Talk:Flemish people/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Flag of Flanders

I replaced the all-black lion flag with the official flag of the Flemish Community. I suggest deleting the flag entirely, since a people does not have a flag - states and movements do.Paul111 19:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, though it's mostly because people using that flag have no clue of heraldics and its origins. Simply put, there is no significant difference between the official flag (or a lion rampant sable armed and langued gules) and the one used by the flemish extreme right (or a lion rampant sable). At the time of first documentation of a flemish (lion) coat of arms no arms had their claws, teeth or tongues blasonned in a separate colour, it was simply a form of artistic expression. On the other hand later counts, following heraldic fashion added distinctly coloured claws etc. Except for use in a historic context (the Bigot roll of arms dated roughly 1254 has a single (out of some 300 surviving arms) coat of arms blasonning such claws..., which is a rough indicator to date the change of said fashion)) the modern arms should be used.

All of that not even mentionning the low quality of the image in question.--Caranorn 20:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, the all-black lion flag (also known as the untamed lion) is not a symbol of present-day Flanders. It is the symbol of the Flemish Movement, and thus it doesn't represent the entire Flemish people, insofar as there is a Flemish people.--Ganchelkas 10:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the flag from the infobox, the simplest solution. The significance of both flags is explained in the text anyway.Paul111 12:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

At some point I will also replace both flag images (where I described their origin) by a single coat of arms (I know a good svg that was created recently, just have to dig it up and change the links).--Caranorn 15:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"insofar as there is a Flemish people"...??? Anything more POV is called 'genocide'. I dislike flags regardless whether these are used for nationalist-separatist of for nation-state nationalists, but both flags are hanging out of people's balconies on July 11th, whereas only the official flag occurs at official buildings. Disputes on 'which flag' ending up in 'no flag' where it belongs, is anti-people, not anti-POV.
PS: Regardless correct heraldry and usage in a far history, the pure black lion was generally in use on "the" Flemish flag during the 20th century; precisely because many people actually waving it lately, had been separatist hardliners and movements, the official flag explicitly deflected to an uncommon style so as to openly disassociate the Belgian constitutional creation of the Flemish Region and Flemish Community from what had by then obtained politically undesired connotations. That modernism is a political choice as well as maintaining the pure black lion, WP NPOV policy prescribes giving both versions if both are notable, which is clearly the case. — SomeHuman 28 Feb2007 01:30-01:57 (UTC)

Actually incorrect as the Flag of Flanders (actually one of the two flemish provinces in the traditional sense) is older then the renewed flemish nationalism. That flag quite clearly bears the red claws and tongue. For the rest, only a person (physical or legal) can bear a coat of arms or flag. The flemish people are not such a person (the province or region is, but that flag is different from teh one born by nationalists). And yes, I'd much prefer to get rid of all flags, but it won't happen anytime soon I fear. Worse the trend goes in the otehr direction as one can see with the flag change proposal in Luxembourg.

Concerning presenting both points of view, a good quality black on gold flag would fit into an article about that flag or the flemish nationalist movement. Not into an article about the flemish people or Flanders.--Caranorn 14:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

About my comment "insofar as there is a Flemish people", I do not consider that to be POV. What I meant is that the view that there is a "Flemish people" is not universally accepted. There is not a Flemish nationality, nor is there a Flemish ethnicity. And there are many Flemings who view themselves as Belgians rather than Flemings. However, I do not contest that there is a Flemish nation. It's a nuance really. About using both versions, I think that's a good idea. --Ganchelkas 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So you'd put a symbol used by a minority (large but still a clear minority) on an equal footing with that of the legal institutions representing that entire population?--Caranorn 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are both meant as the symbol of the same. And if that is the way a consensus or compromise can be reached, then I'd support it, yes.--Ganchelkas 18:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The province of East Flanders became a province of the Flemish Region (under regional authority) instead of formerly a province of Belgium. Try digging up an old picture of its flag. I have a nice one in colour in 'Verschuerens Modern Woordenboek' 6th revised ed. "met medewerking van Dr. W. Pée, Prof. Rijksuniversiteit Luik en Dr. A. Seeldraeyers, St.-Jan-Berchmanskollege Brussel", published by N.V. Brepols, Turnhout - volume M-Z plate "Wapenschilden" left of page 1997. The lion is clearly black only but nails and tongue are on this picture in the golden backgound colour, exactly as the one of the then Belgian and now Walloon province of Namur, the one in the right half of the then national and now Flemish province of West Flanders and the Dutch province of Gelderland, in the right upper quarter of the Dutch province of Limburg, the two black (and two red) lions in the then Belgian and now Walloon province of Hainaut, the three black lions in the bottom left quarter of the then B. now W. province of Liège. None of these lions have a red tongue or red claws and none is embossed in white. On Wikipedia these are all the embellished style, even the Dutch. Please note that the Verschueren was a hybrid dictionary/encyclopaedia that at the time was the Belgian equivalent of the Van Dale in the Netherlands. Its inner cover states "Dit woordenboek werd door de Belgische regering opgenomen in de lijst der schoolboeken die gebruikt mogen worden in de officiële middelbare onderwijsinrichtingen, op 8 maart 1933" (though the edition is younger, apparently using the 1954 spelling reform). — SomeHuman 28 Feb2007 20:21 (UTC)

