Talk:Flanders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page relates to the WikiProject Belgium, a project to create and improve Belgium-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can join the project, and help with our open tasks.

Flanders is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Archives

Archive 1 - 2004 - January 22, 2005 Archive 2 - January 22, 2005 - December 31, 2005

Contents 1 Belgica 2 Many, some, the 3 Confusion, confusion 4 Flanders 5 Fuzzy lead 6 Vlaanderen meaning "flooded land" 7 Intro paragraph 8 Stupid Flanders 9 Map

[edit] Belgica

The intro of section 'History' had just gotten a subtitle: 'Early history'. This put my attention to its factual inaccuracies, which I corrected. To avoid needless changes, let me point out that at the height of the roman empire, indeed Belgica was the most northeastern province. Then around the start of the decline of the empire the province became subdivided so that Germania Inferior became the most northeastern province. That however, was well after Julius Caesar's references in 'De Bello Gallico' to the Belgiæ, which are the earliest (well-known and often referenced) historical records on the areas that later became County of Flanders as well as still later the Belgian region Flanders. — SomeHuman 25 Aug 2006 15:38 (UTC)

[edit] Many, some, the

• An anonymous user changed 'Although _many_ Flemings identify themselves more with Flanders than with Belgium;' to '_some_ Flemings'. I think this is a good change Bask

Given that the percentages of Flemings favouring independence has risen from 20-25% typically to just over 50% in a recent poll early 2006, it looks just the other way round to me.

• An anonymous user changed 'More importantly _the_ experiences of the Dutch speaking soldiers on the front lead by French speaking officers catalysed Flemish emancipation.'. to '_some_ Dutch speaking'. I changed it to '_many_ Dutch speaking' Bask

probably more accurate indeed.

I don't know if my remarks fit here but I'll make them anyhow. The Treaty of Verdun (843) which divided the empire, fixed the eastern border of what later became the county of Flanders at the Scheldt. To the east was the duchy of Brabant, which invluded the "marquisat" of Antwerp and had Brussels as its capital. The germanic language spoken in Brabant was not flemish but "diets" (thiois in French). In 1356, the troops of of the count of Flanders invaded and occupied Brusssels for a few months until they were expelled by its inhabitants under the leadership of the alderman Everard 't Serclaes (cfr the article on him in Wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.189.83 (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion, confusion

Note: Responses by the original author appear indented and in square brackets. (I've changed this in order to increase readbility; hope you agree, --Lucas Richards 11:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

Dear all,

This discussion has certainly been a useful lesson in the vicissitudes of Belgian politics! Some here have opined that non-Flemish should basically have no input in this discussion,

Where did you read this? I only found one person arguing against contributions from persons who have no or only limited mastery from the Dutch language, as those persons are incapable of first-hand access to the relevant sources (as official documents, laws, ...). Kind regards, Lucas.

[Precisely. This still does not mean that some educated and well-intentioned outsiders with "no or only limited mastery of the Dutch language" do not have a valuable opinion on the politics of Belgium. The "outsider" status is a valuable psychological tool in objectively analysing the situation of any given country.

That's clear. I agree with you that outsiders do have a potential advantage because they're not involved. However, I remember from the discussions between R. Dierick and Nicnac25 that Mr. Dierick made the point that Nicnac and a few other French-speaking Belgians where no neutral outsiders at all, but active, political militants advocating a certain political line. In addition, he criticised that they pretended making objective statements where they proved incapable (or unwilling?) to consult and understand the relevant provisions in the Flemish legislation (which is only in Dutch). --Lucas Richards 11:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed natives from a certain country are often known to open themselves more candidly to foreigners than they would to their own compatriots, and as a result foreigners can end up with a special knowledge of the country that its own natives probably do not have. Outsiders are often more objective than insiders, because they have no stake in the issue at hand.]

and I would like to express my opposition to this view: by the same token, then, non-Chinese should never have the right to express opinions about China, or non-Americans about America. Needless to say this is a very limitative approach to learning, and the considered opinion of outsiders should, on the contrary, always be taken seriously. The proverb says: "what can they know of England, those who only of England know?"

