Jump to content

Talk:Flemish dialects/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move after nearly a month. Cúchullain t/c 03:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Belgian Dutch dialects → Belgian Dutch – 'dialects' not needed here. This article concentrates on Dutch in Belgium; Flemish language is a separate article. There is a failed request for the same name from 2009, but AFAICT there was no separate article on Vlaams/Flemish at the time, and this article was covering both topics, making the choice of a name more difficult. Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC) — kwami (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, you should log in before voicing your opinion. Oreo Priest talk 18:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
How is it any different than American English or Mexican Spanish? — kwami (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
As a native English speaker, 'Belgian Dutch' sounds entirely like a language and not at all like an ethnic group. It would be bizarre if it was a disambiguation page. Oreo Priest talk 17:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this page back to its original "Flemish", with its original contents. Kwami, first moving a page to one title, and then starting a move discussion for having it moved to yet another title, comes across as very curious. Perhaps starting a move discussion for the original move would have been better if you weren't too sure of where to end with this?

I don't care all that much what they're called. But two topics require two articles, not the mess you reverted to. Restoring competent articles. Move them to whichever names you like. — kwami (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It was also very strange that you split of a new page "Flemish" discussing only East- and West-Flemish, with a reference to Ethnologue which gives Flemish as the language spoken in the whole of Flanders, including e.g. Limburg (but with subdialects obviously).