In 1816 west Flanders received a coat of arms (from the King of the Netherlands) blasonned as follows: per pale 1) gyronny of 12 or and azure an escutchon or overall, and 2) or a lion rampant sable armed and langued gules; a chief Nassau (note I don't think that third part is actually Nassau, more likely a combination born by the dutch King at the time). After 1830 and the Belgian revolution the chief was dropped from that coat of arms but the parted field remained unchanged. This is extracted from the Armorial des provinces et des communes de de Belgique, by Max Servais (also exists in dutch language, though I only have access to a french language copy). This work (two volumes) predates the institutional reforms and a new work on the topic was published in the 1990's (this time divided by volume into the two regions, also in french and dutch editions) but unfortunatelly these had a very limited edition and I've not yet had access to it. I should note that I only consulted a scanned version this time and the accompagnying images are unfortunatelly black and white, but the image for the east Flanders coat of arms (awarded at the same time as west Flanders) also seems to have distinctively coloured claws and tongue.

Concerning the white highlighting that's actually quite obvious even though not necessary. A black (sable) charge is usually illustrated (outlined) in white (I actually use a lighter tone (10-20% light) for sable and use plain black (abscence of light). I'm pretty certain this is not part of the official blason of either province, the region or any related (like Namur or Hainaut but not Geldre or Jülich which have different origins iirc) coats of arms.

In any case, specialised sources are generally preferable to general ones. By the way, the 1962 Larousse also gives the arms of Flanders armed and langued gules. While I'd agree that the modern arms are indeed an error based on the assumption that all arms had distinctive claws added at some point (most early roll of arms I've checked don't show such for Flanders), these are neverless the accepted arms since 1830 at the latest (we have a similar error in the Luxembourgish coat of arms where it was assumed that all counts and dukes bore a lion with split tail crossed in slatire when actually only a single one (Henry VI from 1281 to 1288 during the Limburg sucession) is documented with such).--Caranorn 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

coat of arms

I just wanted to note that the coat of arms image I linked in is intended as temporary until I either find a better one (or a lion rampant sable) or create one myself. The placement and size of flag and coat of arms in that section is not ideal either, the way it is now seemed best last night but I'm certainly open to sugestions or changes. Lastly, the nationalist flag doesn't belong in that section as it's not a symbol of Flanders or the Flemish people (none of the given sybols actually are the later). Maybe if there were a section about flemish politics it (a better copy that's correctly licensed) could be included there, though I'd personally prefer one or more separate articles (which might already exist) about that (as it would have to be both a historic and contemporary analysis).--Caranorn 14:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As this 'coat of arms' is related to the flag of Flanders, I made it a subsection. The image from Wikipedia Commons is used here (who took it from whom?) and both state it to be the coat of arms of the French région Nord-Pas-de-Calais. Not quite necessarily the one of the Count of Flanders as your source text at the image declared. Neither source (Wiki itself or a forum) is a reliable source to Wikipedia standards, and does not put a date on this picture of an embellished lion. One can see the latter Count's arms with an entirely black lion at e.g. here; my first doubt about this source appears unnecessary, see here. Anyway, the under main section #Flag of Flanders mentioned source is one officially recognized for education at secondary level by the Belgian government before the creation of institutional regions, and supports the text without extra lion pictures. — SomeHuman 1 Mar2007 01:28 (UTC)

Did you even read the above before your edits and comments? I clearly stated that the image was only temporary until I could either find one without distinctive claws or until I could create one myself. The sources I'm using are heraldic litterature, not any kind of forum (the image I added was draws as part of the french language wikipedia Projet Blason, the link to a forum shows an unlicensed use of that very image, not the other way round). I'd really recommend you leave these issues to the experts in the future.--Caranorn 13:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Note I just uploaded a correct coat of arms to commons and linked it to the article. But I still consider this temporary as I hope to get a better one from the Projet Blason. For legal reasons I can't use my current data base which would have produced a much better graphic. I used Wijnbergen as source, possibly I could find an even older one. By the way, Vermadois from ca. 1285-1300 seems to use a first variant (membré de gueules) pointing towards the modern arms, but I've seen other armorials using the simple or a lion rampant sable variant for sometime longer and in any case the image is supposed to represent the first arms.--Caranorn 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaving it to self-proclaimed experts is accepting WP:OWN. This is not an article about the Flemish Region, only one flag belongs there. This is not an article about the heraldic origin of a flag or coat of arms. This is an article about the Flemish people. Since both versions on the flag do have a recent history that plays a clear role in both flags currently being used by Flemish people to represent these, both flags must be shown. My text does not deny former usage of the flag with red claws and tongue, whereas your text falsely claims that such was the (only) valid version for the province. Your source may know a lot about heraldry, but it is not an official document. You deleted my source which is an officially approved work for usage in school and thus proves the lion without any red to have been found officially acceptable to represent the province before the regionalization and had been logically applied by the Flemish people when this notion became wider than the people of the area of the countship. Regardless whether this version should have been accepted, or whether it is correct from an heraldic viewpoint, it proves that the entirely black lion used to be a common one and not some deflecting version for extremists. The formerly vague and arguable connotation with extreme or far right was based on people waving a Flemish flag instead of a Belgian one, not on the version of the Flemish flag. Officializing only the version with red, has given opportunity of making a clear statement by still using the entire black version. It is still in use by some of the Flemish people and it is not illegal. This is in fact the most notable information about flags of the Flemish people, topic of the article. I had left your coat of arms with red claws and tongue out because it does not represent the Flemish people and it was not sourced as having been the one by the Count of Flanders (which your source text claimed). I'm not removing it though I'm not sure whether it actually contributes to this article, it might better be used in the Countship of Flanders article. — SomeHuman 1 Mar2007 23:34 (UTC)