As said, the main argument concerns the fact whether a contributor who cannot understand any relevant official sources in the language of Flanders can have an accurate and objective meaning on this!

[As said, see above]

It appears to me that people disagree so stringently on the subject of Belgium and Flanders because there is a lack of knowledge as to basic political definitions.

This is definitively try. Several persons spend great efforts to clarify on this.

[And still people stringently disagree: so there is no harm in trying again!]

I am going to try and clarify these so that everyone has a better idea of what they're talking about. Please note that this applies to the English language, and that transliterations to French or Dutch may have slightly different cultural and historical connotations.

Nation: a nation is a group of people who generally share cultural characteristics deemed to be significant, most often language and ethnicity. A nation, it is important to note, may or may not have political or legal status. It is reckoned that the people of France are a nation, for instance, and France happens to have a legal political status which reflects this (when this is the case, one speaks of a nation-state). Conversely, although it is equally reckoned that Tibetans form a distinct nation, there is however no Tibetan state in legal existence - Tibet being an administrative part of the People's Republic of China.

Indeed, see also the Scots, the Catalans, the Québeqois, ....

Between a fully self-governing status as a sovereign state and a complete subservience to another nation, there are also several intermediary stages of political representation for any given nation - for instance, the province of Quebec in Canada is not an independent state but enjoys high local autonomy in recognition of the large population of ethnic French there who are substantially different, in cultural terms, from the majority of English-speaking Canadians.

Region: a region is first and foremost a geographical area. It does not necessarily reflect the cultural identity of the people who live in it, and it may not have any political status.

And in certain cases, a 'region' can also be a precise level of federal governement.

Community: a community is a group of people joined together by certain common features. These can be absolutely anything, and often they merely relate to geographical proximity: a neighbourhood can be called a community, or a village, or the people of Europe. Most often communities have no political status or legal representation.

Discussion: The term "Flanders" makes the discussion even more complicated because it encompasses regions which actually belong to different sovereign states than Belgium. The northernmost section of France is often referred to as Flanders, for instance, as is a smaller section of the Netherlands. To simplify matters, one could say that "Greater Flanders" includes all of these regions in addition to Belgian Flanders.

Finally, Brussels makes for a complete classification nightmare because although it traditionally contains more French than Dutch speakers (whether or not this is due to long-lasting Walloon hegemony in Belgium is certainly up for discussion), it is geographically located in Flanders... but by government legislation it is supposed to be half and half (all street signs are bilingual in Brussels, whereas in Wallonia and Flanders they only appear in the respective language of the area in question).

Hmmmm, all French-speaking historians I've read have a very different meaning on the 'traditional' language of Brussels. All state that in 1830, the great majority of the people in brussels were speaking Dutch (or more precisely the local dialect of Dutch as then 99% of the population in belgium spoke only one or another dialect). See also the detailled explanations from Rudi Dierick on this. Lucas.

[Thank you, I stand corrected. The source for this assertion of mine came from Belgians (from both communities) who assured me that there were more French than Dutch speakers in Brussels. This may be the case currently, but not traditionally. I definitely misused the word "traditional" here.]

Indeed, it is clear that TODAY, there are more, but before ....

There is no doubt that the Flemish in Belgium make up a separate nation. They speak a completely different language from the French-speaking Walloons and have asserted their distinct cultural identity in many other ways too - for instance through a general consensus that they are more "Anglo-Saxon", more pragmatic and down-to-earth than their Walloon neighbours.

Whether or not their nation should also include the Flemish of France and the Netherlands, however, is disputable, as these "extra" Flemish do not normally feel much kinship towards their cultural brothers in Belgium and are much less concerned about the internal politics of Belgium. In addition, none have expressed much interest about seceding from their original state and joining Belgian Flanders instead.

Dear, why make it so difficult? Just look at the representative political parties in Flanders and in the French Flanders. Then you'll immediately see that there are NO parties representing the Flemings in France, and that none of the political parties in Flanders have any ambition towards French Flanders. This discussion appears a very theoretical things, typical for people with either a penchant for history, either a poor knowledge of contemporary politics and society. Lucas.