Anyway, I oppose any move of this page to Belgian Dutch or a variation thereof, and I oppose any attempt to restrict "Flemish" to the dialects spoken in East- and West-Flanders only, as that is not the usual meaning of the word. I support a move to Flemish (language). Fram (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Support a move of what? We need to follow sources here, and should not purposefully mess up articles. The location of the articles is independent of the split, which has not been contested. This isn't a dab, it's an actual content article. — kwami (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
If we don't need to "purposefully mess up articles", why did you do exactly that? Anyway, I support a move of the article that is currently at Flemish to Flemish (language). Fram (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I tried to follow some of the links and see what the current situation is, but some articles seem to be moved. A Flemish article has existed at one point and related to this topic, how does this play a role in this discussion? What is the current situation, or at least the situation before this discussion and any potential associated moving took place? And what is the suggested new article structure? CRwikiCA (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • The article Flemish is back at the title (and basically the contents) it had for years. It needs a lot of work to improve it though. A new article East- and West-Flemish (language), which was for a short while at the title Flemish (while the actual "Flemish" article was moved to Belgian Dutch dialects) has been created as well to cover the more narrow (and nowadays less usual) meaning of the term Flemish.
My suggested new article structure is that the article concerning Flemish as the language of the whole of Flanders is located at Flemish (language) or a variation thereof, and that the article concerning Eaat- and West-Flemish is located at East- and West-Flemish (language) or a variation thereof. Fram (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay this is clear, "Belgian Dutch" then redirects to Flemish. This seems the proper way to deal with it, because contrary to Mexican Spanish and American Engligh, the term Belgian Dutch is rarely used (to my knowledge). The same holds for Afrikaans, which is derived from Dutch and has its own name as well. CRwikiCA (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Fram, you're an admin and you don't know not to delete RS's just because you don't agree with them? At least provide refs for your own POV. As you yourself pointed out more than once, one of the meanings of "Flemish" is the language of Flanders. Now you're deleting that claim as "highly POV". Please make up your mind, and use references to support your edits. — kwami (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Support 'Belgian Dutch' has the virtue of being a clear term; 'Flemish' is anything but. 'Flemish' refers to multiple languages, multiple ethnic groups, multiple cultures and multiple regions. In each case there is an ambiguity of northern Belgium vs. former County of Flanders. Compare also with the article French, which doesn't point directly to an article on the language. So it's really for clarity's sake that the move is a good idea rather than any ideological problem with the use of the word 'Flemish'. Oreo Priest talk 17:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, for reasons I just mentioned. Flemish should be a disambiguation page in the same way French is; it can point to the languages, regions, culture, people, etc., because devoid of context, 'Flemish' could mean any of these things. Oreo Priest talk 17:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
How is it that a rename causes any confusion at all? 'Flemish' is ambiguous in every case unless meticulously described; 'Belgian Dutch' can only mean one thing. As for it being a common name, it's quite common to call the language Dutch. This is the Belgian type; it's the same thing with 'American English'. Oreo Priest talk 22:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The proposal was to move "Belgian Dutch dialects" to "Belgian Dutch". Someone moved the article in the middle of the move discussion. — kwami (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's one way of describing things. The other would be that you moved the page to one title, and then immediately started a move discussion to get it to another title. I just moved the page back to its original title from before the move (and the discussion). Fram (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Fram, that's idiotic. The move request was "Belgian Dutch dialects" to "Belgian Dutch". However, because of your move it now appears to be "Flemish" to "Belgian Dutch". That's all I was pointing out. — kwami (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Idiotic? The article was at "Flemish", and you want it to be at "Belgian Dutch". Why you took the intermediate step of moving it to Belgian Dutch dialects, considering that that wasn't the title you wanted the page to be at, is beyond me. Let me reiterate: the page was at "Flemish" for years. You want it to be at "Belgian Dutch". The move discussion we have now is for (or against) moving it from "Flemish" to "Belgian Dutch". What exactly is the problem here? That the move request is no longer framed in your version, i.e. moving it from the poor title "Belgian Dutch dialects" to the at least more acceptable "Belgian Dutch", which would have perhaps had a greater chance of success than the discussion which we are now having? Could you perhaps make an affort to explain why you moved the page to "Belgian Dutch dialects" if you don't prefer that title anyway? As it stands, and considering your replies here, it certainly seems like a conscious effort to unduly infuence this move discussion in your favour. Fram (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I chose 'dialects' because it was not possible to move it to my preferred name, which was occupied by a redirect. I then made a move request to move it to my preferred name. It was not actually a move but, as you know, a split, one that was quite appropriate. Where the pieces ended up was less important than the split itself, and I don't have a problem with the main article ending up back here, especially given the difficulty in finding sources that use the name for the other piece, the modern language of historical Flanders. — kwami (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Kwami, you were probably too bold in moving and splitting the articles. Fram is right that it doesn't make sense to consider 'Belgian Dutch dialects' as the original title, and moving it back wasn't excessive of him. At any rate, let's try to focus on the merits of the different options rather than their editing history. Oreo Priest talk 18:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Oreo, my point was that people will have heard of "Flemish" if they're looking at this topic, and that is what they'll type in. Not to get an article (reasonably) entitled "Flemish" would be confusing. Also, in all the cases you highlight, it is Dutch language exported to somewhere else and then adapted. Flemish is at least as old and distinctive as Dutch itself.---Brigade Piron (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
What Oreo Priest is suggesting is that "Flemish" be turned into a disambiguation page. Problem solved. --Hooiwind (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Exactly what Hooiwind said. Also, there's no implication of the language being exported or non-local; compare with Austrian German, Swiss German, Belgian French. I think you'll agree that it wouldn't make any sense if the page Austrian had the content of the page Austrian German.
As for people looking at 'Flemish' expecting to find an article on Belgian Dutch, consider the following example sentences:
  • 'Hasselt is a Flemish city.'
  • 'Jacques Brel is a Flemish singer.'
  • 'Some people in Saint-Omer still speak Flemish.'
  • 'The sparsely populated lands of Eastern Europe drew Flemish immigrants in the High Middle Ages.'
  • 'Everard 't Serclaes helped repel a Flemish invasion.'
  • 'Bart De Wever is a Flemish politician.'
  • 'The Flemish and Walloon governments reached an agreement on Monday.'
  • 'The modern Dutch language has its origins not in Flemish, but in Hollandic and Brabantian dialects.'
  • 'The variety of Dutch spoken across northern Belgium is called Flemish.'
I think you'll agree that in only one case are we referring to the language spoken across northern Belgium, but in each case the word 'Flemish' is used correctly. That's why Flemish really needs to be a disambiguation page. The confusion between the last two is why Flemish (language) is not also not a good solution. Oreo Priest talk 18:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I see no confusion there at all. One is used as an adjective for "Flanders", one is used in a linguistic sense. Rather like "English". My objection - and probably the source of your point - comes from the multiple (distinct) dialects spoken in Belgium erroneously labeled "Flemish". Even so, I think that there is a big difference between "Flemish Language" (i.e. that spoken in Flanders pre-1900) and Dutch which is officially taught there now. I think to rename the whole category "Belgian Dutch" would confuse the issue. ---Brigade Piron (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what "Flemish language" you're referring to, such a thing never existed, contrary to what you seem to be implying. What about all the other meanings of "Flemish" Oreo Priest was alluding to? American, French, and English are disambiguation pages as well. I doubt anyone will think of Englismen moving to the USA when ending up on the page on American English. It seems to me a disambiguation page would solve your point about people knowing the term in a linguistic context; as they would be redirected to Belgian Dutch "aka Flemish". I must admit I fail to see the reason for your opposition. --Hooiwind (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You're right Brigade that it's clear based on context that 'Flemish' means different things in each example I presented; that was the whole point. It doesn't make any sense for them to point to the same article if that article only talks about the language(s). That's why we need a disambiguation page. And what do you think 'Flemish' (the language) really means, and what dialects are "erroneously" labeled as 'Flemish'? Oreo Priest talk 22:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. As someone with a basic knowledge on the topic, I'd assume that "Belgian Dutch" would refer to Dutch spoken in Belgium. I.e. the Dutch language (rather than any type of dialect) which is the official language of Flanders, taught in schools etc. Actually, though Flemish can refer to that, it also refers to the a distinct linguistic group. I could bring myself to support a disambig. page for Flemish and another page for Flemish Language (which would explain all the ambiguities in its introduction), but not Belgian Dutch which is a misleading term. ----Brigade Piron (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
So if I understand correctly, you think 'Flemish' properly means not Belgian Dutch, but the dialect cluster in the former County of Flanders? Also, please consider commenting on my proposals below. Oreo Priest talk 14:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First of all, the proposal is a fraud. It is fraudulent to unilaterally move an article from A (where it is established) to B, then propose a move from B to C, citing a problem with B. Figuring out what happened here wasn't easy, but I fully support the revert of Kwami's move of Flemish to Belgian Dutch dialects prior to making this proposal, and I oppose moving this article to Belgian Dutch dialects or to Belgian Dutch per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. People in Belgium speak French and Flemish; Flemish people are sometimes referred to as just "Flemish", but usually as "Flemish people". The term alone is used much more often to refer to the language. --B2C 00:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
You're a bit behind; it already has been moved back to Flemish. And why do you say that "people in Belgium speak French and Flemish" when the Belgian government, the Flemish government and the CIA explicitly call it Dutch? Oreo Priest talk 15:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Because I said I supported the revert you think I didn't realize it had already been reverted? Really? Whatever. The revert does not remove the fraudulence or confusion inherent in this proposal. It should be rejected on these grounds alone.