Note: more recent official usage of a highly stylized lion by Flemish authorities, sometimes shows red claws and tongue ('error' page by ministry of the Flemish Community) but often a completely black version and is also shown by undisputedly non-extremist organizations linking to the Flemish govenrment. Can you provide both versions licenced to be depicted on this Wikipedia? Note however that this version might not necessarily a flag to represent the Flemish people, but merely a logo specific Flemish institutions. A note about this logo should be in the article so as not to misinterpret that kind of entirely black lion. — SomeHuman 2 Mar2007 00:38 (UTC)

First of all ownership of the article, saying one should leave such an issue to experts has nothing to do with such, only that you should edit that which you can support. I could also point to wikipedia:Reliable sources, the reference I used is a specialized Secondary Source, while yours is a non specialized Tertiary source which is considered less reliable. Pointing to official government sanction seems irrelevant for the simple reason that these are not specialised in heraldry and errors are quite common with them. As to the very inclusion of the coat of arms, that was to minimalise legendary (not based on historic fact, or to be exact contradicting historic documentation) use of the flag or the lion as a symbol. As to your last entry, that's indeed a logo based on a coat of arms, these are quite common but don't fall under heraldry (though it might be worth including in the article). I will now only correct your errors in the article, considering how you have better access to Belgian legal documents I wonder whether you could try and find the actual laws defining the flag.

I will remove all mention of other Belgian or non Belgian flags as explaining the correct relationship (or lack thereof) with that of Flanders is too complex for this article.--Caranorn 13:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Website Vlamingen in de Wereld

This is a commercial website selling services to expatriates, and not a reliable source for population figures. If it cites official statistics, then these should be given as the reference, and not the website.Paul111 10:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a commercial website. See e.g. statutes of unpaid representatives of the "Stichting VIW". The term 'stichting' (foundation) is not used for commercial organizations. It does not only 'sell sevices' (regular magazines of non-profit organizations are rarely free) but also offers a free service. And as its interest is helping out expatriates in cooperation with embassies, and its homepage states "with the support of the Flemish government": their data is not going to be over-the-top or otherwise highly questionable. It may not be the most absolutely authoritative source, but it is definitely not an unrealiable source. If you find official statistics that disprove any of its figures, your data will be taken into account; Wikipedia mustnot await official data, there is not the least indication of 'official' data even to automatically supercede unofficial sources. You simply have no right to remove content that is properly verifiably sourced to Wikipedia standards, and that is the case. — SomeHuman 2 Mar2007 00:17 (UTC)

Please give a URL for the web page with the statistics, as it is not on the home page of the site.Paul111 12:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC) I found the figures, which are in the Shockwave intro graphic, and restored them to the table. However, since the graphic gives no official source, it would be better if one was provided.Paul111 12:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Flemish as ethnic group

Top line of the article: "This article is about the Flemish as an ethnic group". Paul111's intro had it about 'including immigrants' (who may become ethnically Flemish only after a few generations) and also otherwise simply about the people of the Flemish Community, that's another article. Do not understand me wrongly, see also my comments on this talk page of 7 Sep2006 18:43 and in particular of 20 Feb2007 03:56-06:04, but it's this article. — SomeHuman 2 Mar2007 01:20 (UTC)

I changed the text of the top line. The article is not about the Flemish ethnic group, whose existence is disputed anyway, but about the Flemish people. Claims that immigrants are not Flemish are controversial. The article should certainly describe these views, which are common in Flanders, but should not present them as fact.Paul111 12:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Flanders the Lion

I just realised that section makes even less sense then I'd at first supposed. Does anyone have a source by that Eug. Sanders to look this up? Maybe it's just a bad translation. 1) It's unlikely (almost impossible) that a motto would be on someone's coat of arms. 2) The nobles in question fought in the ranks of the (absent) count of Flanders, I might have a source (website of a reenactment society, while I fear they might have a slight political agenda their historical material seems accurate).

The motto "Vlaenderen den Leeuw" (Flanders the lion) was according to Eug. Sanders present on the arms of Pieter de Coninck at the Battle of the Golden Spurs on July 11, 1302. Some three hundred noble people shouted it too when they saw, having fought in the French rows, that chances were turning in favour of the Flemish. In Spiegel Historiael, Louis van Velthem also refers to the lion in a song describing the battle of Blangys-Guinegatte (which took place in August 1472). Later, Hendrik Conscience used the motto in his Lion of Flanders.

--Caranorn 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, I just edited that section but it should be proofread by someone else as I fear it's still confusing (essentially the militia seems to have had trouble differentiating between noble troops from both camps, also one (the terrain was another factor, but noble cavalry rarely let such details dictate their actions as the French actions nicely show;-)) of the probable reason for those Flemish noblemen fighting on foot). I also added a fact tag to the first sentence as I find it dubious, correct sourcing would help.--Caranorn 14:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

flag, coat of arms etc.