[With all due respect, I think you are the one making it difficult. Political representation is only an indirect form of popular will. By saying "none have expressed much interest about seceding from their original state", I have actually described the situation in a more succinct, accurate and direct way than by delving into the issue of political parties. Furthermore, I don't know how you make that spurious deductive leap about me supposedly having a poor knowledge of contemporary politics and society - I also see this as an ad hominem attack and an invalid value judgement which has no place in this discussion. But let me reassure you on this point, anyway: I have a university diploma in political science, I speak 6 languages fluently and have lived in 8 different countries across 3 different continents. So I think my knowledge of "contemporary politics and society" is probably better than average, thank you very much.]

The Flemish in Belgium are a nation but they do not have a sovereign state (and neither do the Walloons). They are, however, endowed with these intermediate stages of political representation that I talked about earlier. Whether as a "regio/gewest" or a "gemeenschap" they do have the right to decide of their own educational and linguistic policies, their political identification, and the local legislation of their cities, towns and villages.

The rest (which community in Belgium is more privileged, which has more official recognition, which has to pay for the other one, etc etc) is a matter for debate, much of it unfortunately characterised by the continuous tug-of-war between Flanders and Walloonia, as we have seen in this extensive (and often bitter) discussion page.

Hmmmm. The actual opposition is not as much between Flanders and Walloonia, but between Flanders (and especially it's politicians) and the political establishment of the French-speaking community. That means that this opposition runs straight trough Brussels, where the Flemings from Brussels massively insist on remaining part of that Flemish political and cultural community, and where the representative political parties for the French-speakers are all also active in Walloonia. Lucas.

[The point you raise is interesting and informative, so thank you for that. However, there still exists a systemic and generalised hostility between Flemish and Walloons, even outside of the Brussels issue, and I contend that the conflict over Brussels is part of this general animosity. Later on in this post I back that up by mentioning the example of Walloons pretending to be French when they go to Flanders so as not to incur ill-feeling from the other community. You did not comment on this, which I take to mean that you agree.]

Yes, I do agree that there is quite a lot of animosity between Flemings and French-speaking Belgians. In brussels, several of the related conflicts all come into play. It is striking, and very relevant that the mere fact of presenting oneself as a Frenchman, and vice versa (!), removes all (or most) of the street-level animosity. That proves that the animosity of basically an ethnic confrontation between two peoples (nations, communities, ...) and not 'just' a linguistic issue as some French-speaking nationalists proclaim.

In my humble opinion as a foreigner, however, the issue of Belgium may be best resolved by outright secession. The creation of independent Belgium in 1830 was borne mostly of a resistance by the Walloons to the idea of being subservient to a Dutch, Protestant throne. The Flemish of Belgium had little say in the matter, and for the next hundred years at least Belgium was ruled autocratically by the Walloons, who oppressed as many elements of Flemish culture as they could.

The Flemish gradually emancipated (especially when Walloon economic dominance dwindled as their heavy industries failed to compete with those of the developing world) and the unfortunate result today, as I see it, is an enormous and inefficient mess. The Flemish are vengefully trying to establish as much control as possible over a lumbering and outdated state structure characterised by a mushrooming bureaucracy and an institutional tendency towards old-fashioned centralism. The consequence is an organisational nightmare: no one really knows what government organ controls what in Belgium (not even, as it would appear from the contributions to this discussion, the Belgians themselves). Belgium has two posts for every ministry, one Flemish and one Walloon, and four different legislative assemblies, all of that for a country the size of a smallish American state. As such Belgium's is one of the most wasteful, bureaucratic, contentious and ineffective governments in the European Union.

Since the decision to create a Belgian state was made with little consideration for the majority Flemish community, one could very well argue that Belgium has no legitimacy. More than that, over the past forty years the two communities have shown very little willingness to cooperate with each other, and instead spend all their time throwing petty spanners in each other's works. The Flemish are doing their level best to avenge themselves for every slight they suffered during the 120-year period of Walloon supremacy, and the Walloons are stubbornly continuing to behave as if nothing had changed.