I suggest, when there is a conflict, that newspapers reflect common use much better than government agencies. The NY Times uses "Flemish" [1]. Flemish is more natural and recognizable than any of the Dutch alternatives being proposed. --B2C 01:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I had thought you were confused by the nonlinear discussion. Indeed, let's follow the NYT's usage on its country summary page: [2], and other pages: [3], [4], especially as it mirrors the use by all of the government bodies, Flemish, Belgian (including in the constitution art. 4) and international (including the European Union). The overwhelming majority of reliable sources are clear that Dutch and French are the two main languages of Belgium.
And I cannot agree that 'Flemish' is more recognizable as the Belgian version of Dutch than 'Belgian Dutch'. Certainly in terms of "consistency" it should mirror Austrian German, Swiss German and Belgian French, no? Oreo Priest talk 16:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

refs

Few linguistic references make more than a mention of "Flemish". Here are some that I've dug up:

  • Jan Kooij, "Dutch", in Comrie, ed., The World's Major Languages, 2nd ed. 2009
"the variety of Dutch that is spoken in Belgium is often, incorrectly, referred to as Flemish (Vlaams)."
  • R.L. Trask, "Number of Languages", in Language and Linguistics: The Key Concepts, 2nd ed. 2007
"The Belgians have long insisted that they spoke a distinct language called Flemish, but they have now changed their minds and agree that they speak Dutch – but note that the local speech of western Belgium is incomprehensible to speakers in Antwerp and in Amsterdam."
  • König & Auwera, eds, The Germanic Languages, Routledge, 1994
"Its Middle Dutch successor (c. 1100 to c. 1500) is well documented from the end of the twelfth century, especially in the western (Flemish) and centre (Brabantic) dialects of the economically more prosperous southern area, now Belgium."
"The major Middle Dutch dialects, used in the present-day area of the Netherlands ... and the northern parts of Belgium during the Middle Ages, are Brabantian, Flemish, Hollandish, the Limburg and the so-called eastern dialect."
"In the sixteenth century the standard began to develop spontateously on the basis of Brabantic (CS) dialects, which had themselves incorporated quite a lot of Flemish (SW) characteristics."
  • Donaldson, Dutch: A Comprehensive Grammar, Routledge, 2nd ed. 2008
Uses the phrase "Flemish Dutch"
  • Harbert, The Germanic Languages, CUP, 2007
Repeatedly refers to "West Flemish" alongside Dutch, Frisian, and Afrikaans in illustrating Germanic languages

— kwami (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So what your sources reveal is that there is no agreement on what Flemish actually is (and still no sources for "East and West Flemish" as one group, as requested at that article).

Other sources:

  • [5] uses "Vlaams" for the whole of (current!) Flanders
  • The Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education states that "Belgium [...] has three official languages: French, Flemish, and German]. They are obviously not speaking about West (or East and West) Flemish solely.
  • Language Policy and National Unity uses Flemish for the language for the common language of all 6 million Flemish people.
  • The Encyclopedia of the stateless nations clearly gives Flemish as the common language, "[...]closely related to Dutch. In its spoken form, Flemish diverged from Dutch in the sixteenth century but remains nearly identical in its written form."
  • Common usage: [6]
  • Even school books use "Vlaams" in this meaning, e.g. [7]

Never mind that in common usage, Flemish is always meant as the language spoken in the whole of Flanders: e.g. many English DVDs have been dubbed in both "Nederlands" and "Vlaams", this is not some West Flemish, which isn't understandable to people from Antwerp, but either a "tussentaal" or a polished variation of Brabantian, or a mixture of different Flemish dialect sounds (without the more regional dialect words), e.g. mixing people with a Ghent accent with people with a Kempisch tongue and people with a purely Antwerpish tongue. Fram (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing anything with these refs, merely posting them here so that people had easy access to them.
I disagree that there's no agreement as to what Flemish is. Several note that it is the common name for Dutch in Belgium, though technically incorrect. Several use it as a linguistic term for SW Dutch. That's all pretty clear. What's not clear is the exact scope of Flemish in the narrow sense. — kwami (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement of facts, clarifications and proposal for brainstorming

I hope to give this a bit of a fresh start by establishing some facts that we all agree on. Following this, we should have specific proposals and discussions rather than the unfocused mess this discussion has become.

  1. The language spoken by the inhabitants of the Flemish Region of Belgium is a variety of standard Dutch and is frequently called 'Flemish'. Fram has established that serious sources do call it this and that that usage cannot be considered to be always wrong. This is also certainly very common in common parlance.
  2. The language(s)/dialect(s) spoken in the former County of Flanders but not in the rest of Belgium are sometimes called 'Flemish'. Often this is split into West Flemish and East Flemish, sometimes also Zeelandic or French Flemish. Sometimes these are considered to be Dutch dialect, others language (which can itself be considered a dialect).
  3. 'Flemish' is also a common adjective for all sorts of things both from the Flemish Region of Belgium and things from the former of County of Flanders that are not related to language.

I think it is clear that in light of #3 and my list above that the page Flemish itself needs to disambiguate between the different uses of the word, just like French, English and Austrian do. Does anyone object to this?

Next comes the question of how you break up the content between the different uses of the term to mean languages.

Here I think the best solution is to fork the content into two pages, with each explaining the other. For example, the page on Belgian Dutch should briefly explain that there is a group of dialects often also called 'Flemish', and not touch on that anymore. The page on the dialect group should explain the other version; in its current form it would probably lack content, serving mostly as a description that the four dialects are sometimes grouped, while linking to them individually. I don't see that as a problem.

Now comes another contentious question: what to call the resulting pages. The obvious issue is that Flemish can mean either Belgian Dutch or West Flemish and associated dialects. The problem with a page name like Flemish (language) or Flemish (dialect) is that it's not clear what they're referring to; each could be either. The problem with a page name like Belgian Dutch is that it is more common to call it Flemish. So I think the most productive way forward is to discuss which of these should be followed or to see if we can come up with clear names for each.

