (UTC)

Well... if you are absolutely sure that English "Common Dutch" doesn't have the same negative connotation as has in certain Dutch translations ... then I'll leave the matter, forever.

As for Netherlandic, it's a made up word. It has no etymology of its own (nether and lad of course do), and to me at least it sounds like "kolenengels" : aai em sorrie but aai oownlie spiek netherlands.  ;-)

Rex 15:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My academical suggestion (in the sense of 'wishful thinking') implied 'speaking Netherlandic', not 'speaking Netherlands'. So, I fully agree: I wish we could convince the numerous speakers of English, but as we did not yet succeed and do not expect such in the near future, the current use of 'Dutch' will have to remain. It is no more perfect than the 'Common Dutch'. Neither term does have a clearly or signifantly negatively intended or interpreted meaning; in almost any practical occurrence, the context (as official standard language especially in The Netherlands and in Belgian Flanders) will prevent an undesired connotation. That, at least, I honestly assume I can assure you. Only some might have a slight notion of these not being the most proper terms, and they will usually realize that there is no good alternative available in English as the world recognizes. I hope you forgive me for having outlined your texts so as to easily spot who was talking where in our discussion here. — SomeHuman 2006-07-29 16:07 (UTC)

Maybe you as a fleming have a different view on the word "Dutch". Afterall the Dutch speak Dutch, Flemings speak Dutch, but the Flemings aren't Dutch.

Rex 16:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. — SomeHuman 2006-07-29 16:24 (UTC)

So I presume SomeHuman does not vote on Vlaams Belang? ;-)

Rex 16:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add to may last message (but you were quickly): Exactly. Flemings might feel to be a little bit Netherlandic, see.  ;-)
I consider the choice of voting a necessary secret. May I however invite you to a former, meanwhile closed, discussion on [[6]]? — SomeHuman 2006-07-29 16:38 (UTC)

No it's just because Vlaams Belang advocates the unification of the Netherlands and Flanders.

Rex 17:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think so; its program has many points, some of the other ones are more likely to entice one to vote for that party, or rather not. — SomeHuman 2006-07-29 18:27 (UTC)

Language history

The introduction phrase of 'Language history' is unsourced. Rather than tagging the article, I put some {{fact}} tags at the particular aspects hereunder shown in italics:
"Standard Dutch is mainly formed from Brabantic dialects, with major inputs by Hollandic (as its forging happened largely when emigrants from Antwerp (Brabant) resettled in Haarlem and other cities in Holland) and (countship-)Flemish dialects."
The sentence can be interpreted as 'Standard Dutch had initially a [main] input by Brabantian dialects, [more major]/[less major] Hollandic inputs and [equally major]/[minor] (countship-)Flemish inputs have superceded that origin', or 'Standard Dutch still is Brabantian though with a considerable influence by Hollandic and to [an equal]/[a lesser] extent by (countship-)Flemish'. The latter is, to my opinion, obviously incorrect. The phrase in the article should then exclude that interpretation; the weight of 'main' versus 'major' is not clear; whether 'major' is only an attribute to Hollandic or as well to (countship-)Flemish is just as unclear. The (rephrased) sentence as a whole may still need to be properly sourced. I am not asking for diplomatic sources (both the Netherlands and Belgium had their reasons to claim a common, balanced input), but for comparative linguistical studies of grammatical structures and of vocabulary – historically and at present. — SomeHuman 17 Sep2006 04:11-04:26 (UTC)

I too don't like the "language history" section, if only because of the word "language". Although "language" can be interpreted in many ways, this can (and probably will) created confusion.

As for the history of ABN (which is a totally different concept compared to Standard Dutch) ... ABN emerged in the 1920s as the accent of the Hollandic elite and was perhaps spoken by 2%/3% of the population. If nobody minds I will remove it until this matter is resolved.

Rex 08:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

'Standard Dutch' is the term used in descriptions for 'ABN' [which meanwhile was renamed as 'AN' (either because we became less civilized, or because our civilized behaviour is taken for granted)] – also outside Wikipedia, for instance Dutch language, alphabet and pronunciation: "Alternative names for ABN are Algemeen Nederlands (AN), general Dutch, and Standaardnederlands , standard Dutch". If a difference is noteworthy, at least the article (and a few others) should not allow confusion: Is the difference described elsewhere? If not, we once more need some source and it should be stated.