Naieve point of view. There was indeed a now widely acknowledged discrimination of Flemings; on the other hand, there are no scientific accounts of current situation that support the statement you made ('The Flemish are doing their level best to avenge themselves'). The latter appears just propaganda and dissatisfaction from certain French-speakers who resent the loss of privileges they had and who defend the last few remaining privileges (as the extra-territorial voting rights that French-speakers living in the mostly monolingual Flemish municipalities of Hal-Vilvorde enjoy (and that Flemings can nowhere enjoy!).

[I have never denied that there was discrimination against Flemings, so I don't know how you interpreted that. See earlier part of my article ("Belgium was ruled autocratically by the Walloons, who oppressed as many elements of Flemish culture as they could"). As for the Flemish trying to avenge themselves, I am afraid that there cannot be "scientific accounts" to back this up, because feeling wronged and seeking revenge is exactly that - a feeling! I take as proof of that feeling the obviously angry and defiant attitude displayed by the Flemish when it comes to most cross-community issues in Belgium, as well as the fact that they tend to go more extremely against the Walloons, rather than seek compromise - I live in Northern Ireland, and believe me, I have a long experience in identifying sectarian hostility and vengefulness when I see it! I don't know how you figured that my take on this was "propaganda" - I'm not Belgian, so why would I take sides in this? You seem to think I favour the Walloons, but I really don't. Indeed I have clearly described my belief that they also deeply unreasonable in their own way (see same paragraph: "the Walloons stubbornly continue to behave as if nothing had changed").]

Looks like I gave another meaning to the term 'avenge' then you, and most probably sloppy use of certain terms is to blame for that. Apologies! --Lucas Richards 11:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The enormous row that recently erupted over the status of Vilvoorde (a suburb of Brussels technically in Flanders which, as a natural consequence of the expansion of the city, has happened to become settled in majority by Walloons)

This appears a factual error; it is only one of the quarters from Vilvoorde, the one lying inside the highway ring that prbably has a majority of French-speakers. --Lucas Richards 11:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, the known category that you are probably referring to is 'French-speakers' and not 'Walloons'. --Lucas Richards 11:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

fully shows to what astronomic lengths the two communities are prepared go in trying to annoy each other. In the meanwhile it is the country at large that suffers. Hostility is so widespread that many Walloons wandering around in Flanders now pretend to be French in order not to suffer derogatory treatment. Because of its petty ethnic wars, a country at the heart of Western Europe which should have been sophisticated, cosmopolitan and outward-looking is becoming inward-looking and dogmatic.

Given that the basis for the existence of Belgium is flimsy and undemocratic and that neither community in the country has shown the maturity to try and get along with the other, the best thing to do would be to separate. Things can then begin from a clean slate and both communities can set about establishing a governmental structure which is rational and efficient, instead of the massive quagmire that all Belgians are stuck with today. Of course, even then there is the possibility that Brussels might become the Jerusalem of Northern Europe, and that both communities will continue to bicker for the next eight generations about who has claim over what!

I hope my contribution has been useful. Either way, I dearly wish for a successful resolution of the Belgian conflict, starting right here on Wikipedia!172.210.92.253 13:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flanders

Just to point out a minor mistake: in the Russian version the ancient county of Flanders is constantly referred to as 'duchy'. Ik should say = графство.

Why this endless discussion among Flemish/Brussels/Walloon/ignorant contributors? Just consult the (obligatory) objective information on the whole issue on the Belgian minnistry of Foreign Affairs' site? The whole constitutional reform of Belgium, the competences, etc. are clearly defined. Read and compare www.flanders.be and www.wallonie.be / www.pcf.be/ and keep the mere facts. — 193.191.138.240 18 Sep 2006 (was unsigned, undated)

Section title 'Flanders' on the talk page of 'Flanders', I assume it's about Flanders then. Should I report errors in this English Wikipedia on the Russian Wiki? Official == objective, simply because it's obligatory. Nice to know. — SomeHuman 18 Sep 2006 18:12 (UTC)

[edit] Fuzzy lead

Can someone tighten up the lead? It's starting to float off into a very general and vague discussion of the word "Flanders" (rather than the geographic region). For example, that one of the primary meanings would be "the community of the Flemings" seems to be a very marginal interpretation. It's somewhat like claiming that England is also "the community of the English". Please keep geographical regions, however disputed, separate from peoples.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I'm afraid you're showing you don't really know much about Flanders nor Belgium... ;-)

