Jump to content

Talk:Flemish people/Archive 3

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

Requested move 31 October 2014

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion is: not moved. There is an absence of consensus to move this article from its long-standing title. Although the arguments in support of moving the page are valid - conciseness, consistency, and commonality are important considerations - however, opposers have pointed out that "Flemings" is frequently found in Google searches being used to reference other topics, and that it is common to refer to other groups as "Foo people". Both names are found in reliable sources, and it is therefore not improper to maintain the current title. That being the case, a consensus in favor of moving is required to effect a change in the longstanding state of the article. bd2412 T 01:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Flemish people → Flemings – Ethnic groups that have a singular non-gendered unambiguous name are usually labelled as such. See Hungarians, Swedes, Germans, Americans. Only in cases where such a form doesn't exist, as with French people or Japanese people, is the form "x people" used. Per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONCISE, this article should be moved. See others in Category:Ethnic groups in Europe. RGloucester — ☎ 17:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC) – RGloucester — ☎ 17:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
A news search indicates that "Flemings" is more commonly used for other topics in English, while Flemish people has no ambiguity in its use. --Yaksar (let's chat) 18:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no ambiguity in "Flemings", which is why it redirects to that article. It would only be ambiguous if there were another item that was called "Flemings" alone. There isn't, not on Wikipedia, and not anywhere else. We must be WP:CONCISE and CONSISTENT. Your search is bunk. RGloucester — ☎ 20:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
You're typing as though you didn't even click that link? Is Flemings the most common descriptor? No, it's the current title. Is the term "Flemings" primarily used in the English language to only refer to this topic? Evidently not.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't reveal anything. Just because there is a surname "Flemings" doesn't miraculously change the fact the most concise, consistent, and common name for these people is "Flemings", which has always been their name in English. Where do you think the surname came from? It is derived from the demonym. On Wikipedia, there is no ambiguity. Nothing else is called "Flemings", and "Flemings" has always redirected to the false construct of "Flemish people", which is both false and not concise. RGloucester — ☎ 23:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
By the way, one of the first results in your bunk search is this article, which refers to "Flemings", the people. RGloucester — ☎ 23:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I almost referred to that one, before noticing that, as the line in context is "waves of Franks, Flemings and Rhinelanders", it's not exactly a great indicator of the common and current names for groups of people.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I mean jesus, I tried to get results to come up for a google search for just "Flemings" and even when I kept requesting it not come up with other topics by including a "-" symbol I got impatient and couldn't. A search for Flemish people? First page, all relevant, no modifications needed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Flemings Belgium -Wikipedia, 121K hits has more than 5x the hits of "Flemish people" Belgium -Wikipedia, 22.6K hits. And all of them are relevant. Dekimasuよ! 07:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The proposed title is "Flemings", not "Flemish". There is no conflict with the language, as the language is not called "Flemings". The people are never referred to as "the Flemish". They are "the Flemings". RGloucester — ☎ 04:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The proposed title is being opposed if you wanted to remove people, the only acceptable title is "Flemish", which is already occupied. The people are quite clearly called the Flemish. [1][2] -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't normally do this, but thought I'd point out that Britannica calls them Flemings. So does the Columbia Encyclopedia, and the Oxford dictionaries. Dekimasuよ! 07:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • (Weak) Support. Not sure about this. On Google, 'Flemings' seems to refer to the people but also to a common British surname (same etymology), while 'Flemish people' seems to have significant usage as well, exclusively referring to the people. I don't think it matters much. Whatever we do, we can always refer to the other name in the lead. Morgengave (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Flemish has too many meanings — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDgeek1729 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand this either. "Flemish" is not a proposed title here. I proposed "Flemings", which is the name for the people. "Flemish" is a language/dialect. RGloucester — ☎ 03:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Talking about a bogus discussion. It would be nice if those who reply actually know something about Flanders. Flemings is the correct, but less known, English term for 'the Flemish people', 'the Flemish' being a colloquial and incorrect shortening. It's not because Flemings is less well known that it shouldn't be used. You could compare it to the misuse of Belgium as an adjective instead of Belgian, which you'll find all over the place as well. --Midas02 (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • When do reliable sources ever use "Belgium" as an adjective? No one is arguing that Flemings is not an accurate term for the people, just that because the current title is so much more widely used (and not, as you say, in any way incorrect) and does not suffer from any ambiguity it is a better title.