For example, if we made an article called Flemish (Belgian Dutch) then it would be very clear what that is, right? (Belgian Dutch should of course be a redirect, or the other way around.) Could Flemish (dialect group) be a good title for an article? I would like to hear what each of you thinks. Oreo Priest talk 23:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I think Flemish (Belgian Dutch) and Flemish (dialect group) would be good titles, but I'm not especially fond of the second option. Oreo Priest talk 23:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see why we wouldn't simply use "Belgian Dutch", as we do for most national varieties of other languages. Not doing so would imply that the Flemish dialects (in this case meaning all dialects of Dutch-speaking Belgium) weren't Dutch dialects. Dutch Low Saxon is much less a Dutch dialect than "Flemish" is, for instance. "Flemish (Belgian Dutch)" is a tautology when referring to the language of Dutch-speaking Belgium, and reflects this common misconception (Oreo's point 1). A separate article on this "Flemish (dialect group)" seems redundant as we already have articles on West, East, Zeelandic, and French Flemish (Oreo's point 2). I would suggest a disambiguation page for "Flemish" (in line with point 3) and an article called "Belgian Dutch", obviously mentioning it is often referred to as "Flemish" in common parlance. --Hooiwind (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It was my attempt at some compromise. I still do prefer Belgian Dutch as a title, but if it is to remain titled 'Flemish (something)', I think that would be the clearest option. Oreo Priest talk 19:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd support a category for Flemish (language) (not "Belgian Dutch") and Flemish (dialect group) as indicated by Oreo above. Orthodox (ie. actual) Dutch language is taught in the Flemish community, which speaks Flemish, and that would just really confuse matters. See my points above. ---Brigade Piron (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Brigade, I must confess that I'm really confused about what you think 'Flemish' is, and how it's different from 'Belgian Dutch'. Do you think that 'Flemish' is only the informal tussentaal, while 'Belgian Dutch' is simply Belgian people using standard Dutch with no regional words and no Belgian accent? Oreo Priest talk 19:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed Brigade, it seems this discussion keeps revolving around your definition of "Flemish", whereas to me (and I think I can speak for Oreo as well) it either means "Belgian Dutch" or the Flemish dialect of the former County of Flanders (thus excluding most of today's Flanders), call it "Flemish-proper"... What is it we're missing? --Hooiwind (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
See WP:UCN, and also, can we archive some of the ancient posts above? It's difficult to comment! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hooiwind, I had imagined the article on the Flemish dialect group would be a brief article grouping and linking to several more in-depth articles that can be seen as a common subject, something like this one: Major Town Houses of the Architect Victor Horta (Brussels). Does that make sense? Oreo Priest talk 18:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Oreo, I think that sounds about right. "Flemish (dialect)" could in a way be a disambiguation page between East, West, French, and Zeelandic Flemish. --Hooiwind (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"X (language)" and "X (dialect)" are deprecated dabs. Some time ago we went though WP and moved all such names to something else. — kwami (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Flemish Language"/Flemish Dialect then? ---Brigade Piron (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
But each of those are deeply ambiguous! Oreo Priest talk 18:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Plus within a couple of months we'd all be back for another move discussion. I can see the benefit of an article on 'Flemish (dialect)', defining it as the cluster of the aforementioned subdialects. 'Flemish (language)' would imply we're talking about a 'language', which is to be avoided as it implies we're definitely not talking about 'Belgian Dutch' (which would qualify as a 'national variant of a language', rather than 'a language'). @Brigage, if you don't agree with this, I presume you must be thinking of 'Flemish' as a historical language distinct from modern Dutch (which is erroneous). --Hooiwind (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

G and CH, contradictory information

I read:

"The sound spelled <ch> is a voiceless velar fricative [x] in Northern Dutch and a voiceless palatal fricative [ç] in Southern Dutch.[12] In the North the sound spelled <g> is usually realized as voiceless velar fricative [x] or voiceless uvular fricative [χ], whereas in the South the distinction between voiced and unvoiced has been preserved and <g> is pronounced as voiced palatal fricative /ʝ/."

And a few lines below:

"<ch> and <g> pronounced as (voiceless resp. voiced) front-velars, not as palatals, as often claimed."

This seems contradictory. Based on how I form these consonants (I'm Flemish), I would say the latter is more correct: I indeed pronounce them as velars, and I think this holds for most Flemings east of East-Flanders (in East- and West-Flanders it tends to merge or even swap with the phoneme for the letter h). The Dutch (especially "above the rivers") clearly do something different, I think they mostly use the voiceless uvular fricative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.53.151 (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Map with language communities

The byline of the map with language communities seems to be the subject of some disagreement. The problem is that we have to translate the complex Belgian constitution and political situation into an encyclopedic article.

The constitution says that on the matter of culture and languages, Belgian has three communities (Flanders, the French community and the German community) - next to three regions: Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels. Both the Flemish and the French community have jurisdiction over Brussels on cultural and linguistic matters. Therefore, Brussels is an integral part of Flanders on community matters (as it is an integral part of the French community). Now, how do we translate this for those that do not have a university degree in Belgian politics, and preferably contained in one or two sentences?