You see, the word "Community" in Belgium (and Flanders) has a very precise legal meaning. Belgium is a federal state, with both "Regions" and "Communities" as its constituants. A Belgian Community is -to a certain extent- similar to a US state. I understand that the concept is a bit hard to grasp for non-Belgians, but it's a system that has worked. The situation in Belgium wasn't that much different from Northern Ireland or the Basque Country, or even former Yugoslavia, but we hardly knew the violence these regions have known...

You might want to read more about it in the Communities and regions of Belgium article. An excerpt : "Belgian Communities do not officially refer directly to groups of people – there is indeed no subnationality in Brussels – but rather to the political, linguistic and cultural competencies of the country.

All Communities thus have a precise and legally established area where they can exert their competencies: the Flemish Community is competent in the Flemish and Brussels regions; the French-speaking Community in the Walloon (French linguistic region) and Brussels regions, and the German Community only in a small part of the province of Liège (Wallonia), bordering with Germany, which is the German linguistic region."

I'm afraid that to compare the Belgian Communities with "the community of the English" is nonsensical.

--83.182.213.188 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a very popular misunderstanding among many people who edit articles about all things Flemish that the terms involved have to be described primarily from the point of view of the people living in the region. This article is supposed to be about the meaning of "Flanders" that is most familiar to the majority of the English speaking world. What you're talking about seems to be talking about exclusively Belgian affairs. There's no problem in describing this legal term in the article, but not in the way it's done in the article. It amounts to a rather obvious POV issue.

And I should add that it makes for a rather poor read. For one thing, it begins with an etymology and doesn't even explain that it's actually about a geographic region rather than some sort of ethnicity. I'm going to do what I can to improve it and bring it up to the standards recommended in WP:LEAD.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Wikipedia should transcend the POV of the people living in Flanders. But the fact is -and this should be a part of the article, if you want to write a complete, correct and NPOV article- that the word "Flanders" has several meanings, one of which is the Community.

I don't see why it should be removed from the article, just because some people do not yet fully understand the concept.

I agree that the introduction needs some work, but please don't cut things because you don't understand them.

--193.190.154.22 11:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already edited the introduction a bit. What do you think ? --193.190.154.22 11:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask it to be removed completely. In fact, I said it should be mentioned, just not as prominently as it is now. The meaning "Flemish community" is not what I would consider to be a "main meaning" in the English definition of Flanders. If you look up "Flanders" in English language dictionaries and encyclopedias, it's considered to be a region, not a community of Flemings. I suggest describing it not as a primary definition, but pertaining to its legal and cultural status in Belgium.

The layout of the entire lead is, however, the biggest problem. It reads though it were an article in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia, with definitions presented as bulleted lists rather than prose. And it doesn't even begin with the rather obvious sentence "Flanders is...", but a lengthy etymology and then a description of the political status of the region in Belgium. For a general idea of how to construct a good lead about a region, have a look at Prussia (region), Galicia (Central Europe) and Wallachia. (I am aware they aren't exactly analogous to Flanders, but that's beside the point.)

Peter ^Isotalo 12:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It has now been over a month and little has been done to improve the lead. Only the rather long etymological information has been removed and the lead is still formatted like some sort of dictionary entry and taking a very misleading stance of what "Flanders" actually is. Flanders is a geographical region, not some loosely defined ethnic community, as is suggested in the lead. The community of the Flemings is supposed to be handled in Flemish people and Flemish community. I have added a cleanup tag and I expect it to stay until the problem has been amended.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The notion that "Flanders is a geographical region", and nothing else, is POV. It is a political statement, taking one side in a socio-political division/cleavage within Belgium and Flanders.

You need to read up on Flemish and Belgian political history before contributing to this article if you don't understand that.