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a reason why we have an article on Walloons, not Wallonian people, and Belgians, not Belgian people. RGloucester — ☎ 03:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A couple of these responses are clearly missing the point, but regardless, I agree fully with Yaksar. I would expect a modern-day Belgian to say "I'm Flemish", not "I'm a Fleming". For what it's worth, my spell-checker doesn't even recognize Flemings as a word. Red Slash 01:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Er, I think you've missed the point. The point of the form "Flemings" is not for self-identification. No one is likely to say "I'm a Briton", "I'm a Swede", "I'm a Japanese", or "I'm a Fleming". These forms are nounal, and only exist to replace pronouns. They are not meant to be used with pronouns, so your example is moot. With a pronoun, one uses the adjectival form. "the Flemings", or "two Flemings were killed", or "Flemings voted for a new parliament today" are appropriate uses of this grammatical form. RGloucester — ☎ 02:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Dekimasu, isn't it perhaps not a great sign that in the search for Flemings the first two results are not about this subject, and by the second page only 6 of the 10 are. On the third, 5 of 10 are. Once again I'm not trying to argue that this would not be the primary topic of the word "Flemings", just that is not the most recognizable due to its widespread use in other contexts and the overwhelmingly common usage of the current title.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The proposed title is actually far more common, and the current title isn't at all overwhelmingly common outside of Wikipedia, even when you account for the fact that some percentage of the results for "Flemings" apply to the surname. Flemings+Flanders, 206K in Google Books. (The top hit for me there also notes that people with the surname are thought to have descended from the Earl of Flanders.) "Flemish people"+Flanders, under 5K in Google Books. Dekimasuよ! 07:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Dekimasu, this is going to sound a bit convoluted at first, but bear with me. One of the issues here is that this is one of those cases where the current title includes what is used in more sources than just those that use "Flemish people". For example, let's look at a clearer case, that of English people. As the hatnote notes, an alternative (but obviously less used name) is Englishmen, which redirects there. And if you use the same ngram solution that you did for this case, it shows, somewhat surprisingly, that Englishmen is the preferred title. The same results is found for French people vs. Frenchmen. Or Dutch people vs. Netherlanders, where we would expect an obvious outcome but it actually seems to be more of a tie. Obviously we know these are not better titles, but how can this be explained? One of the reasons is that the use of the term "people" is both a precise but also a descriptive title. Meaning, when we say "Xhosa warriors chased the bear" or "Dutch nationalists destroyed the painting" or "the Vietnamese invented snowball fights" or "the Maltese discovered the Temple of Doom" despite the fact that we aren't saying "the Maltese people discovered" we would not argue that it was not about "Maltese people" or Xhosa people. These types of cases are in fact the most widespread use of these sorts of terms. The best title needs to capture this most common and recognizable use. Perhaps, in theory, "the Dutch" would be truly the proper title, but this suffers from obvious recognizability and simple appearance issues. Descriptive titles are perfectly fine if they are the best way to communicate what the subject is with an accurate and recognizable title, and is certainly preferable to one that is less common, less recognizable, or has any ambiguity.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I continue to be surprised by the assertion that "Flemings" isn't common or recognizable. It is not substantively different from Germans, Koreans, Brazilians, Australians, or Egyptians, to pick examples from five continents. This is not to say that the terms "German people," "Korean people," "Brazilian people," "Australian people," or "Egyptian people" don't exist, but they are certainly not more precise. If "the Brazilians invented snowball fights," this refers to Brazilians as clearly as to "Brazilian people," even when I mean something different by "Brazilian" when I say "I'm going to get a Brazilian." If "German nationalists destroyed the painting," this clearly refers to Germans, despite the existence of German (name). "Dutch" is not the proper title because of the conflict with the language, but that is not an issue for the term "Flemings." If it were as you say, the article on Flemish would properly be at Flemish language with a dab page at Flemish. Dekimasuよ! 08:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