The whole thing disturbs me because far too often, also outside Wikipedia, AN is suggested to be for a large part Brabantic – while my daily experience with AN and with my own Brabantian dialect as well as hearing several other (mostly Belgian) Brabantine dialects, contradicts such. I do not wish to judge whether removing is better: In case you may need a considerable time, perhaps you might already slightly improve the text and then continue looking for sources before trying out a really good text.

Note that unlike 'ABN (disambiguation)', 'AN' so far was the disambiguation page itself, and it did not yet mention 'AN' as short for 'Algemeen Nederlands'. I'm going to take care of this disambiguation style and extra meaning for AN right now. — SomeHuman 17 Sep2006 12:02 (UTC)

That fact that your own experience contradicts the historical fact that standard Dutch is based mainly on Brabantian is caused by a confusion: it obviously isn't based on the present Brabantian dialects — which have changed quite a bit in the last four centuries — but on the Brabantian standard as it had developed in the late 16th century. Of course the present Hollandic urban dialects are much closer to the standard, simply because they are mainly derived from it, the original Hollandic urban dialects having been all but destroyed. If you need to be convinced, don't consult your experience but any book printed in Antwerp around 1580 :o)--MWAK 19:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ISO 639-1 / ISO 639-2 codes

According to the official ISO 639-2 Registration Authority page at http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/langhome.html the codes "Fl" or "flem" are assigned neither to Flemish nor to anything else. Can someone clarify where those codes come from? Thanks, --S.K. 18:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure User:ErikWarmelink can. Afterall he's the one who keeps implementing them.Rex 19:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The alleged iso1 and iso2 codes were removed on 18:20, 31 October 2007 by S.K. with this edit. It's not the first time you make unfounded accusations. Erik Warmelink 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to ISO 639-3 Erik, which you claim belongs to 'Flemish', and I (and all the linguists/the authority itself) say it belongs to West Flemish. Explain your actions Erik. Now.Rex 08:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest a new section (this one is titled "ISO 639-1 / ISO 639-2 codes"). Erik Warmelink 17:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Quit evading Erik Warmelink: Why do you add false ISO-3 codes to this article despite it being explained to you multiple time (and easily checkable too) that they are wrong? A typical example of you seeing my name and feeling like a fight. Too bad I'm not going to give you the pleasure, now answer the question or quit making the same false edit over and over again! Rex (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is only one ISO-3 code; it isn't false, as demonstrated by the link given in this edit and http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=vls; I didn't add it (see the edit mentioned before: S.K. correctly changed "vdf" to "vls"), I restored it. Erik Warmelink (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

<SIGH!> It is false, als explained before, in Linguistics 'Flemish' refers to West-Flemish (occasionally with east). Rex (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And how does that make 'vls' a false ISO-3 code? One can argue which group of dialects should be called Flemish (and depending on the isoglosses one chooses, one can argue a lot of subsets of the West Germanic dialect continuum: some small, some large, some rather Ingvaeonic, some rather Low Franconian, some rather similar to the Flemish Region). However, that doesn't make the ISO-3 code false, it only makes it loosely defined. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

official in Belgium as Dutch

What's that supposed to mean? That the group of dialects collectively known as Flemish have an official status? How is that even possible. The official language is Flanders is not Flemish, not even "flemish (as dutch) it's simply "Dutch" I think that maybe the whole infobox should disappear. --Lamadude (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. To the best of my knowledge "Flemish" is not an official language and is non-standardised in any case. I will go ahead and remove just those sections of the info-box. --Stomme (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Flemish and General Dutch

This section, while purposeful and necessary, only depicts one of the MANY Flemish dialects--I'm Not sure which one. This section provides a perfect opportunity to display the varied vocabulary or word inventory that is vital to each dialect (taal). In this way we can display to the reader how abundant Flemish really is. Afterall, its catagorization as a non-language is basically due to its lack of written form. But that stumbling block can be overcome in this era of The Internet...(I can dream, can't I)--Buster7 (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

for anyone interested in the status of Flemish as a language, see http://www.hermanboel.eu/vlaanderen-vl-waarom.htm. Also, I am inclined to change the distribution of the sentences in the intro. I won't do it now but soon. It incorrectly emphasizes a lesser aspect of Flemish as most important.--Buster7 (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Why this should become a redirect