I believe that User:Oreo Priest's proposal is one of the better attempts. I'd like User:Midas02 to stop reverting to his/her diff, which in my eyes is incorrect. His/her multiple reverts begin to have a disruptive feel... --LucVerhelst (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Midas02 is being borderline disruptive, so it's good that we talk this out. That being said, I'm content with the current version. Oreo Priest talk 10:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Evening. Please consider that it's common courtesy to inform me through my talk page if I'm being mentioned in a discussion. And if you have an issue with my edits, that would be the place to mention it.
I usually refrain from personal remarks, but on this occasion I feel obliged to. I had noticed that LucVerhelst has very few posts on this Wikipedia, but that most of them seem to be about Belgian or Flemish issues, in particular nationalistic topics. For which you have already received remarks on your talk page by the way. That makes me suspicious about one trying to push an ideological agenda. I'm not saying so, I'm just making the observation. The fact that you are then trying to introduce subliminal remarks about Brussels being a part of Flanders only makes me more wary.
The meaning of the multidimensional term Flanders is already quite elegantly explained on Flanders and Flemish Region, and to quote the opening of the former article: Flanders today normally refers to the Dutch speaking northern portion of Belgium. Just like it is in Dutch or in French. There is therefore no need to overload the caption of a language map of Belgium with confusing references to multidimensional meaning of Flanders.
You also have to consider that this is the English Wikipedia. These readers usually do not have a great insight into the Belgian make-up, and articles have to be written in a factual, accurate and unbiased way. Being native usually doesn't help in getting that right.
Back to the map. From a mapmaking point of view, the map is actually incorrect. Incorrect because it depicts Brussels in a different colour, which would lead to believe that they speak a different language altogether. All but true of course. A proper version would need to show Brussels in a yellow-red hatch pattern. One may want to contact the author about that, although it would make it more difficult to add a legend to the map (hatch patterns don't have a colour code).
The worst however, is the first paragraph of the article, which is an absolute monstrosity. The very idea to even suggest that Flemish is a language, and to put it on the same level as Belgian Dutch! Dutch Wikipedia actually has a very accurate description of Flemish, offering a five tiered approach to the interpretation of Flemish in linguistics. On that scale Belgian Dutch would correspond to the first level, whilst the interpretation of Flemish as the language of Flemings only corresponds to 2-3. German Wikipedia has a good article as well, rather interestingly called de:Belgisches Niederländisch, with the same tiered approach. And to use their saying: Häufig verwendet man für diese Sprachformen den Ausdruck Flämisch (ndl.: Vlaams), was allerdings zu Missverständnissen oder Ungenauigkeiten führen kann. Or: often the word Flemish is used, which leads to misunderstanding and inaccuracies. And even WP.FR gets it right, opening with: En linguistique, on appelle flamand un ensemble de dialectes néerlandais.
So this first paragraph badly needs to be rewritten by somebody who knows the subject. Following the approach of WP.NL might be just the cure.
Regards, --Midas02 (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Re your personal remark: If you would have examined my edits, and preferably those from before 2005 too, you would have noticed that I took a long wikibreak for being tired of having to watch and correct the flemish nationalists, who were always trying to enforce their agenda.
Re: your remark that Brussels is not part of Flanders: please read up on Belgian politics and the Belgian constitutional framework. I seems that you are trying to prove your point by 'fogetting' important details that contradict it.
Re: the map. Brussels is orange on the map, which is a colour that is composed of red and yellow, the colours for Wallonia and the Flemish region on the map. Good thinking by the author, I should say.
That being said, I noticed another error on the map. It is called "Map with language communities". However, there is no such thing as a language community in Belgium. The correct name should be "Map with language areas". See also Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium. Are you OK with me making this correction? --LucVerhelst (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a fair point. I guess language communities probably don't exist by law, but they are often used in everyday speach (communautés linguistiques/taalgemeenschappen), in which case one usually refers to the Communities (Flemish/French/German). So although quite common, probably without legal basis. Article 4 of the Belgian constitution on the other hand describes the four language areas of Belgium. It's only now I've noticed that this is what the map really depicts. However, I fear that would confuse the readers again, as the word 'area' has a territorial meaning, leading to confusion with the definition of the Regions.
In that case I have a different proposition. I came across this map. Didn't realise it already existed on Wikipedia. It depicts the Communities, and thus the associated languages. It would make it easier to explain which language is spoken where, and where the jurisdiction of the associated Communities lies. --Midas02 (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Why not? What would your suggestion for the byline be?
--LucVerhelst (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Keeping it simple. Official languages of Belgium: Dutch (yellow), French (red) and German (blue). Brussels-Capital is a bilingual area where both Dutch and French have official status. --Midas02 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Fine by me. Oreo Priest talk 06:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
A nice solution indeed. One remark: the Brussels region is called Brussels-Capital because the Flemings objected to it becoming a real third region. I see no need to use this artificial and political name here. Let's just call it 'Brussels'.
Will you do the honour, Midas02?
Done, Midas02 (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --LucVerhelst (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Belgian French uses the same map. The byline there is "Linguistic map of Belgium. Officially Francophone areas in red." --LucVerhelst (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes well... 'Linguistic' wouldn't be entirely correct as well. A linguistic map would have to show the dialects spoken in Belgium, whilst this one shows the official languages, so for me that wouldn't be the same. Midas02 (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the complaint, its not out of the ordinary to discuss the content of a page multiple people are editing on the talk page of that page without a heads up to each editor. And this is a fine place to mention it, seeing as it doesn't need any escalation. As for the map, I don't think the current version is confusing. It is also technically correct, which some of the intermediate edits were not.
Moving on, I like the 5-point list. The map works I suppose, but looks like puke. Let's also not worry about whether or not 'language community' is a technical term if we're just trying to show where people speak the language we're talking about. Oreo Priest talk 21:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Southern Dutch" = "Flemish" ?

§Dutch in Flanders uses the terms

Dutch, Standard Dutch, East Flemish, Brabantic, Brabantian [same? different?], West Flemish, and Hollandic

Immediately afterward, §Phonological differences begins by contrasting

Flemish and northern Dutch

but from then on only contrasts

northern Dutch and southern Dutch

Is "southern Dutch" being used here as a synonym for Flemish? --Thnidu (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Northern Dutch nor Southern Dutch are formal terms. Flemish is, it is a regional variant of Dutch like the lower saxion dialect group. So I would say neither of the southern nor northern Dutch terms make sense. Arnoutf (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "Southern Dutch" is being used as a synonym for Flemish. Arnoutf is right that neither is a technical term. Oreo Priest talk 16:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
No, Southern Dutch is also referring to the Dutch dialects in the Southern Netherlands such as Noord-Brabant and Limburg. Belgian Dutch and Flemish could be considered synonyms. But not Southern Dutch and Flemish.--Wester (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Wester is probably right. Oreo Priest talk 22:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Historically it would refer to the language of the Southern Netherlands, but in modern contexts I might have to agree with Wester. --Lumia930uploader (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Controversy among linguists?