I really hate to have to revert these kinds of edits, but I could justifiably lable them as nonsense. So lets in the future first try to discuss them unless you can provide a source right away.

1) claws and nails are one and the same thing.

2) I'm not sure whetehr Flanders (the region) currently has a coat of arms, if it does it will not be different from the official flag, I can assure you of that.

3) The relationship between the coats of arms of the counts of Flanders and the dukes of Brabant are much more complex. Part of that is also rooted in legend (the tinctures/colours of the arms of Flanders, supposed existance of the old coat of arms (billety azure and or, an escutcheon gules (iirc)) in the colours of France, new coat of arms of the d'Alsace using the colours of Germany/Empire (or and sable) etc. I don't recall the entire history offhand (as I tend to look at heraldics as a whole, not just the coat of arms of one person/entity) so I would have to look it up to expand if needed. But that would go well beyond the scope of this article. Maybe an article about the heraldic of the Low Countries (Netehrlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, but even extending into parts of France and Germany, heck even the Scotish Royal Arms belong (as they are the origin of the arms of Holland...), but that would be a lot of work, and almost certainly original research (I have no problem with OR, I I actually do heraldic research, but it has no place in Wikipedia).

Note I could find several dozen similar arms with no apparent connections, or at least none commonly known (Jülich/Juliers is a good example).--Caranorn 15:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"2) I'm not sure whetehr Flanders (the region) currently has a coat of arms, if it does it will not be different from the official flag, I can assure you of that." A coat of arms is used on the website of the Flemish Parliament [1] and it does appear to be exactly the same as the official flag.--Ganchelkas 16:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Normally, the colours for a coat of arms are given and golden is in a flag replaced with yellow for practical reasons: one could not dye cloth golden and goldthread would have made flags unaffordable. In colour printing, the gold of a coat of arms is usually yellow for analogous reasons (while in pure black print, one has a convention to represent heraldic colours by striping and hatching); and also on web pages, it is not obvious to render gold well on all systems: the "web-safe colors" do not include any gold. Nevertheless, the name of the colour is not "yellow" —heraldic names like 'sable', 'gules', 'azure', etc correspond to black, red, [a shade different from the printing or web colour named] blue and it is correct to use generally known names of what in heraldry are called "the colours", but follow this link:'or' is golden, not its poor replacement colour yellow, and belongs to what in heraldry are called "the metals" — and in top quality printing (like the page of the Verschueren dictionary mentioned as reference for an officially recognized variant of East Flanders' flag) or on an actual shield (or e.g. small pins etc) the actual metallic golden is rendered. I remember to have read that the Flemish (I think it was:) Community, actually officially named "yellow" for its flag but used the name of the metal for the coat of arms.

I see no acceptable reason for Caranorn's removal of this:

It may be noted that the historically equally important Dukes of Brabant, whose duchy's major part was in the centre of the nowadays Flemish Region and Community, had an identical coat of arms but for the reversed colours.

Readers may be interested in having the opportunity to realize what is rather common knowledge in the Flemish Comunity: that both the figure of the rampant lion and the colours that occur in the present-day symbol, were not only familiar to a minority portion of the Flemish Community (as if that minority would have become dominating) but were with a "minor" difference regarded as the local historical symbol in 4 out of 5 current provinces (which indeed were dominating with respect to Limburg, the notoriously usually forgotten and left behind province); and that not the County of Flanders as the name suggests, but in fact the Duchy's centre (East-to-West geographically and even more exact politically) coincided with the present-day central area of the Flemish Community. Perhaps it could be WP:OR if I were to explicitly point out what I just wrote here, but there is absolutely no original research and no undue weight in the sentence as I had phrased in the article. Hence an illustrating image was proper as well. Perhaps I should have made a minor addition in the phrase to point out the still modern relevance:

It may be noted that the historically equally important Dukes of Brabant, whose duchy's major part was in the centre of the nowadays Flemish Region and Community, had an identical coat of arms but for the reversed colours. It is still the centrepiece in the coat of arms of Belgium and had remained for its former Province of Brabant, and largely survives in the arms of the Province of Flemish Brabant.

I don't see where Caranorn gets the idea that one should or should not mention the 'more complex relationship' between both coats of arms, my sentence does not suggest some historical review about comparing the arms: this article is about Flemish people and the section about their symbols, and the historical Duchy is undisputedly as relevant as the County, hence mentioning its historical symbol is equally relevant: Indeed it would be out of place to present some in-depth comparison of the heraldic origin of the symbols, what I mention is what the average Flemish is normally aware of. It does not necessarily belong in the articles about the Flemish Region or the Flemish Community which only require official information unless notable sources provide a different version or addition.
By the way, Caranorn, if it would be to your personal interest: I found a same older authoritative heraldic source quoted at several internet sites, stating that "Phillippe d'Alsace" was "Count of Flanders and Brabant" from ... till ... (forgot what years). I'm well aware that there used to be a County of Brabant once (though not very well comparable with the Duchy). Only on one of those sites I saw that this reliable source had mentioned such only in an early edition, and not in a few later editions; hence that information might be unreliable.