Linguistic use of "Flemish" only refers to either East and West Flemish, which are dialects of Dutch and not spoken by all inhabitants of the Flemish regions. Popular use of Flemish refers to Belgian Dutch. That really is it. Wikipedia doesn't need more "explaining" because now there is a "language infobox", with 6,1 million speakers; in Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Germany, with the language code of the West Flemish dialect. A bogus classification, unsourced 'tussentaal'-talk, and a OR "vocabulary comparison" with a few regionalisms. And that, ladies and gentlemen, even though Flemish; refers to either East and West Flemish, which are dialects of Dutch and not spoken by inhabitants of the Flemish regions. All this crap, for something which could be kept so incredibility simple.HP1740-B (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced reducing this to a redirect would do Flemish as a sub-division of Dutch justice. I do agree this article needs a lot of work. Arnoutf (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Try to be somewhat more substantial. It helps the project.HP1740-B (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Flemish (combination of all Belgian Dutch dialects) is frequently referred to in colloquial use, and hence is notable enough for its own article.

The current article is not very clear on this classification, and lacks sufficient context and references. Hence it needs work. Arnoutf (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Flemish doesn't refer to all "Belgian Dutch dialects" because there are none, there are only Dutch dialects, all of which are crossborder. The popular sense of "Flemish" is Belgian Dutch, which is already (or should be) explained in the article on the Dutch language, not in a separate bogus article. It doesn't need work, it needs to form 2 simple lines on the flemish disambiguation page.HP1740-B (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. That is your opinion, I disagree. Achieve major consensus to counter my disagreement. Without major consensus, redirecting is going against current consensus and can be considered vandalism. Arnoutf (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not my opinion, that the opinion of linguists. So until you can somehow make your opinion weigh as much as theirs, referenced material beats unreferenced material.HP1740-B (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Flemish is certainly no dialect of Dutch. According to the Taalunie (read this), Flemish and Dutch are two sub-standards, so Flemish is not a sub-division of Dutch. SPQRobin (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll find that all quotes reinforce my view above. Also, note that the article, or blog, when referring to 'sub standards' the author/taalunie makes a difference between Dutch spoken in the Netherlands, and Dutch spoken in Belgium. There is no question wether both 'sub standards' are Dutch.HP1740-B (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If one considers the thousands of words here, at asst.Belgian articles and at the Dutch pages, I certainly think Flemish (linguisics) deserves a seperate self-standing article. We are all aware of the continued ambiguity that still exists when it comes to Flemish/Dutch. Plus, making it a redirect confronts and supports the age-old suppression of anything Flemish. The Flemish are intitled to equal representation at Wikipedia. This was not a bogus article. It needed alot of work, which I was under the mistaken impression was what was happening. I had no idea that the article would dissappear. I certainly think we could start over and not attempt to rewrite. Too many chefs have already spoiled the soup.--Buster7 (talk) 22:43, 15

The following was relocated here for its inclusion in this discussion by --Buster7 (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC) from Flemish (people)

I think the current article about 'Flemings' should be completely rewritten. Some suggestions for this:In my opinion, an objective and informative article about 'Flemings' and their identity should outline the history and present of an emerging nationality. In short: a Fleming is an inhabitant of Flanders, which is a 'pars pro toto' denoting the 6 million ethnically Dutch people inhabiting the northern part of Belgium.

Longer: Flemings belong to the larger Dutch cultural sphere in Europe. Early history includes their basic origin, which is Germanic through Frankish invasions (with a link to Germanic_peoples). It should mention medieval times (Middle Empire of Lotharingia, Flemish and Brabant cities and their wealth, origins of liberty, ...) and explain the original meaning of the word Fleming (inhabitant of the County of Flanders). The historical catalysts that led to the emergence of "Flemings" as a separate ethnic group are:

the events of the sixteenth century that separated Northern from Southern provinces;

rule by a series of foreign powers; most notably the occupation by revolutionary French which inspired and aroused strong and lasting pro-French sentiments in many circles;

the creation of Belgium as a unitary state imposing French culture, and the ethnical tensions that resulted from this;

the rediscovery of Dutch roots as a reaction against this (largely in 19th century but continuing today);

the continuing failure of Belgium in fundamentally resolving these tensions (this is objective: it is a fact that can be observed by reading newspapers and makes no reference to the future).It should mention or link to the Flemish Movement as a broad avant-garde movement that was a powerful exponent in forming todays Flanders. It should also mention that Flemish culture and Flanders as a brand is rapidly growing beyond the Flemish Movement. Indeed, many self-aware Flemings and things that would today be considered as "typical" for Flemish culture, have no affiliation with this movement at all.