--83.182.215.204 16:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In English "Flanders" is a geographical entity. Just look it up in dictionaries and encyclopedias. It's still no more an ethnic community than Prussia or Galicia. That it happens to be the central regions of the Flemings is a different matter. You can't call Flanders a community any more than you can call England or Bavaria one. If anything, the stance taken currently is the POV:ed one. There's absolutely no problem in describing the historical or current situation without fouling up the lead.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"It's still no more an ethnic community than Prussia or Galicia." This is where you are wrong. Because of its social and political history, the word "Flanders" is not only used to describe a geographical area or a administrative subdivision, it has a much broader sense.

Now personally, I don't care much for these connotations, but one can not deny that the word is used in that sense.

--83.182.194.67 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've already explained why it doesn't seem like an especially common meaning of "Flanders" in English usage. Most of our readers are not Flemish and would not want to get swamped with the minute aspects of an exclusively Belgian ethnic conflict in first sentence of the article. In English "Flanders" is a geographical region, either historical or modern, and not some loosely defined "ethnic community" separate from the Flemings themselves.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a verifiable source for that assertion ? That the meaning of the word "Flanders" in English is restricted to define the geographical region, excluding all other meanings ? --83.182.246.193 15:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance in dictionaries and encyclopedias (dictionary.com, Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta) will do the trick. I can't find anything about "the community of the Flemings there". But it's not up to me to prove that you're wrong. It's up to you to prove that you're right. We can easily confirm that Flanders is a region, but we don't know that it's commonly referred to as anything other than a geographical entity. And, again, we're still talking about the listy, crufty and POV:ed nature of the lead, not what can or can't be included in the article as a whole.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Annoying, and boring, all those repetition of POV that disregard so many objective key facts. Facts as: - there being no political parties, no media, no educational system in flanders that is specific for the 'region', but ONLY parties, universities, media and all its other big cultural organisations that are covering the entire Flemish community. - the Flemish Parliament and governement are representing the entire Flemish community (or 'nation' as some prefer), and not the region; - the fact that Flemings live in two regions (the Flemish region and the bilingual brussels region, the latter being 'shared' with French-speakers);

Those facts ar about he contemporary rality. Other facts refer to how 'Flanders' is covered in certain sources as English language encyclopedia. Even in relatively reputable encyclopedia, one can read idioties as 'Ghent' being the capital of flanders (which dates from the Medieval times). many even don't mention anything about the contemporary flemish institutions.

Therefore, given that most of those foreign sources are so hopelessly out of date, I eel Wikipedia should rather give accurate, relevant and up-to-date information, rather then try to be the 'common denominator' of so many out-dated ideas and ignoance. Therefore, I think any Wikipedia article on Flanders should indeed cover both aspects, being both the most important contemporary realities (in this case the Flemish community and its institutions (Parliament, governement, 'Region' and 'communiy', where the latter are hen only the institutions as provided for by he Belgian constitution, and where of course, this view severaly 'hurts ' all french-speaking nationalists. They would prefer that the Flemings in brussles disappear from the earth, so that they can claim Brussels for their own. However, such highly intolerant and partisans views should not dominate Wikipedia articles. Just cover them in subsections on contemporay history is enough.

[edit] Vlaanderen meaning "flooded land"

I don't know if it's an appropriate source for citation but it is mentioned in the Encyclopedia Britannica article for Flanders. -71.202.124.173

[edit] Intro paragraph

I find the introductory paragraph very obtuse. Could it be made somewhat clearer? If there are necessary pieces stuffed in there that can come out and dealt with later, it might help. It is just very turgid. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.68.2 (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid Flanders

Shut up Flanders. Stupid Flanders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.12.243 (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

We need a map change, to show Flanders is a part of Belgium. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the European map ? In most other articles on parts of a federative state (ex. Germany, Switzerland, U.S.) only the location of the state within the federation is given, not the location of the state on the continent. The European map in the "Flanders" article is an extra, since the location of Flanders (both community and region) within Belgium also is shown with separate maps.

I don't think it is necessary to change the European map. The byline clearly mentions Belgium ("Belgian Flanders"), the borders of Belgium are clearly indicated, and there are two other maps, both of Belgium, that make quite clear that Flanders is a part of Belgium. I don't believe there is a very big risk that a reader without knowledge about Flanders will be mistaken.--Luxem (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)