— SomeHuman 18 Mar2007 20:07 (UTC)

Well finding Phillippe of Alsace as count of Brabant would be very odd to say the least. Brabant has it's origins in the counts of Louvain who ruled the counties of Louvain, Brussels, Antwerpen and the later duchy of Brabant (at first using the title duke of Lower-Lotharingia) from the early 11th century till the mid 14th century. Of course there were a number of marriages into the families of the counts of Flanders, dukes of Lorraine or the counts of Hainaut. Concerning a single county of Brabant, I don't think such ever existed, maybe you are thinking of the pagus of Bracbantum or Bracbantensis which later gave its name to the duchy...

Anyhow, back to the actual topic. Coats of arms with the Lion are very common in the Low Countries as a whole (Dutch speaking, French speaking, German speaking or Luxembourgish speaking). By the way, the lion of Limburg is related to that of Brabant (Brabant seems to have changed tinctures at one point from gules a lion argent to the much better known sable a lion or, Limburg inverted the tinctures, both those coats of arms (another derivation are the arms of Louvain, Bouillon and/or Vianden with gules a fess argent) have their origin in thos of the Ardennes family dukes of Lower-Lotharingia. The lion of Flanders on the other hand might have been the influence for the apparition of most other Lions in local coats of arms (though an alternative theory is the corruption of a wolf banner of the Ardennes family...). But the tinctures of both the arms of Flanders and those of Brabant seem to be based on the tinctures of the coat of arms of the King of Germans (Roman Emperor) who bore or an eagle sable... So it's a very long story and closely related to history, genealogy and heraldics of the entire Low Countries. In general it should be noted that the tinctures/colours of coats of arms are usually regional, in this case based on the arms of the Staufen dynasty, in other parts of the Low Countries on those of the Ardennes dynasty etc.

One possible solution might be to list the major fiefs, with their coats of arms, within the territory of modern Flanders. Essentially the counts of Flanders, the dukes of Brabant (without going into the detail of Louvain, Brussels and Antwerpen), the bishops of Liège (without the detail of Bouillon), the counts of Loon (rather then the dukes of Limburg as the current province of Belgium/Flanders is actually the old county, the duchy being almost completely in the Netherlands) etc. I'm not even entirely certain which old fiefs are within the Flemish Region (note, after some consideration mention of Liège in this context is not correct, it should be Loon).--Caranorn 11:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The following is an attempt to include the above mentionned material. I'm not sure where exactly to place it in the article and it probably requires corrections, which is why I post it here first. The least need not be considered complete either (I did not add Liège as it also mostly lies outside the Flemish Region and it's arms are quite complicated, I did not mention Antwerp as as far as I can tell only the city had old arms (the marquis in heraldic times always being the duke of Brabant iirc). I still wouldn't include images of the individual coats of arms as the purpouse of that entire section was to explain the origins of the Flemish Lion. If images should be included after all I'd recommend using very small ones from either a single artist or alternatively drawing on a single database (french Projet Blason for instance) so that their overall appearance is similar.
In addition to the county of Flanders, other medieval fiefs within the modern day Flemish region also had coats of arms or flags:

• The dukes of Brabant used a golden lion on a black field (sable a lion rampant gules (later also armed and langued gules)).
• The counts and later dukes of Limburg (whose old territories mainly lay within the modern Netherlands) had a red lion on a white field (argent a lion rampant gules (later also queue fourché in saltire, armed langued and crowned or)).
• The counts of Loon used a coat of arms divided into ten horizontal sections alternatively coloured yellow and red (burely or and gules).
• The counts or lords of Leuven bore a red coat of arms with a horizontal stripe (gules a fess argent).

--Caranorn 12:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you do not understand, Caranorn: My inclusion is not about heraldry, a topic few people know much about, it is about what modern Flemish people are aware of — only that is relevant to "Flemish people". To my text one could merely add that the Belgian or Flemish Province of Limburg has a rampant lion flag with different colours. In Belgium (outside Limburg, I assume), a Duchy of Limburg or its duke's coat of arms are generally never heard of, the Prince-Bishopric of Liège is better known even by Flemish people. — SomeHuman 20 Mar2007 01:38 (UTC)

The problem is that what you are talking about is unencyclopedic. I don't see how one could add something that's incorrect or at best incomplete. If you look at the modern community then there is only one symbol (with variants) in the form of a coat of arms, that's Flanders. If you look at the local levels within the regions there will be dozens. Including the coat of arms of Brabant is giving undue weight to one local area over others. If you just want to say that Flanders is not the only old territory with a lion coat of arms you could say that the lion was a common armorial charge in the old Low Countries... Saying that the coats of arms of Flanders and Brabant are identical is incorrect as they are clearly distinctive (inversion of tinctures does not lead to an identical coat of arms, at best to a related one (in this case not even that)). For the rest, if a duke of Limbourg is little known in Belgium today that points towards very sloppy history teaching as in older Belgian histories Brabant's conquest of Limbourg (1288) was seen as a founding event for the much later Belgium. But then one should not base an encyclopedia on sloppy history teachings, rather on (modern) historic research (to note, even the old history teachings about these events were problematic as they were tainted with nationalism as in 1288 no one was thinking of a future Belgium or even about a separation of Brabant from the Roman Empire).--Caranorn 14:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Flemings are people from the southern Netherlands