I agree with the current article that relations with other Dutch people should be mentioned, as long as it is done a bit more seriously and less anecdotal than it is done now. It should include the various official and unofficial institutions of cooperation; the fact that identification is strongest with the southern provinces and border zones of the Netherlands. And yes, if you must: similarities and differences in dialect, and of course the folkloristic rivalry with the inhabitants of Holland proper.

I also suggest that contemporary political issues, including the political expression of secessionism (Vlaams Belang etc), should be mentioned on separate pages since they are not crucial to an article about a "Fleming". In fact, being a- or even anti-political might be seen as a important part of Flemish character ;-)

Finally, a list of famous Flemings and Flemish expats from past and present might be handy, so people from all over the world can find out for themselves what "being a Fleming" means. -- 84.194.93.87 2005-07-06 (signature and date introduced ad hoc)

For what it's worth, I second the whole chapter here above; written nearly a year ago it still stands for the current article. -- SomeHuman 2006-06-18 19:58 (UTC)

Nonsense?

You don't give even any reason. I don't see why adding an infobox and a phonology feature is "nonsense". SPQRobin (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I already had before the rewrite, if you'd actually read my comments on talk you would have known. I've again reverted, information provided is incorrect. Your own personal opinion (when will it ever be anything other than that I wonder) has been removed as well. "Flemings find it difficult this" and "Flemings do that". In your mind perhaps, next time check if books agree.HP1740-B (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not because you dispute a part that you have to revert completely. SPQRobin (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You add wrong and unsupported information and your own personal 'findings' and I will revert you every single time you re add it, because it's incorrect.HP1740-B (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I do add supported information. But I also add unsupported information, just like you do. Just say here which part(s) exactly you dispute, and we will discuss further, instead of reverting everything, including supported information. SPQRobin (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I dispute and question every edit. You alter information and do unsourced, you've repeatedly added a false template and your own personal observations. HP1740-B (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I hereby note the denial of material found on the talk page by SPQRobin.HP1740-B (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That is just ridiculous. SPQRobin (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No that's what you do. You claim nothing was explained to you, while there clearly has been. Long before the rewrite itself. That's purposely denying checkable information. HP1740-B (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about one editor explaining something to another (as that is patronising and suggests superior knowledge) but discussing mutual points of view to achieve consensus. If SPQRobin says things were not convincingly explained, than that is the case. If someone disagrees, the logical conclusion can be that the editor trying to explain has failed to do so. Arnoutf (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was already wondering when you'd show up. The same goes for you as below. You have picked your side with SPQRobin (reverting the 'infobox' were we? A bit more didn't you?) then you can also explain why you did.HP1740-B (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel compelled to stop rude people with a God-complex who think that their personal opinion allows them to own whatever article they like; without any regard to civility, cooperation, knowledge of the topic, or any other of the skills valued on Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced additions and claimes by SPQRobin

• A common mistake is, however, to call Flemish a "dialect", instead, Belgian Dutch and Netherlandic Dutch are both "sub-standards" with each their dialects.

I want proof that shows that a spoken standard, which both BD and ND are, have dialects. Furthermore the suggestion is made that BD and ND are divided to a dialect level, I want to see proof of that as well.

For your first question see this [7]

This paper shows the four main versions of Dutch [8] (Frisian, Low Saxon, Franconian and Flemish). The hierarchical cluster shows that Flemish is most remote from all other Dutch dialects. Arnoutf (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please answer the questions at hand or refrain from answering at all. I want a source that names the supposedly Netherlandic dialects and the Belgian ones. I also want a source that says its possible for a standard form (ie a standard created from certain dialects) to have dialects of its own as claimed.HP1740-B (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You ask (question) for proof. I provide the evidence by supplying sources containing that proof and thus answer your question! If you want something else, put up another question. Arnoutf (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You add a link on the Dutch language, if you believe the answer to my question is in it; QUOTE IT.HP1740-B (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh you are to dense to read a scientific article. I already suspected as much from all the "reliable" sources you have been adding. "Phonetic Distance between Dutch Dialects John Nerbonne Wilbert Heeringa Erik van den Hout Peter van der Kooi Simone Otten Willem van de Vis" "Note that the last four clusters to emerge (joined beyond 70) correspond to the Lower Saxon, Frisian, Franconian, and Flemish dialect areas.". Quote, end of story, if you want more, read the article first. Arnoutf (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. I do not want a chart on the 'phonetic Distance between Dutch Dialects', which has nothing to do with what's being claimed. I want a source that says that BELGIAN DUTCH AND NETHERLANDIC DUTCH HAVE SEPARATE DIALECTS.HP1740-B (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Again if you had read the article you might have gathered it says that their analysis distinguishes the 4 main dutch dialects. Of course I was wrong, I should not have provided you the line from the data analysis (ie the empirical evidence) but a line from the summary. Arnoutf (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Another, more historical, meaning refers to two specific dialects of Flemish, East and West Flemish