These cases actually do fit into what I was saying above. In all of these, technically, the best title might be "the Dutch are a people who XXX" or "the Flemish are a people who XXXX". This is actually how we have the articles of Dutch people and English people formatted. The difference with the examples you gave is that the plural is distinguishable from other possible meanings of the term. Thus, we can say "the Germans are a people who XXXX" without any disambiguation needed. With cases like Flemish and Dutch, however, we can start the article with "The Dutch are XXXX" but since there's no distinguishing plural the title alone doesn't work. And unlike the cases above (there's no recognizability issue between Egyptians and Egyptian boxers "Flemings" does not capture the most common descriptive usage in the most recognizable manner. And this is all outside of the fact that there is some totally unrelated ambiguity in how the term "Flemings" is used. I am actually surprised that Flemish is not a dab page, however -- considering it basically means "of or associated with Flanders" I'm surprised it doesn't have the same navigation disambiguation as English, Russian, German, Finnish, Polish, etc.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
If we look at a google books search for "flemings are" we get more results than "Flemish people are". But if we look at results for "the flemish are" we get a lot more. Were the term "Flemish" to have no other meaning or association, this article could in theory be at simply that title (as it stands, however, that would obviously just be wrong) in the way that, for example, Hutu is as another ethnic group with the same plural as singular. But the current title both captures this common usage while still remaining naturally descriptive and indicative.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "the Flemish". There is only "Flemings" or "the Flemings", and occasionally "the Flemish people". "Flemings" only every refers to the people, and is the most concise and recognisable term. Your comparisons are by-and-large moot, as most of them compare different grammatical forms. "the Dutch" is a different grammatical form from "Dutchmen". "Dutchmen" is equivalent to "Germans", or to "Flemings". "the Dutch" is equivalent to "the British". It uses the adjectival form, rather than the nounal form. We never use the definite article form "the Dutch" on Wikipedia. Never. We either use the plural nounal demonym, such as Germans or Austrians, or we use "adjectival people", such as English people or Scottish people. The reasons why we use the people form are simple: we use it when there is no un-gendered unambiguous plural nounal demonym. I.e. we do not use "Englishmen" because of the gendering, and we do not use "Scots" because it is ambiguous (it can refer to a language, amongst other things). However, if the plural nounal demonym is available, it must be used as the most WP:CONCISE title. "Flemings" is unambiguous, un-gendered, WP:CONCISE, and all-around ideal. RGloucester — ☎ 18:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I mean, as [usage in google books shows], you are quite wrong. You're also completely and utterly wrong about "the Dutch" too.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I've rubbished your rubbish search for "the Flemish are" below. As far as the "the Dutch" is concerned, I never said that that was wrong. I said it was a different grammatical form. I am talking about the nounal form referring to the people as a whole, which is Dutchmen. The adjectival form referring to the people as a whole is "the Dutch". Both are acceptable, but are used in different contexts. Gendered forms are largely depreciated at this point, which is why we don't use "Englishmen" or "Irishmen" that frequently. RGloucester — ☎ 00:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but given that most overwhelming usage of references to the people are using the adjectival form, it would be silly to discount these in our goal to find the most common and recognizable name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I personally am very familiar with "the Flemish", and certainly recognize "Flemish people", but "Flemings" is totally foreign to me. But none of this matters. The links posted by Dekimasu are persuasive. I've got nothing to oppose with other than JDLI, and I, for one, am not going to do that. --В²C ☎ 06:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It is commonly used, it is the correct term, and it is the most WP:CONCISE. There is absolutely no reason why this article should be an outlier. RGloucester — ☎ 17:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Dekimasu and В²C, honestly, I just read my comments above, and I realized I made them far wordier than it should be. Simply put, the IP above phrased it better and correctly. The most common term is simply "the Flemish", just like it is for "the Dutch", "the Russians", "the Germans" or "the English". The issue, of course, is that since the plural and singular are the same for Dutch, Flemish, and English we need some kind of distinguisher. People serves that purpose. A search on google books shows that Flemish is more commonly used than Flemings.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This is, frankly, wrong and rubbish. Perhaps you failed in your search, dear fellow. If you'd have searched for "the Flemings are", you'd have got many more results than for "the Flemish are". By the way, you are also failing at English grammar, given that you can't distinguish between nounal and adjectival forms. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Eek, I meant to use that point just to prove you're wrong that "the Flemish" is not an unused term. Common usage would need to add usage of "the Flemish" to other adjectival uses referring to the people that all use the term "Flemish".