"This evolution has led to some controversy among linguists, who are afraid it dilutes the usage of standard Dutch" The cited article only mentions the economist Stijn Verrept. So this source only shows there is at least one scientist having this fear. I would propose to replace "linguists" by "Dutch-speaking persons" or a similar term. BenediktWildenhain (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Language or variety/ies

In his edits starting 16 October 2015‎, editor 84.197.124.248 changed the sourced definition of Flemish as a laguage to variety while keeping the references the same and not providing others. I doubt that the sources treat Flemish both as a language and a variety, so the whole article has been flawed by this. Misrepresenting sources is vandalism. I do not specialize on Dutch of any kind, could someone please sort it out? --WikiHannibal (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: Somewhere after 84.197's change the article was edited to read,

Linguistically and formally, "Flemish" is not and does not refer to a current language or dialect but refers to the region, culture and people of (West) Belgium or Flanders.

.
The term "variety" has been replaced with "dialect" which is a more accurate description of Flemish as a collection of dialects rather than a language. Buster Seven Talk 17:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
A language is a dialect with an army and navy says it all. Buster Seven Talk 17:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

language family / infobox?

why isn't there a language infobox? I very much would like to see the language family Flemish belongs to when I land on this page. I'm gonna go to the Dutch page for that info now, but why not put it here too? skakEL 09:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Skakkle: There shouldn't be one. Flemish isn't a language (Dutch is) but an ambiguous label for multiple things (Standard Dutch as spoken in Northern Belgium, Brabantian/East Flemish/West Flemish/French Flemish/Limburgish dialects or Tussentaal). This article should be nothing more but a slightly more elaborate version of a disambiguation page. As it is now, it's trash. Sorry but that's how I see it, and native speakers of Dutch seem to share my opinion. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
what are some relevant links on nl.wikip where I can get some better info? (chrome's in-browser translation is hugely helpful these days.) I agree- poorly organized info & wrong descriptions (especially of cultural- & identity- related topics) can be found on the wikip of any language. But I've found the reverse to be true sometimes too. I've studied Catalan culture, for example, quite a bit on ca.wikip just using chrome translation & have found lots of good stuff. Maybe we can get some better facts from dutch wikip & improve some of the en.wikip content. skakEL 06:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
East Flemish has a language box, West Flemish has a language box, they both are not languages but dialects within Flemish. Either we go through all articles about languages and erase all the language infoboxes that are there. Or we create a new dialect infobox. Or we add the language infobox to this dialect/langauge. The last option is the least work and causes the least argument so, I will add it. Alternative Transport (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

This page has just been moved from Flemish to Dutch in Belgium without, as far as I can see, any prior discussion here. Since I imagine a few people (myself included) will be a bit miffed by this, could Wester revert his edit while we attempt to try to reach some kind of consensus? —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Flemish is an unofficial term and refers to 'Tussentaal'. While this article is more about the Dutch used in Belgian. 'Belgian Dutch' would also be OK, but that's already taken. --Wester (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Belgian Dutch would indeed be ok, but that is now taken by a redirect to this page rather than a real page. So the excuse "it is already taken" is a sign of being lazy nothing more.
The term Dutch in Belgium on the other hand is factually incorrect. Dutch in Belgium refers to all Dutch in Belgium and would include the Northern Dutch dialects spoken by the sizable Dutch migrant population (and diplomats in Brussels). As these are not mentioned (and should not be mentioned) the new title is just plain wrong. Please put it back. Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Though I agree that "Belgian Dutch" would be better than the current title. Dutch in Belgium is not incorrect. Dutch refers to the language, not the people. It's like 'English in America'. --Wester (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits of the term, it should be properly discussed. Per WP:BRD, it would be great if Wester could revert his move so we can do this properly. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly the article English in America does not exist, not even as a redirect page. That should be telling something about how (ir)relevant the term is (PS English in America should probably cover teaching of Shakespeare in high school). Arnoutf (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm also for renaming this article to Belgian Dutch, which is a less ambiguous name. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose such a move, per WP:COMMONNAME. [8] 84,000 Ghits for Belgian Dutch + language, [9] 13 million for Flemish + language (yes, this one will have more false positives than the other one, ubt still...) In Gbooks (which will have more reliable sources), 1.2 million for Flemish[10], 4,500 for BElgian Dutch[11]. Even the combination "Flemish language" gets three times as much Gbook hits[12], while "Belgian Dutch language" only gets less than 500 hits[13]. In Gnews, it's 387 for "Flemish language" vs. 5 for "Belgian Dutch language".

If people feel that Flemish on its own is too ambiguous, we can create "Flemish" as a disambiguation (with Flemish people), and move this page to Flemish (language). But that is basically what the hatnote already does. Fram (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

We absolutely should not move it to Flemish (language). It is not a language (it's Dutch) but a very ambiguous term with various meanings. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a language version. But I'm happy to keep it where it is anyway. Not having "Flemish" in the title would be a disservice to our readers and violate commonname policy, as it is the most commonly used name to refer to the variety. Fram (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually this term is used in several ways, that's why it shouldn't be used wherever possible. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
This term is usually perfectly understandable and not ambiguous, e.g. at Kristel Verbeke there was no reason to change Flemish to Belgian Dutch[14]. Fram (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
...perfectly understandable? Something that has 5 meanings (see the article) cannot be perfectly understandable. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
In the context, yes, it was (and usually is) perfectly understandable. Fram (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Andreas Philopater: (Redacted) Have you cited a single reputable source? My source is Jan Kooij: 5. Dutch in Bernard Comrie: The World's Major Languages, Routledge, 2009, p.110. You can access it on Google Books. It says that "the variety of Dutch that is spoken in Belgium is often, incorrectly, referred to as Flemish (Vlaams)." It's fair enough to say that I haven't cited it until now, at least not here. I did in some edit summaries.