Explain how it is that this is more historical. Meaning; I want sources that say it is more historical, as well as sources that show that Flemish wasn't used in the sense of Southern Dutch, as this would conflict with historic use meaning East and West Flemish.

It was of the County of Flanders, which doesn't exist anymore, so it's more historical (but equally correct). Feel free to add {{fact}} while I search for references.

• Infobox

The adding of unsupported numbers, as well of the language code of West Flemish, posing as if Belgian Dutch has one.

The number reflects the population of ("modern") Flanders. If you find that inappropriate, feel free to add the number of "historical" Flanders as well, or you can remove the number, as you wish. The code is both about "modern" Flemish and "historical" language - both meanings are handled in this article. By the way, I asked ethnologue to clarify that code.

No it isn't the code is that of West Flemish, not Belgian Dutch. Which your infobox claims to represent. HP1740-B (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• However, it would more accurate to say they speak Flemish, because it is difficult for Flemings to speak Dutch as spoken in the Netherlands.

I want to see sources, no, a scientific study that confirms that Dutch from the Netherlands is difficult to speak for Belgian citizens.

NO ANSWER YET

• the inhabitants of Flanders adhere to the same written standard as the population of the Netherlands, because no standard written Flemish exists

I want to see a source that confirms this view. That is that Belgian speakers of Dutch adhere to written Dutch because "they lack" a written standard (weird and incorrect choice of words there).

NO ANSWER YET

• Another common feature in Flemish is the 'h' which is barely pronounced

I want to linguistic material that says that spoken Belgian Dutch has H-dropping as a rule. Western Brabantic dialects often have it, but Brabantic doesn't equal Belgian Dutch, I imagine this is hard for you to grasp since you also confuse nation(ality) and ethnicity.

I referenced to [9] - I said "common feature", which implies it's not always the case.

A common feature of what? Belgian Dutch or Brabantian-influenced verkavelingsvlaams? The latter is not discussed here and the former has been proven that it DOES NOT DELETE THE H.HP1740-B (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Tussentaal ("in-between language") is the, relatively recent, sub-standard of Belgian Dutch.

I want linguistic proof saying that verkavelingsvlaams is a 'sub standard'.HP1740-B (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I searched for a good term explaining it, but "sub-standard" is the problem, you can change the term!

The problem is that your statement has no source, add one or see it deleted.HP1740-B (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I added my answers. SPQRobin (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You did not answer half of the questions provided and neither provided any references. Not good enough.HP1740-B (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

MY TWO CENTS

This entry is 'Out-of-time sequence since there is alot of TALK happening....The current article is just one more variant in a series of recent expressions of fact (whatever that is!). Now, a new editor joins the fray. And, yet, we are no closer to a definable article than back in 2006.