I think you can't consider Flemings as being Dutch, but I think that it's obvious that Dutch and Flemings have one thing in common; both are the people of the Netherlands (Lowlands). Both of them talk a common language and the county's (gewesten) shared a long common history. So it is true that there is difference between Dutch and Flemings. But there is also a difference between Groningers and Limburgers. And I'm sure that Limburgers have a lot more in common with people from Hasselt than people from Delfzijl (dialect, religion, bourgondic lifestyle etc.) So I consider the use of term 'Flemings' or ‘Dutch’ more as a regionalism and I think that all the Dutch-speaking people in this region make part of the people from the Netherlands.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.95.65.76 (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Beginning with historical meanings, as well as current

The introduction should be clear about the difference between the modern, northern-Belgium meaning and the broader, historical meaning as used in 'Flemish painting' or 'Franco-Flemish composers', including Romance Flanders. At the moment people like Robert Campin and Rogier van der Weyden (de la Pasture) are being linked back here as if they were Flemings in the first sense. 198.54.202.214 19:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Or stop using 'Fleming' in the second sense and, for example, call 'Flemish Painting' 'Art of the Low Countries'. 196.25.255.214 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed?

Can someone explain me what specific sections or sentences are totally disputed? Sijo Ripa 14:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The tag was added by an annon yesterday.--Caranorn 11:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

on Flemings

Flemings are not a real average ethnic group ... we (im one myself) are more a people with a certain culture ... I like the number article by Rex Germanuis over the whole ' germanic/celtic crap'. 145.93.123.60 Also ... thogh shorter, its beter readable with more strukture.145.93.123.60 08:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are good points, but they probably need to be addressed progressively. There is a lot of referenced material, which may or may not be crap, but the elimination of which should at least be discussed.CyrilleDunant 08:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You did not discuss why this flawed version is to stay either!145.93.123.60 (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic part of article

• I have not been on Wiki in quite some time, but what happened to the ethnic group aspect to this article ??? Why is it merely on Flemish nationals or inhabitants of Flanders ??? Epf (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely there must be some kind of cencencus reached on what the ethnicy is of flemish people, by scholars and historicans? Which writers actually believe the flemish are an ethnic group? Flemish merely denotes the inhabitants of flanders and their dialect, nothing more nothing less. I haven't studied much of this, but aren't flemish people quite obvious dutch as an ethnic group? They share the same background up until the dutch republic was formed. What different ancestors do they have? The only part where it starts getting blurry is the connection with the walloons who have celtic descent, doesn't it? - PietervHuis (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Appending rewrite of article

Given the state of this cesspool of an article, I will rewrite this article as soon as the Dutch article is in a state I consider to be reasonable. This will result in the following major changes:

• No references to any ethnic-related issues. The Flemish are not an ethnicity.
• Toning down of nationalist issues. Too many black lions on yellow flags.

HP1740-B (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you prove the first statement? SPQRobin (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to, I have a whole list of authors who already did it for me. If you'd read the Dutch article you would have known that.HP1740-B (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

HP1740-B, please do not take controversial decisions without obtaining a consensus first. Sijo Ripa (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

HP1740-B, as you can see: me and SPQRobin, disagree with your decision. In other words: it is clear that so far your major overhaul does not have support, on the contrary. The best thing for us to do, is to discuss these changes, be patient (there is no rush), and gradually hear the opinions of other Wikipedians on this matter. In the meantime, I kindly ask you to refrain from radically changing the article. Thanks in advance. Sijo Ripa (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Prove me wrong, because quite frankly I do not care wether you disagree or not, only if you can explain with referenced material why you do. So in the meantime, leave alone a thorough revision of an article. Please.HP1740-B (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as an offtopic note: An attitude of "I don't care" is not the most appropriate attitude on Wikipedia. We should all care about the normal process to change pages. We had a well-established article, in a consensus version, about a well-known ethnic group, which you have radically overhauled without providing any references on your part, knowingly that your edit is not supported by other editors. In all circumstances, you have to agree, this is not the most constructive approach possible. Good, here some quickly found google links that say that Flemings are an ethnic group (I just selected the first links I found; for some links use the search function: Ctrl-F): http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ethnic+group; http://www.intercultures.ca/cil-cai/country_overview-en.asp?ISO=BE ; http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6355452/Ethnic-conflicts-Flemings-Walloons-Palestinians.html; http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Belgium-ETHNIC-GROUPS.html; http://www.jstor.org/pss/1043226; http://www.adherents.com/adhloc/Wh_34.html; http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/634957/750/The-ethnic-and-linguistic-composition-of-Belgium; http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=EFC3FBFD42C37FA991550A0B54A577A1.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=1192876; http://www.freedomhouse.org/modules/mod_call_dsp_country-fiw.cfm?year=2003&country=345; http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/belgiums_identity_crisis_5945 etc... On one google page, we have one dictionary, two internationally respected think tanks, two encyclopedia (including the Brittanica), and two academic articles calling Flemings an ethnic group... Don't understand me wrong: I do not say that there aren't social scientists or others saying that Flemings do not constitute an ethnic group, but then we just add a criticism section to the article. Sijo Ripa (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You forget a very important matter; that in English "ethnicity" is more of an everyday word than in Dutch, and as a result has a much broader range of use, not all correct for use in articles on ethnic groups. For example in the US I could say that my ethnicity is white or Mexican, even though both are incorrect, as white would be my complexion and Mexican would be my (previous) nationality. So don't get too itchy on your google searches. You see, and this is a mistake SPQRobin continues to make (probably because he doesn't read what I write correctly) I do not deny that there are people called Flemish, I deny that they constitute a separate ethnicity. For which statement I have an array of sources, rather than free dictionaries and google searches. It's a statement not only easily backed up by sources, but also by simple thinking; if the Flemish are a separate group, then why is every aspect of "their" culture identical or intertwined with that of the Netherlands' Dutch? The rewrite did not imply a removal of the Flemish, it simply made a clear divide between the culture and political aspirations some of the have. Which isn't the case with the current: cesspool. HP1740-B (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You always come up with a new argument. Why would the English word would have a broader meaning than the Dutch word? And where is your array of sources? SPQRobin (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if the meaning of the concept would be different in English, this is the English Wikipedia... In addition, the sources that I gave, come from reliable and notable publishers (eg. The Brittanica) and cannot be wiped of the table as easily as you state. In your opinion, which type of source is needed? And would you be able to provide reliable and notable sources that Flemings are in fact a sub-group of Dutch people? This point would in my opinion form an interesting and valuable addition to this article. Sijo Ripa (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed this is the English wikipedia, and on it articles are written based on the vocabulary of their respective fields. An antropologist, wether English or Dutch, does not use "ethnicity" as loosely as the everyman. I also do not state that the Flemish are a subgroup of "Dutch people" they are eponymous with the Dutch people. Being of Dutch ethnicity doesn't mean one can't form a community. "Dutch" here is used in the ethnic sense, which does not refer to nationals of the Netherlands. HP1740-B (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you mention your sources, so that we can include the criticism in the article? Also, many academic articles do consider Flemings an ethnic group (two on one google page, and I'm sure that I can provide more). If it's a dispute in academic circles, this can be mentioned in the article. Btw, if I use the well-known definition of an "ethnic group" - a group of human beings whose members identify with each other - I also do not see why Flemings would not be an ethnic group. My impression (which is not a real argument) is that most Flemings do consider them as one group, different from other ethnic groups, who can easily identify each other (and who is different), and have their own shared history, culture, government, media and dialects. Sijo Ripa (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