--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. The only form you are proposing is "Flemish people", so that search doesn't even really apply. Unless you are proposing that this article be moved to "Flemish", since we don't use definite articles in titles here. That would never be acceptable, as it is ambiguous. You can't equate someone saying "I'm Flemish" to "Flemings". They're different grammatical forms, and serve different purposes. All Flemings are also Flemish. Let's also not forget that there are other title criteria. "Flemings" is the most WP:PRECISE, as it can only refer to the people. It is the most commonly used way to refer to the people. It is the most WP:CONCISE. Therefore, it wins out over the false construct of "Flemish people", which you've not even provided a search for. RGloucester — ☎ 00:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, let's address 2 points. Is "Flemish people" an accurate and used name? Yes, obviously. Does it also capture the adjectival use of the term, which is how it is most commonly used and is most recognizable? Yes. We should not be dismissing all adjectival use of the term if its an indicator of the most recognizable name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you demonstrated that "Flemish people" is accurate and used? No. You've only provided a search for "the Flemish". What's more, you've failed to grasp that we are naming an article about the people as a collective group. The usual way to refer to the people as a collective groups is as "Flemings". "Flemish" is used to refer to things from Flanders generally, and also as a personal adjective. It is not the most common way to the people as a third-person collective, the most common being Flemings. You've still done nothing to counter WP:CONCISE, because you can't. You ignore the title criteria. Your title is bunk. RGloucester — ☎ 00:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to give up on dealing with you, because if you can't even at least acknowledge that the heavy usage of the term "the Flemish are", which can only be used to refer to the people. is proof that the "Flemish" is a used title than you are being too stubborn to convince of anything.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Rubbish, because as I've said, my issue is not whether "the Flemish" is used. You've not proposed that the title of this article should be "the Flemish", you've proposed that it should be "Flemish people". Yet, you've provided no justification for such, which flies in the face of common usage and WP:CONCISE. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The adjectival use is acceptable but not desirable - we should avoid if possible. The proposed title is an acceptable alternative that allows us to avoid it. Furthermore, I'm getting 15,200 for "the Flemish are" and 28,900 for "the Flemings are" in Google Books. They are both common, but the latter is more common. --В²C ☎ 00:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I included the term "Belgium" to avoid cases like "the Flemings are a family with 5 dogs". I'm also basing this argument on google search and news just as much as books, since with titles an important priority is recognizability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
When including the term "Belgium" in both searches (apples to apples) I get 7,540 and 9,900, still favoring Flemings. It would really need to be overwhelming in favor of Flemish to justify the adjectival use in the title. --В²C ☎ 01:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I believe Fleming is rather archaic. Looking at Google News, I found "Flemish people" used three times (in the Financial Times, Russia Today and the Camden New Journal. The only use of Fleming was by a Belgian expat website. A similar search on the BBC News site showed exclusive use of "Flemish people" - I didn't find a single use of Fleming apart from as a surname or in the comments section. A similar example is the fact that we have British people not Britons, as the latter term is less common and somewhat archaic. Number 57 16:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Absolute and total rubbish. Please find sources that say that "Fleming" is archaic. In fact, we've provided detailed searches that find that "Fleming" is much more common than "Flemish people". The OED does not describe it as archaic. Nor do the variety of scholarly sources that use it, nor does the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which uses it. Did you ignore all the evidence we provided that "Flemings" is the most common name? The books, the dictionaries, the encylopaedias, the searches? No. You didn't. Instead, you comment without any backing in sources, without any backing anywhere that it is not "common". Except, the sources say otherwise. Is this book from 2010 "archaic" because it uses the word "Flemings"? Is the Encyclopaedia of European Peoples (2006) "archaic" because it has an entry on "Flemings"? NO!!!! "Flemings" is the most common name in reliable sources, and we've repeatedly provided them. Instead of actually reading the sources we've provided, you come in with WP:OR about what is "most common" because you don't like the proposed title. That's rubbish, and should be ignored. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The preponderance of sources use "Flemings". It is clear. Evidence has been provided, and yet, none has been provided to support "Flemish people". RGloucester — ☎ 17:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence

"Most people of Flanders, called Flemings, speak Flemish, ..."[3]

--В²C ☎ 17:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well, that's where you see even Britannica can go wrong. Flemish is not a language. Do Scotsmen speak Scottish, no they don't, it's just English (with a regional twist). Likewise Flemings don't speak Flemish, they speak Dutch (Belgian Dutch, South Dutch or Flemish Dutch to be precise, coded nl-be). And in their home, they speak Flemish dialects. But those are dialects, not a language. It's just a very common misconception in the English speaking world to call Belgian Dutch Flemish. The five-tiered approach to Flemish on WP.NL is the only good explanation I know of, for those who take an interest. --Midas02 (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
We, the Lowland Scots, traditionally speak the Scots language. It is best described as a "sister language" of English, similar to the relationship between Portuguese and Spanish. RGloucester — ☎ 00:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I trust you understand I was referring to the language which is spoken and understood by all Scotsmen, and is used countrywide by the Scottish press. --Midas02 (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Flemish is the Dutch language as spoken by Flemings - in that sense it is a language, a variant on a language, if you will. --В²C ☎ 00:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The OED has a definition like that as well, but it's not at all accepted by Dutch linguists to call it a language. Dutchmen and Flemings alike share the same official language, governed by the same body (the Taalunie). As such there are no differences in spelling and grammar, and the official dictionnary holds words from both regions. But it's off-topic, --Midas02 (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Round-up?