"Wikipedia policy is to reflect current usage, not to try to correct whatever misunderstandings it might lead to." - do I have to remind you that this article says that the term Flemish is used in at least five different ways? Surely, in this case WP:IGNOREALLRULES is a more sound policy than WP:COMMONNAME, as the 'common name' is incredibly ambiguous and misleading.

Fram: "Written Flemish and written Dutch are much more similar than spoken Flemish and Dutch, although differences in word choice and the like exist." - there's no such thing as "written Flemish" as opposed to "written Dutch" nor "spoken Flemish" as opposed to "spoken Dutch". They are the same language, and Flemish is an ambiguous term with multiple meanings. There are differences between written Belgian Standard Dutch and written Northern Standard Dutch, or spoken (Belgian/Northern) Standard Dutch and non-standard local dialects (West Flemish, East Flemish, Brabantian, Limburgish) - among these, only East Flemish is not spoken in the Netherlands as well (West Flemish in the Netherlands is called "Zeelandic" and "French Flemish" in France), or something in-between ('tussentaal').

Buster7: "In my experience, Flamands know two languages, Flemish and Dutch whereas the Dutch only know one." Cite your sources, because this looks like nonsense. Flemish is an ambiguous term with multiple meanings, none of which is 'a language separate from Dutch'. Again, has any of you actually read this article?

I'm not against considering West Flemish or Limburgish to be languages separate from Dutch. Linguists generally consider the latter to be a language, but not the former. But to say that "Flemish is a language separate from Dutch" (or however you want to formulate it) is totally meaningless, and in many cases simply not true. (Redacted)

This would all be avoided if the standard language of Flanders would be a standardized form of West Flemish, which was proposed at one time. Neither I or the majority of linguists would have a problem with calling it a 'language'. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Victim? Not sure what you're referring to. Might help if you focus on arguments relevant to what people have actually said. As to your substantive point, one expert saying "often, incorrectly, referred to as Flemish" is essentially conceding that Flemish is the common name ("often ... referred to as Flemish"), but stating he doesn't think it should be (hence "incorrectly"). Which is fine for an expert's opinion about what term is technically best. We just need to know the common name, though, since nothing you've said justifies ignoring English usage in favour of a non-native's opinion, however expert (do bear in mind that this is not about what some Dutch speakers think is best to call it, but about what English speakers actually call it). And it isn't by any means incredibly ambiguous and misleading, although it does have some potential to be somewhat ambiguous and misleading. Careful phrasing should deal with that pitfall. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
You know what... forget my last message. I'm done debating this. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
We will always be Dutch-speakers, no matter how much the world wants us to speak an different language. What a terrible misleading article! All while we just speak a different variant of Dutch just like Austrians speak their variant of German. And no, West Flemish dialect never would have been accepted as our standard language. West Flemish particularists' proposals were always put back in the closet in West Flanders alone, because even most West Flemish people aren't against Dutch as their standard language except for a vocal minority, let alone people from Antwerp to accept it. But West Flemish are proud of their regional language, yes and they very well should. Nothing too different from the situation in Groningen, where the dialect deviates even more from Standard Dutch than West Flemish does, trust me (well it's a Saxon dialect after all). All I have to say. Just want to add that it looks very stupid to talk about 'Flemish' and Belgian French as if our linguistic situation is so 'unique' in the world while it's the same as in any case where the same language gets spoken in different countries. Utter rubbish this article! Be glad Flemish people are a bit naive and don't take their national identity so serious, only reason this article still exists today misinforming a new generation of foreigners about our language.ProductofWit (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. This article should be nothing more but a slightly more elaborate version of a disambiguation page. As it is now, it's nothing more but perpetuating confusion/simple disinformation. It's trash, frankly. I hope someone comes up with better sources that I could have so that it could be finally fixed. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The article was disjointed and the Dutch version of Wikipedia counterpart article is a slightly more elaborate version of a disambiguation page whiles the Dutch Wikipedia also has an Dutch in Belgium article. With those do Dutch versions as role models I rewrote this article and added Dutch in Belgium.--Alternative Transport (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Recently created content fork

Alternative Transport has ignored the need for consensus and created a content fork at Dutch in Belgium in order to conform English Wikipedia to the usage on Dutch Wikipedia, in preference to the established policy for article titles. So what steps should follow? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, consulting those who engage in discussion on the relevant page is the correct step. So Brigade Piron, Wester, Arnoutf, Kbb2, Fram, Buster7, ProductofWit, what are your views on POV content-forking? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I would argue let the new article stand. The new article is not merely a fork of the old article but largely a translation of the Dutch article. The adaptations of the Flemish article is largely a translation of the Dutch article, as well as the forked content moved to the new article. The debate that took place from 2015 to 2018 digressed and no consensus was reached. I can understand this adaptation might get some editors miffed again, but I hope upon review of the editing the other editors will agree with this action and/or a consensus can be reached. --Alternative Transport (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Map of dialects in the Benelux misleading.