See the Dutch article, you'll find references there. Also, your 'sources' do not work out. Britannica has a standard form of ethnicities and linguistic groups/minorities. You'll find that it only talks of Flemish as speakers of the Dutch language in Belgium. Also, if ethnicity only meant that it constitutes a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, every soccer team would be an ethnicity. It's quite a bit more complex than that. It also demands recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits. You seem to confuse nation with ethnicity. A common mistake.22:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

/ Using Brittanica as a standard is quite ridiculous. Brittanica even doesn't know of the existence of the Flemish Community! It only knows the medieval Flanders and the Flemish Region. However, the comptemporary Flemish Region has 'ceased' all practical activity, and left all its competencies to the Flemish Community. One might even say that Brittanica really doesn't understand the current institutions, as it speaks about a governement of the Flemish Region, whereas there is no such government. Therefore, this omission is quite telling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.190.210 (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Value of your only source

Apart from the fact that I found nowhere any statement that Flemish are of Dutch ethnicity, your only source seems to have little value.

• In the summary, the only information I can read about Flemings as an ethnic group or not, was "This book is a (...) history of the Flemish realisation." (for those who can't read Dutch: with "realisation" in the sense of "became aware of") and "A mysterious personage -a Fleming, not a Fleming?- tries to explain the king how the Flemings became a people." If there was really an important conclusion in this book that Flemings are Dutch, it would have been in that summary.
• Then I found a fragment of this book. I cite (translated): "Back to my Flemings. Who are they? What do they do? Where are they? Well, Sire, that's pretty obvious. There are lots of West Flemings and there are lots of East Flemings and that's it. Point out." So it explicitly says a Flemish people exist, although the Brabantians and Limburgian people are nowadays also Flemish, but he says it's not.
  • The conclusion below kind of contradicts this. So are we going to use books that contradicts itself?
• And what about the value of the author. When searching for information about him, he seems to be no linguist or expert about this. He's a writer.

SPQRobin (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

When you try get excitement in a book its common not to reveal a conclusion at the start. I doesn't make a very interesting read. Your assumptions are wrong. Furthermore, I'm once more gobsmacked by your absolute ignorance. Did you actually bold "people" and "Flemish" to prove that Flemish are a ethnicity? Are you serious?! Because you've convinced me you are unable to understand me in English, I'll turn my hopes to Dutch: Ik kan het je nog twintig keer uitproberen te leggen, maar je kan of wil het gewoon niet snappen. Het woord 'volk' en 'ethniciteit' zijn niet identiek. Niet in het Nederlands en niet in het Engels. De Nederlandse cultuur is, net als de Nederlandse taal meer dan Nederland. Dat er Vlamingen zijn, zal niemand ontkennen, maar dat maakt hen nog geen eigen etniciteit. Ik hoop dat je het snapt, je maakt mensen die er wel verstand van hebben in ieder geval erg moe.HP1740-B (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That said, the image of "my only source" is wrong. I do not base myself on a single source, and even if I was, it would still be 1 reference more than yours.21:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that the whole concept of ethnicity is a very difficult one, with many often conflicting opinions, even among scientists. The only think I can conclude to be TRUE without much doubt is that both the Dutch and the Flemish are human beings. Further subdivisions can and have been contested. I f we take that line, the whole ethnic groups idea should be abandoned. If we don't want to do that we will have to live with fuzzy definitions, and the subsequent lack of a single TRUTH. Arnoutf (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the fact is that many reliable and notable sources call Flemings an ethnic group. If other sources dispute this, the article should mirror both views, and not take one side (which would be a clear example of POV). A de facto blanking of the page would mean that one view is completely ignored. Sijo Ripa (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that if the "many reliable and notable sources" you refer to are those earlier mentioned by you, then they were discredited yesterday.JSYKHP1740-B (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No you (HP1740-B) questioned their reliability and relevance; that is something else entirely from discrediting. Arnoutf (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you ignore common sense, then indeed you are right Arnoutf. But only then.HP1740-B (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you define common sense as exclusively that which editor HP1740-B or anyone who fully agrees with him says; regardless of different views, arguments or evidence, in that case; but only in that case you are indeed right. But only then. Arnoutf (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking about developments in the Southern Netherlands under the Habsburgs during the first half of the 17th century, Geoffrey Parker, in his highly influential book The Dutch Revolt, notes the following:

"Gradually a consistent attitude emerged, a sort of 'collective identity' which was distinct and able to resist the inroads, intellectual as well as military, of both the Dutch (especially during the crisis of 1632) and the French. This embryonic 'national identity' was an impressive monument to the government of the archdukes, and it survived almost forty years of gruelling warfare (1621-59) and the invasions of Louis XIV until, in 1700, the Spanish Habsburgs died out." (Penguin edition 1985, p. 260)

In other words, this historian observes that even as early as in the 17th century the Northern and Southern Netherlanders were already growing apart. Religious dissension (Catholicism vs. Protestantism) played a major role in this. The statement that Flemish people are part of the Dutch ethnic group seems problematic at least. Or is Parker's observation wrong because it is not in accordance with HP1740-B's views? Iblardi (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with ....

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

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

blanking etc.

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

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

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

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

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

Pan-Netherlandic Dutchification

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

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

No pictures of famous Flemish people in the infobox?

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

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

Sentence in lede section

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

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

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

Ancestry/Belgian-born

Can we maybe start distinguishing between Flemish ancestry and Flemish-born in the infobox. This has been done on the article Dutch people and I was wondering if we could differentiate between the two by colouring numbers perhaps? Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Completely wrong

"However, when compared to the Netherlands some of these cultural and linguistic differences quickly fade, as the Flemish share the same language, similar or identical customs and (though only with the southern part of today's Netherlands) traditional religion with the Dutch.[10] "

All this is completely wrong. I'm Flemish myself, and believe me we are completely different from the Dutch. The only thing we share is the language, but our customs, religion and cultural characteristics are completely different. I will even say that we are much closer to the French (people from France). I can say this based on my own experience and http://geert-hofstede.com/ (national and organisational culture research). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.117.249.239 (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to elaborate on this. I have difficulties imagining that Flemish people could be culturally closer to Brittons and Basques and Auvergnians and Provencians (who are quite contrasted to each other, incidentally) than they are to people who live a few tens of kilometres from their home. Rama (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It all depends on how you define "culture". In terms of "creative culture", I think that Flanders is closer to the Netherlands than to any other culture, but in terms of "personal and societal values", I think they are by far the closest to Wallonia. Does it really matter to whom they are the closest? It makes perhaps more sense to define and source what characteristics their culture has, in stead of on how it relates to others. Morgengave (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Highly disputable image in lead

Although the selection of people is probably well-meaning, it is also wrong: it attributes people to a cultural-linguistic group which did not even exist when some of these people were alive. Also highly disputable is the removal of the map of the flemish linguistic region, which is pretty central to what "flemish" is -- likely much more so than a selection of people which may or may not be considered part of that cultural-linguistic group.CyrilleDunant (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

When you get baptised you get registered as baptised for the Catholic Church. However when you "unbaptize" yourself, it has no influence on the subsidies for the Catholic Church in Belgium/Flanders. Rastanarcharismarx (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Pictures in the infobox

The infobox shows as Flemish people a picture of Eddy Merckx (born from a Flemish speaking father and a French speaking mother, what is called in Brussels a "zinneke") which is quite weird, knowing that he has never defined himself as a Fleming. But what is even more amazing in the infobox is to find Lara Fabian as example of Flemish people. If one really wants to have a representative of the Flemish show business, I think that Jacques Brel is a much better example than Lara Fabian. --Lebob (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with Fabian has been uttered before, I don't even see what her relationship to Flanders might be. As suggested, Merckx is not an unambiguous exemple as well, and Brel neither as he was only Flemish in origin. And people like Dottermans...? It might be time to update that pic once and for all. Jacques Rogge would definitely be a worthy candidate, for instance. The discussion would be best held on WP.NL though. --Midas02 (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If one wants to show the picture of a "true Flemish" stamped cycling champion there is plenty of choice from Briek Schotte to Tom Boonen through Rik Van Steenbergen, Rik Van Looy, Roger De Vlaeminck, Johan Museeuw and so many others. With respect to Jacques Brel the song "Le plat pays" (i.e. "mijn vlakke land") has not much to do with south Belgium but much more with Flanders. But I can understand that after fr:Les flamingants showing a picture of Jacques Brel as a Fremish person could be viewed as a kind of provocation. I think that Axelle Red could be a good alternative. --Lebob (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)