Time to call it a day? Yaksar seems to be the only one opposing, but hasn't countered the academic arguments. Feel free to comment. --Midas02 (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Erm, except for the 2 or 3 others who have opposed this...--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Not for any substantive reason, mind you. RGloucester — ☎ 00:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
An uninvolved WP:RM closer decides when to close, not the participants. --В²C ☎ 00:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Flemings" is ambiguous and far less recognizable to an international audience. "Flemish people" is far more clear, and not inconcise by any reasonable definition. "Nation-ings" is not a consistent term for a people. Google books fails to discriminate between introductory use suitable for titling and use already in context. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Rubbish. There is absolutely nothing "ambiguous" about Flemings. Please provide sources showing that it is "unrecognizable to an international audience". Oh, guess what? You can't, because the sources show that "Flemings" is used more than "the Flemish". "Flemings" is consistent, as it is a plural nounal demonym, which are favored in instances where they are unambiguous and non-gendered, as with Germans, Swedes, Australians, Icelanders, and a variety of other junk in the category Category:Ethnic groups in Europe. The standard term in English is "Flemings", and always has been. "Flemish people" is not concise because it appends "people" where no "people" is necessary. This "people" is not even used by reliable sources on a routine basis, as they favor "Flemings" when collectively referring to the people in the third person. Please stop your policy-dry, source-less nonsense. It is a blight on this page. RGloucester — ☎ 01:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Flemings is ambiguous with the very common surname and notable things deriving from the surname, not deriving directly from the people. Examples: Title search for "flemings"; Flemings (disambiguation); Fleming, which like most singulars/plurals, is inherently ambiguous with the plural.
"Consistent" depends on your definition, and I think you are using the wrong one. For the perpsective of readers, consistent would mean consistent with similar things that they find in the encylopedia, not consistency in construction. Very few demonyms end with -ings, and this hinders recognition for readers. Further confusing is that "Flanders" looks more like a modern demonym, for people from Fland. Some strongly connected to the Flemish may find this offensive, but keep in mind that this is not a nation, but a region/geographical territory in Belgium that over the course of history has varied, and "usage in English was at most periods much vaguer and imprecise than in the region itself".
You seem to be falling into a false English language purism. There is no such thing as "the standard term in English". There is no English language regulator like the Académie française. Efforts to define what "always has been" English typically blur at the introduction of printing presses.
"Flemish people" is concise because "Flemish" alone could refer to culture, style, homeland, etc. Dropping "people" drops information. See the title search for flemish.
Use by reliable sources on a routine basis requires very careful attention to the context of use. Having introduced Flanders, or Flemish people, or even Belgium, of course the shortened Flemings will be used more. It is no different to how a book on cats drops "cat" from nearly every repeated instance of a name including "cat".
In the end, the title "Flemings" does not quickly and easily identify what is quickly and easily identified by "Flemish people". So, despite the strength of your feelings here, I disagree on the basis that the proposal would make the title much less recognizable to people only passingly familiar with this topic. I agree that "Flemings" is natural to the Flemings, but too many of the non Flemish readers will recognize "Flemish" but not "Flemings". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no ambiguity with the name, which is why Flemings already redirects here. There is a hatnote, to solve any minor problems, and there are almost none. This is clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No one has proposed "Fleming", just as no one proposed "German" for Germans. It doesn't matter whether "very few demonyms" end in "ing". It matters what is common and standard in English usage. The standard term in English usage is "Flemings", and has been since the early 15th century, as shown by the OED below. WP:OR conjecture about "people from Fland" is not backed by sources and is a bunch of bunk. There is standard English, and there is a correct English. It is determined by convention and usage rather than by an organisation. Merely because there is no organisation does not mean that there is no standard. This is irrelevant, however. No one proposed Flemish, so your comparison is moot. We proposed Flemings, which cannot refer to the culture, style, homeland, language. It can only ever refer to the people as a collective entity, which is why it is the most WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE term. You have not demonstrated why people will not recognised the standard and usaul term for people from Flanders. You have not provided any sources as such. In any case, if they don't know what a person from Flanders is called because they are not familiar with Flanders, they can come here and find out. It is out job to educate. Or should we change the article on Gagauz people to "Gagauzian people", because that construction would be more "intuitive"? No. The fact remains that the word for Flemings is Flemings, it has always been Flemings, it will always be Flemings, and that's that. People will know the word "Flemings" because that's the word for people from Flanders. Do people not know that "French" is the word for people from France? There is no doubt about this. RGloucester — ☎ 03:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Etymological details