That map of dialects in the Benelux may have some historical value, showing the different dialects in the Spanish Netherlands or something, but it is not at all an accurate representation of the current situation, or the situation for the past few centuries for that matter. Anyone living near the border (or anyone from Holland and Belgium to be honest) knows the way Dutch is spoken changes drastically once the border is crossed, there may be some mixing in border towns, but it is absolutely not true that people in Antwerp speak roughly the same dialect as people in Breda. It's also misleading in that now it looks for example as if the Antwerp dialect is more similar to the Breda dialect than it is to the Ghent dialect. That map is a real eye soar, I'm curious what data the map maker used to come to their conclusions, they cite "publications" by the Dutch dialectologist Jo Daan, but the map shown on Jo Daan's Wikipedia page is completely different and looks infinitely more accurate to my experience. I suspect if the map maker did use data from one of Jo Daan's books, it may be "History of Dialectography in the Dutch language area" (not that I've read it, but as I said it looks more like a historical map than one depicting today's reality). If a version of that map on Jo Daan's article would be used for this article that would be alright with me, but the inaccurate map currently shown also appears on numerous other Wikipedia articles and it's a real shame, it should really be removed or changed all together. Dapperedavid (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The map is basically correct. It is about the historical dialects. And the historical dialect of Antwerp is very close to that of Breda. It is true that very recently, mainly after the Second World War (and definitely not already in "the past few centuries") a "southern" standard has developed that is clearly different from the "northern" standard. And very few people in Breda still speak the old dialect... The differences between the two standards might seem considerable but they pale in comparison with the old dialectal differences. Within very small distances the dialects became mutually unintelligible.--MWAK (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey sorry for the late reaction I haven't really understood how to do this whole Wikipedia thing yet. I disagree that the differences in the two standards pale in comparison with the old dialectal differences, although I'm not really familiar with that, I don't think anyone is, you'd have to study centuries old texts for that, and even then I'm sure there were outside-standards that writers upheld, but granted. My grandma, who is Belgian, still speaks her regional dialect, she uses a lot of French loanwords, now considered "improper," in modern Flanders, I imagine that heavy use of French loanwords is consistent over the historical distribution of Flemish dialects, and I once saw a video of someone's Zeeuws-Flemish grandma speaking, although it did sound Flemish, it had a distinct Dutchness to it that I can't put my finger on. Anyway, regardless of my personal anecdote, all of this is unrelated, if we agree that the map is about historical dialects then I'm going to add that to the description of the map. I actually think the map should be removed entirely though, because this article is about the modern Flemish dialect cluster or language variety, if there was no such thing in the 16th century, why include a map of that time in the first place?
Edit 20:05 UTC : By the way, since this map is based on an unknown source (at least that's what I seemed to have determined in 2018 when I was younger and less Wikipedia savy), I don't know what this map is trying to portray? The Dutch language in the 16th century? Do you know? Dapperedavid (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Does anybody want to add the German interlanguage link to "Belgisches Niederländisch" ? I can't figure out how to do it, because there is a conflict in the wikidata terminology. This stems from the fact that the English article here uses the colloquial term for the language (Flemish) while the German article uses the professional linguistic term (Belgian Dutch). They are on the same topic though. Thanks! EnTerbury (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, the point I make on regionality remains good, in that the third Belgian Region, Luxemburg (a distinct Province to the Grand Principality of the same name), uses German as it's official language, although just as Walloon French has distinct differences from Touraine French, so the actual language used is far closer to Letzeburgisch than Hanoverian German.
What you need to differentiate between is the historical linguistic roots and the current reality. It might be better to relegate the parity issues to that as an etymological question. The distinction is that a Dutch immigrant still speaks Dutch and is generally comprehensible, whereas a Flemish speaker from Northern France may well not be in the Netherlands. Afrikaans, for example, has roughly double the linguistic drift and is now recognised as a daughter language of Dutch, Flemish should be offered the same courtesy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.9.109 (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Luxembourg is not the third Belgian region. The three regions of Belgium are the Flemish, Walloon, and the Brussels Capital Region. There are three communities: Flemish, French, and German. The province of Luxembourg is part of the Walloon Region and the French Community; its official language is French. The German community is in Liège province, north of Luxembourg province and along the border with Germany. Largoplazo (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancy between introduction identification of language codes and the Language Codes section

The introduction states: "MultiTree considers Flemish to include the four principal Dutch dialects in the Flemish region (Flanders): Brabantian, East Flemish, West Flemish and Limburgish as well as three other dialects.[13] Glottolog considers Flemish to be a separate (regional) language, which includes the dialects French Flemish and West Flemish.[14] Ethnologue considers Limburgish and West Flemish to be separate (regional) languages.[15][16]", while the Language Codes bar on the right uses nld and dutc1256 as ISO639-3 and Glottolog codes respectively. I would like to update this so that the Language Codes use the Vlaams codes as identified within the introduction text. Is there a reason these are different?PaulSutherland (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Issues because of mixing Flemish and Belgian Dutch

Issue 1

You can't link to the German Wikipedia article, because they make, rightly so, a distinction between one of the three official languages spoken in Belgium, which is (Belgian) Dutch, and Flemish. Flemish is a general term of all flemish dialects spoken in Belgium and partially in the North of France. They do not speak the same language though. Flemish in Limburg is quite different from Flemish in West or East Flanders and it is even more different from Flemish spoken in the North of France. It is not true that the official language in Flanders is Flemish. One can just look it up in the Belgian constitution: : Belgium is divided into 4 language regions, i.e. the Dutch region, the French region, the bilingual region Brussels Capital and the German region.[1] Children learn in school in Flanders Dutch and not Flemish. It is true however that Belgians will say that they speak Flemish while in fact they mean (Belgian) Dutch. This has historic reasons (similar to Irish people saying they speak Irish while talking to you in Irish English). The difference between Dutch Dutch (spoken in the Netherlands) and Belgian Dutch is comparable to the difference between US and UK English. Both speak English, both learn English at school (not specified UK or US English) and both understand each other in English most of the time.

Issue 2

If, as is claimed in ths article, Belgian Dutch is the same as Flemish, then this kind of Flemish is not spoken in the North of France, because it's very different from what an average Belgian Flemish speaker would understand.==

Conclusion

It would be better to split this article into Flemish (a heterogeneous language spoken in Flanders and the North of France) and Belgian Dutch (a rather homogeneous language spoken in Flanders). In both articles a remark could be written that the term Flemish is often used, especially by Belgians, when Belgian Dutch is meant. 85.221.148.72 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)DD

References

  1. ^ "België omvat vier taalgebieden: het Nederlandse taalgebied, het Franse taalgebied, het tweetalige gebied Brussel-Hoofdstad en het Duitse taalgebied." Belgian constitution on official languages
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flemish_dialects/Archive_3&oldid=1248075060"