Let me try to "get my head around" this by asking a question....Are there not actually hundreds of Flemish dialects each with their own nuances and differences (vocabulary for one)? So...would it be accurate to say that Flemish is a word that describes ALL the dialects. That was my understanding before I joined Wikipedia. The reason linguists do not call Flemish a language is 2 fold...1) the aforementioned dialectic varieties, and 2) its lack of written literature, etc. Let's start with a definition we can agree on. My initial definition would not confront whether Flemish is a variant of, derived from, superceeded by, understood by, in accordance with anything Dutch. The article would not replace every mention of Flemish with the word Dutch. The article would stay away from the many political and social "footballs" that seem to be booted about with regularity. I don't expect a "Meeting of the Minds" but I do expect common courtesy and good faith editing. I was NOT happy with the complete removal of the article, after I had made what I thought were substantial and accurate changes. From previous involvements with the editors now working here, I thought we would be more in agreement. I would expect to be infomed when my "work" is to be thrown in the wastepaper basket!--Buster7 (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me make this very clear, I am not of the opinion this article even deserves to have this much text dedicated to it. It has two basic meanings, Belgian Dutch and East and West Flemish. In my opinion those are the most helpful lines that can be written. However some people here hold the view that if something has had an article with a lot of words in it, its a bad thing to remove those words, as 'they weren't written for no reason were they'? So I rewrote this article with more explaining. This didn't stop SPQRobin or Arnoutf from readding nonsense (see above) to the article, once again destroying all clarity. It's not about how long you've worked on something, but how accurate and clear it is. HP1740-B (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling my edits addition of nonsense is an insult. Your edits can much more easily be considered vandalism than mine nonsense. Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an insult to me to reinstore unsupported rubbish just so you can revert me.HP1740-B (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No it is not, it just something you don't like. If the edit summary would have been something like "Revert edit by idiot" or "Bull" or something similar, now that kind of edit summary would be an insult. Arnoutf (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

@Hp...Please do me the courtesy of an answer...Is Flemish is a word that describes ALL the dialects a valid statement, in your POV? Are there not many more dialects than just Brabantian, East and West. etc.--Buster7 (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. Flemish is not a term for all Dutch dialects spoken in Flanders. Like you said people speak Flemish, Brabantic and Limburgish dialects. Of the latter 3 they are all have subdivisions, like Antwerps, or Hasselts.HP1740-B (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware that how long a project takes has nothing to do with the result. In MY opinion, my efforts had arrived at an article that was, at the very least, headed in the right direction.(17JULY2008) Perhaps you never even read MY version since you were busy writing YOUR version. I didn't just dig a hole so you could fill it. Don't discredit the efforts of other edditors. It just creates tension and strife.--Buster7 (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at my rewrite and tell me what you don't like or disagree with.HP1740-B (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What I don't like/disagree with is...deletionism without a courtesy call. Typically, your article is fine. Like the rest of the humans on the planet, I dont like being ignored.--Buster7 (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I never noticed your rewrite, I just began from scratch.HP1740-B (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That remark is arrogant and disrespectful to any editor who contributed here. Arnoutf (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well you should be glad that doesn't include you then. Buster, despite what Arnoutf is trying to suggest, I did not mean anything by it. I really did not notice your recent edits to this article.HP1740-B (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The lovely irony of SPQRobins source

Just thought I'd share this little gem; SPQRobin claimed that Belgian Dutch drops the h, and he even, after using google, found a source on it. Or so he thought, the article he uses as a source to back up his claim is about verkavelingsvlaams, heavily dialect-influenced speech of the standard pronunciation (of Belgian Dutch), specifically how to pronounce Belgian Dutch correctly, and it literally says, Blaas de h aan, ook in het midden van een woord. Pronounce the 'h' even in the middle of a word. Summarized SPQRobin, this means your own source literally contradicts your statement.HP1740-B (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah now you are not only insulting me, but another editor as well. How very constructive an attitude. Arnoutf (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Euh no, that are guidelines; the VRT says how you can avoid dialectal pronounciation. It gives advice. SPQRobin (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It literally says how to pronounce Belgian Dutch and how to avoid verkavelingsvlaams.HP1740-B (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case, both terms are largely the same (i.e. there's no real diff. between (not) speaking "h" in Belgian Dutch and (not) speaking "h" in tussentaal). But to avoid disputes, I added "a common feature", which implies not everyone uses it. Everybody satisfied? SPQRobin (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