I thought I'd provide hard etymological details for why "Flemish people" is a rubbish title. Starting with the word "Flemish", the OED gives the following definitions: "Of or belonging to Flanders or its inhabitants", "Resembling a Fleming in habits and behaviour", and "The Flemish language". Notice that none of these definitions refers specifically to the people. "Flemish" is meant to be used for objects and things, or as an adjective for people. It is not meant to be used to refer to the people as a collective entity. In fact, it specifically provides a definition of "Flemish" as "Resembling a Fleming", showing what the proper word for a person from Flanders is. So, in other words, our present title means "People that resemble Flemings". This is a nonsense title. Rather than that, we could use the sensible title that is "Flemings", whereby we could drop the rubbishy "resembling" and "people" bit. The definition of "Fleming" is "A native or inhabitant of Flanders". This is the definition we want, of course, because that's what this article describes. It lines up perfectly with the scope of the article, is more WP:CONCISE, and more recognisable. RS support "Flemings". They do not support "Flemish people". RGloucester — ☎ 02:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds nice, not sure how "hard" it is, but could you please quote what you see in the links going behind paywalls? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
What kind of self-respecting person does not have a subscription to the OED? RGloucester — ☎ 03:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Someone too cheap for 215 pounds per year. I am often frustrated, but the subscription is very expensive per lookup when my physical dictionary is not enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I have an academic subscription, so I needn't pay! Perhaps you should visit your local library today? RGloucester — ☎ 14:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I had academic access, but no longer. To my surprise and disappointment, the local public library doesn't subscribe. I'd really like to read your excerpts. I am not much persuaded by your emotion, but am open to arguments that something is "wrong" with "Flemish people". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Brits should be able to get access using their public library ID, I believe all British libraries were included in the same deal. And then there are those that might stumble across the electronic copy of the OED on the net, but not that I would know anything about that. --Midas02 (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, if it helps, it seems that you can view the Concise Oxford English Dictionary on google books.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, dear fellow, but you've fallen into an etymological trap. That usage is "the Flemish people", which is a collective nounal phrase that is meant to refer to the people as a whole. The present title, lacking the definite article, does not align with that grammatical form, and hence, cannot be compared to it. Regardless, that skimps on the etymological details. It does not even have the attested dates from whence these words came, nor examples of usage. You need the proper OED. RGloucester — ☎ 05:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester is right, the proper OED is needed. RGloucester, do I understand that you say "The Flemish people" might be OK, but "Flemish people" is wrong? Is this a dispute over WP:THE? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Whether it is "wrong" is not for me to decide, but the OED makes it clear that "Flemish people" is redundant. "The Flemish people" does exist, but that's not the title proposed here, as it cannot be used for individual people taken as collective. In reality, the proper form of that variety is "The Flemish", but people is provided for disambiguation from the language. "Flemings", on the other hand, can do that. It can refer to the people as a collective, and a person as an individual. It is many times more concise than the heavily redundant "Flemish people". It is the most common name, as shown above. It is also the most precise, in line with the OED above. RGloucester — ☎ 13:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Ignoring the attitude in that comment, the whole point that "it is not meant to be used to refer to the people as a collective entity" in pretty much negated by the fact that numerous reliable sources, well, for lack of a better phrase, use it to refer to the people as a collective entity...--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it isn't nearly as commonly as "Flemings", as demonstrated above, the OED doesn't support using it that way, and Flemings is the most WP:CONCISE. You've still not provided any sources to support the use of "Flemish people", or to support the idea that it is "less recognisable", or to support the idea that it is "less concise". In other words, you failed to counter this proposal at all. RGloucester — ☎ 04:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Rgloucester on this one as well. I don't see why a perfectly acceptible noun should be replaced by a descriptive title. Popular use should not be a substitute for academic wisdom. If popular vote had it, I'm supposed to accept a monstrosity as 'my bad' as well (I had to look that one up a couple of years ago, to make sure I properly understood what was meant). Fleming finds its origins in the medieval Dutch Vlaeming, a noun. Flemish comes from Vlaemisch or Vlaemsch, an adjective. So the use of the noun is aligned with its ethymological origins. --Midas02 (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It's sad that it's luck of the draw that will determine whether RM discussions are closed by someone who mostly relies on counting !votes, or by someone who mostly relies on evaluating arguments. Hopefully we'll get the latter in this case. --В²C ☎ 18:21, 17 November 2014 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • @BD2412: Absurd that you'd mention "Google searches" finding results for other topics called "Flemings". All of the searches I provided, using Google books, had no false hits, because we added qualifiers. I'm not only one who did such. None of the searches provided, in fact, were sans qualifiers, and hence, had no false hits. Did you actually look at the searches we provided? If one were to use a plain Google search of "Flemings", one might have a problem. However, none of the searches provided did that. This is a theoretical abstraction that has no relation to argument we made. It doesn't matter whether it is "common to refer to other groups" as "so and so people". What matters is what this group is called, and it isn't called "Flemish people". Another travesty on Wikipedia, I fear. There have been many today. RGloucester — ☎ 02:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I have not sought to form a personal opinion of which is the perfect title; merely which options are permissible, and in this case whether there is consensus to move the page from one permissible title to another. bd2412 T 02:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@BD2412: In other words, you ignored the evidence provided and made-up a canard about "other topics"? That's quite "reasonable" to me. This is not a "permissible title" by any stretch of the imagination. RGloucester — ☎ 07:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
If you feel that my close was in any way in error, please file a move review at Wikipedia:Move review. Good day. bd2412 T 16:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@BD2412: It is a waste of time, because I know how those go. There is no way that the closure would be overturned. That doesn't change the fact that you have invented canards to implement an outcome you personally favoured. I hope it hangs heavy on your conscience, for God will certainly remember it. RGloucester — ☎ 17:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no favored outcome. I reviewed the discussion and closed it in accordance with the evidence. Since no one other than you has taken issue with my assessment of the discussion, there is no point in further entertaining your opinion on the matter. bd2412 T 18:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@BD2412: Evidence? You ignored all evidence given, and instead invented a canard that had nothing to do with the evidence provided. God has taken issue, and he will remember. RGloucester — ☎ 18:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations : numbers not matching this hereunder source

http://legacy.joshuaproject.net/peoples.php?peo3=11217 --Loup Solitaire 81 (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Dottermans and Fabian

Dotttermans and Fabian, are these really people to put in a 9 head line-up of best known or most important Flemings ?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavernsenses (talk • contribs) 07:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, I'm quite sure that even in Flanders itself not even half of the population would even be able to name the face of Dottermans if they were shown a picture of her 'even though sh. Very strange choice... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:28C2:5A00:F2B4:79FF:FE16:E02D (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

While I don't think it is necessary that people recognise their pictures, I do think there are other possible candidates for well-known Flemish women, like Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker (but someone needs to crop the very nice picture of her) or Axelle Red. Lara Fabian, being from Etterbeek and largely oriented on Wallonia and French speaking Brussels, is hardly Flemish (and is hardly known in Flanders). Fram (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Lara Fabian was born in Etterbeek, in the Brussels-Capital Region, which is not Part of the Flemish Region. While the Brussels-Capital Region is populated by both the Flemish Community as well as the French-speaking Community of Belgium, she has never identified herself as Flemish as far as I know and has never sung in Flemish either or expressed any connection to Flanders, as far as I am aware. Is anyone aware whether she has ever identified herself as Flemish? - Rastanarcharismarx (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of redesigning the infobox, with wikipedia links under each image of a landmark Fleming. This is also good time to reconsider who can qualify as a 'landmark Fleming'. It would appear obvious, and with no doubt in keeping with the criteria applied for other countries elsewhere on Wikipedia, that a person can only qualify if he or she has gained significant international notoriety, or has made artistic, scientific, political, sporting or business contributions or achievements that are ranked as significant by an internationally broad community of peers. In other words, that he or she means or has meant something to the rest of the world. Clearly, Els Dottermans does (as do most 'Bekende Vlamingen', colloquially know as 'BVs') not fulfill any of these pre-requisites. Tavernsenses (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Why was the picture infobox on famous Flemish people deleted?

It took me a very long time to set it up, and now someone has unceremoniously deleted it. WHY? Tavernsenses (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flemish people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flemish people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Flemings speak Dutch, really?

I have found this statement once in the lede and once in the article and I cannot agree with it. While dutch - or rather Flemish - is the main spoken language this does not mean that that it is the sole language. There have always been - and there are still - French speaking minorities on the territory of the Flemish Region, in particular in Ghent. For many centuries the Flemish elites were used to speak French while common people spoke Flemish. Therefore stating that Flemings speak Dutch is a generalisation who does not correspond to the reality or give the wrong impression that you cannot be Fleming if you are speaking something else than Flemish. --Lebob (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

At this time and age, I believe many Flemings would argue that the Dutch language is an intrinsical part of their identity. Someone living in Flanders not speaking Dutch would likely not be considered an ethnic Fleming, be it rightly or wrongly. In my view, this makes the Flemish identity different from some/many other ethnic identities which put less emphasis on language in their identity. I am happy to be convinced otherwise though if credible sources are used. Morgengave (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
So this means that the people who live in the French side what is still Flanders are not Flemish anymore because they usually speak French and not Flemish? --Lebob (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Fact is that nowadays there is (afaik; and I would be glad to be proven wrong) very little shared identity between the French Flemish and the contemporary Flemish (as in: "northern Belgians"). So, to the extent that the French Flemish still identify as Flemish, it can certainly be noted that the vast majority of them speak French nowadays, but in my opinion that should be noted as a separate explanation due to the reason I just gave. Same goes for the historical use of French by upper class Flemings: it can be noted but does not change the fact that Dutch is nowadays the lingua franca, with French probably even being less spoken than e.g. Turkish. SPQRobin (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The propaganda that Flemings (the far greater share of the Belgium population) speak "Flemish" and not Dutch is an old Francophone imperialist tool to belittle and lessen the standing and rights of the majority of Belgiums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Nobody is claiming that Belgian Dutch is Flemish (which exists but only as a family of dialects of Dutch, just like the Netherlands hosts several families of Dutch dialects), as nobody is claiming either that Belgian French should be called Walloon. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

To clearify this old discussion for those who still read this: frist of all, flemish is not a language, it is the collectieve term for all Dutch dialects spoken in Flanders. Secondly: In Belgium, those who speak French are never considered Flemish, in France in the former departement of Nord-pas de Calais, this is different, there there are ethnical flemings who speak French and identify themselves still as being flemish. Falco iron (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for this assertion. Note, also, that I've reverted this edit as being a) unsourced; b) redundant. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, not anyone's personal opinion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Misleading wording: "French-dialect speaking population" (the historic Belgium Romance tungs are not French offshoots)

Would it not be more truthful to say somesuch as:


'Romance-dialect speaking population'


or haps:


'Walloon-dialect speaking population'


Ironic the historic NWO/Francophone imperialist agenda not to call the Flemish tung (what it is) Dutch, when in truth, it is the sundry Romance tungs that should be asundered from French as they are NOT dialects thereof. Belgium folk (not speaking Dutch/Flemish or German) do not speak a dialect of French. The Romance pidjins of Belgium are self-rooting tungs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.162.35 (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flemish_people/Archive_3&oldid=1090558291"