NO! Read my comments! IT IS NOT A FEATURE OF BELGIAN DUTCH!HP1740-B (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this better? SPQRobin (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already adapted the article. Take it or leave it.HP1740-B (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And I have undone it. LEAVE IT!!!! Arnoutf (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For someone who is so full of speeches of constructivism and cooperation you seem at the same time seem to take so much pleasure in obstructing progress.HP1740-B (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think progress should start somewhere, and then by cooperation evolve to something better. Disregarding opinions of other goes against all my ideas on this, and I have not yet caught you at ever respecting someone else opinion if it contradicts yours. For someone so (self-declared) devoted to progress you seem at the same time to take so much pleasure in identifying progress as constituting exclusively of your personal opinion. Arnoutf (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cooperation is fine, but I don't see editing. I only see you reverting and commenting on what's wrong. That's fine for a while, but at a certain point people get fed up with that behavior.HP1740-B (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bold editing is fine, but if it is reverted subsequent edits must achieve consensus first. Blunt editing is fine for a while, but at some point an editor should realize there are different opinions for an article and seek consensus before further changes (I have not yet turned down a reasonable respectful and well sourced argument yet); continued boldness makes certain people fed up with that behavior at a certain point. Arnoutf (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You revert yet list no objections. You revert a name change and article change, claiming it needs to discuss as people might disagree. You note that in a new section, yet you do not add whether you think it was right or wrong, if you disagree or agree, you just want to discuss, you don't care on which side you are, as long as its the side that makes the discussion drag on the longest.HP1740-B (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read what you say here. Ok if I am on no side my dragging can only exist if there are two sides (since you yourself imply I have no opinion). If there are two sides, there is (by definition) no consensus. Since editing Wikipedia is based on achieving consensus there should not be two sides. The two sides should be resolved into an acceptable compromise to all before editing continues. As long as you find me in your way, you have not achieved this consensus (as soon as there is only one side it automatically drags on longest). Basically, in above section you say I am living up to the best practice/spirit in conflicts according to Wikipedia policies. So thank you for that. Arnoutf (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. You see you made your first mistake in the second sentence. Before you decided to join, reasons unknown, I was discussing matters with SPQRobin. Him and I were the two sides, you just sided with him, and if you love discussing you don't need a real personal view or opinion now do you? As long as you can talk its all good.HP1740-B (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but if I side with SPQRobin, that would only emphasis the need for YOU to achieve consensus before going to the main space, as you are not only suggesting to change a consensus version, but even have a clear and open minority view in that. Basically, if you behaved as you should, I should not even have needed to talk, as you would have done all the reasoning to a level where we both would have responded with "Ok you have convinced me, take it further". So that I am talking here is an indication of your, rather than my, failure. Arnoutf (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to you, I'm totally indifferent to a persons character. The only thing I'm interested in is if they can back up what they say, I don't care how they say it. If you'd do the same thing, you would need to talk, which would be good as you apparently view the act of yourself talking as a failure?HP1740-B (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In this thread I have not shown any reason to think I would take on board an editors character into account. Furthermore I do not believe you, as social relationships do make people relate to others peoples characters (extreme autists excluded, but I don't assume you are).

My problem with your editing style (not character) is that while you attack text that are imperfectly backed up (see I agree) you tend to completely remove the text (rather than allowing it to develop to something better), while your own texts are often not perfectly backed up either. If you were perfect, I would have no problem, but you, as me, as everyone else is not perfect

Yes this talking is a failure of communication. Where communication fails, in general all sides are to blame (notice the self reflection, something I have not yet seen from you). So yes, it is my failure that this talking is necessary; in my view large part of my failure is my failure to convince you to adopt a more reasonable and civil style of contributing. Arnoutf (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If a person who I liked very much would tell me pears are round, I would still not accept it. When I rewrite an article, and someone reverts; I want to know why the previous version was supposedly better. Not that I should have a achieved consensus first. Simple as that. HP1740-B (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your first line does not say you are indifferent to character, only that you apply some standards to information, which is something else entirely. For your second line, the burden of evidence is reversed. The article before rewrite is consensus, your rewrite is new. If nobody object, it becomes new consensus automatically after a while. The problem arises when you want to rewrite an article in a contested situation. In that case the editors backing the old version want to know (and be convinced) why the rewrite is needed. The new editor is bound by Wikipedia policies to provide this rationale and convince the others/or prove beyond discussion previous fallacies in the article (in general this lead to convincing). So indeed, you don't need consensus before making an initial change to a previous version; but to keep it after it has been contested in that case you DO need consensus. Simple as that. Arnoutf (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then your actions are indeed unbelievable, because I did notify of the rewrite and motivations and 'fallacies' in the previous article were proven. I have yet to see any questions on my versions accuracy. Simple as that? You wish.HP1740-B (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Random article editing

RAE, I call it...Give me a call when you guys are finished!...it's less argumentative over 'der...Good luck! Play Nice! Do NOT throw Sand!--Buster7 (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move undone

Just moving the page because a single editor feels like it, is not acceptable. For any established article such a drastic change requires discussion AND consensus. Undone. Arnoutf (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You not only reverted the title, you also reverted a version of the article aimt at reconciliation. Tell me, do you get off on talk page conflicts?HP1740-B (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to Arnoutf (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'd rather not waste time on talk pages at all and just make a Wikipedia. You however managed to actually make more talk page edits than article edits. There's discussing and there's continual whining. I'll leave it up to yourself to categorize yourself.HP1740-B (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason for talk pages, to control people like you, who disrespect work by other and just make a Wikipedia in the image of their mind. I have edited many pages where good cooperation exists, and indeed, talk pages are much less needed if cooperation exists. Cooperation for that matters goes two ways. If one of the involved editors is not willing to doubt his own opinions; each and every conflicting idea will destroy cooperation. I have not seen you self-doubting yourself yet. Arnoutf (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are here to name a problem, and solve it. Can't find a reference for a claim in the article? Go to the talk page, ask for it, and if it can't be provided, remove the claim. That's how simple it should be. Yet there are always certain people who prefer to drag a discussion into obscure ramblings, which keep going on and on, but don't lead anywhere. Those people should be controlled.HP1740-B (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I have a problem. The problem is that a certain editor overthrows references and claims by other editors, thus diminishing article quality. I have two options, engaging in edit war repairing damage done, or trying to talk it through (difficult as the other editor disregards anything I say, but at least dragging it on into a prolonged trench warfare on talk is better than outright main space edit war). Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You've got some nerve haven't you? The articles cite-tags after your 'revert attempting to improve article quality' stand record of referenced claims. I will continue to disregard any attempt to pose unrelated or unreliable information as a source for a claim. Keep doing that, and you'll keep bumping into me.HP1740-B (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As you may have noticed I do not fully disagree with you. Yes I did remove fact tags where there were references (when there are citations the phrase "citation needed" makes no sense), however I did not remove your "dubious" tags, which are the tags you can use to discuss whether the references indeed support the claim. If the reference does not support the claim and is removed, then and only then makes the "citation needed" tag sense. In this case I think it is much more about style then about content. But as long as you confuse the two, then yes, we will keep bumping into each other. Arnoutf (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Point was that there are still lots of cite -tags in the article, so how can you really back up you reverted 'to not diminish the quality of the article'? You reverted because you saw my name and your fingers were itchy. Just admit it.HP1740-B (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I only intended to revert the name change, and used a bot to try to do that. The bot reverted all your edits, and I did not feel motivated (because of your behaviour) to check whether it actually reverted something usefull. So no, it was not intentional to revert all, but your behaviour did not make me check back (something I usually do if I notice a bot making a many edit revert). Arnoutf (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let that action stand out as a good example of your objectivity then.HP1740-B (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My original revert was (in my view) objective and warranted. My extremely low motivation to check on value of inadvertently reverted edits by you, I blame you for that for 100%; the fact that I could not rise above my own (externally inflicted) lack of motivation is indeed my (and my only) failing here. Arnoutf (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let it be a lesson to you then. If the next time you don't have enough motivation to be objective in your actions, as you yourself put it, simply refrain from editing. HP1740-B (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That is patronizing (you learning me a lesson). It is time you start learning lessons yourself. I am admitting I am not perfect. You still project yourself as infallible; unless you are God Himself you are not. Learn that lesson, because your current way of contribution is outright disruptive. Arnoutf (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I never taught you a lesson, I recapped what you yourself said. That you see me as portraying myself as being perfect is just your personal illusion. I'm not going to discuss that any further.HP1740-B (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Let it be a lesson" is offending and patronizing. You can easily refute the portraying as perfect claim be providing an edit where you acknowledge your own imperfection (example of myself are above). Not wanting to discuss this further shows beyond a doubt I touched a sensitive area, so perhaps your shown imperfection is that you tend to project yourself as being perfect, and subconsciously know that but don't want to acknowledge. Fair enough (tough for people trying to work with you, but harder on yourself probably). Arnoutf (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please Sigmund, I'm not going to discuss it further because it serves no point. Not because you supposedly struck a nerve, but because I don't want to waste any more time on this talk page than necessary and I especially don't want to waste it on pseudo psychology. HP1740-B (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, Arnoutf, for blocking the imperious renaming. HP1740-B, as the instructions for moving say, when you wish to see an article moved/renamed, it is usually most proper to make a proposal for it on the talk page, in order to invite discussion. Yes, give others a chance to *object* to it. Hurmata (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)