The map concerning the Dutch and the closest related (ethnic/linguistic) groups is a "labelled map" {{Template:Dutch labelled}}, which means the map itself, is blank and the words can be modified in the wiki to avoid the necessity of creating a new map should different concensus establish itself. For a link to the full map follow: Template:Dutch labelled, if you want to edit the basic map see Image:RasterDutch.png (but be carefull with making the map wider or more narrow as this will effect the coordinates, and hence the placements of the words.Rex10:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the section on Dutch contributions to humanity, it lists Spinoza with a note explaining why he belongs in an article on the Dutch ethnic group. Apparently, the only basis for his inclusion is the fact that he spoke the language and considered himself as being part of Dutch culture (which is unsourced), and his family viewed themselves as being of Dutch ethnicity (again unsourced), but this is contradicted by the opening line which makes clear they aren't of Dutch heritage (also unsourced). For a footnote that presumably backs up the claim that Spinoza should be counted as an ethnic Dutchman, the only sourced statement is that Anne Frank (and only Anne Frank, not Spinoza too as the comment suggests) was one of the choices for a television game show about the greatest Dutch of all time (which itself apparently made no distinction between ethnic Dutch and Dutch nationals--a key distinction as laid out in the article). The last reason presented for his inclusion as is the fact that Spinoza appeared on a coin in the 1970s (though I don't doubt this, it is unsourced), and again, this is not an actual criterion for determining ethnicity, unless the Dutch mint is in the habit of discriminating on such a basis. Zarathustra91913:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed in much detail in the archives; please check there before re-opening this. Basically the Dutch ethnicity was being born in the days of Spinoza, so the boundaries may have been a bit vague at that time. (PS we are talking about the series of banknotes designed by Ootje Oxenaar of important dutchman (Vondel fl 5,- Frans Hals fl 10,- Sweelinck fl. 25,- De Ruyter fl 100,- and Spinoza, fl 1000,- and not about coins). Arnoutf22:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not contesting his characterization as Dutch per se, but if that discussion has already taken place and reached some conclusion, then that conclusion ought to be better reflected in the quality of the sources used to reach it. If the verdict that Spinoza was ethnically Dutch was in fact based on some TV game show (which doesn't even mention Spinoza--it only mentions Anne Frank) and the unrelated incident of Spinoza appearing on Dutch coins, then you can bet I will be reopening the issue to debate. As it stands, one is led to believe that an encyclopedia (or purported encyclopedia) is reaching conclusions on such shaky and unscholarly bases, so if you think that the prior discussions reached a defensible and reasonable conclusion, then just use defensible and reasonable sources to back it up; that's all I'm saying. Zarathustra91913:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the discussion in the archive, and i really don´t want to reenact any discussion about ethnicity. But i would like to point out that it is based on a few wrong assumptions at least in respect to Anne Frank. She never was a Dutch national. She was born German and lost German nationality in 1941 due to a law depriving all "jews" (in the Nazi definition) residing outside of Germany of the German citizenship. She then remained stateless, after the war the corresponding laws were anulled. In fact, there was a controversy about that around the mentioned TV-Show. Some people wanted her to be attributed the Dutch nationality post mortem but Dutch officials denied that. Also, basing her Dutch ethnicity on her listing in that TV show is particularily ridicilous as she was also listed in the German version of that show. I will at least erase those parts claiming she was a Dutch national, as that is fact-based (refer to the Dutch article on Anne Frank). Jonas7805:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the old discussion too, but to my mind it didn't come close to a resolution. This article acknowledges that Spinoza wasn't of Dutch heritage, so I don't understand how it can still insist on mentioning him as an example in light of Zarathustra's points about the references. And I also don't think that simply because the discussion has already taken place once before that that should be the be-all end-all of the matter; that isn't how a self-correcting encyclopedia should work. W.M. O'Quinlan03:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with an earlier suggestion that the "Image" section should be tagged as humorous. Quoting The Xenophobe's Guide to the Dutch does not constitute a serious literature review, nor can sentences such as that about "the sacred state of being English" be defended as anything other than simple good-natured comedy. The whole section is clearly a very durable and popular attraction of Wikipedia, and a place for everyone to try out their best xenophobic one-liners - a bit like a relaxed Amsterdam pot house among the NPOV tea parties of Wikipedia - so can't we just be honest about it? Let's not pretend this is serious academic writing. Lfh13:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xenophobe and others (but not all quoted) have a lighthearted tone, but those books are indeed ettiquete/culture books, granted they use some humour (which can be removed or adapted) but it is not MAD magazine.Rex16:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this section is that it is neither humorous nor based on hard facts. The thing that remains is that it leaves a fairly negative impression of the Dutch. Also, I have not found a similar section in articles on other ethnic groups. ZuperB16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of a section on other articles should in my opinion never be a reason to remove it on others that do have one. The section isn't intented to be humerous and is based on facts. Wether they are 'hard' is personal. I myself think they do represent the majority, and with these subjects that's all a source can do. It's impossible to speak for all. As mentioned in the disclaimer above the sections.Rex20:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture of girls in wooden shoes is about as representative for the Dutch as Uncle Sam for the USA or John Bull for the UK or a farmer carrying a baguette and a string of onions for France. A better photo should be found. Soczyczi 16:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
In general, there are too many clogs in the article. Soczyczi17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'clog' is mentioned a mere 6 times in this entire article, in nearly all cases it is used to oppose existing views of stereotypes. The girls were chosen because they're neutral. 4 or 8 face selection will never satify everyone. This article is about Dutch etnicity, and those girls are definately Dutch. That's what matters.Rex08:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A MERE six times is four times too much, and if you would have chosen this picture of Dutch girls 'because they're neutral', you are labouring under a severe case of stereotypitis. Soczyczi09:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a case of clogophobia I see. Those girls are Dutch, and they're virtually anonymous, why are they stereotypical? Just girls from the 1920s. Rex09:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I'm sure it's a picture from about 1950, not 1920. Very few Dutch in 1950 were wearing wooden shoes and the sort of dress these girls do, it was obsolete tradition then and even more so now. Only a tiny fraction of Dutch farmers are wearing wooden shoes - occasionally. However, many people think most Dutch are wearing them because of pictures like this. It's a caricature, like the English all would have bowler hats and the Germans all have Hitler moustaches. Soczyczi01:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, as opposed to bowler hats and the English (which only the upperclass gentleman wore) and the Germans and lederhosen (which only bavarians wear), the Dutch and clogs have more ground. Historically and until not so long ago, most Dutch people wore clogs. Virtually all of them, even in the cities. They are Dutch girls caught on camera, if you have an actually other proposition instead of only complaints (based on your own opinion) I'll be happy to listen.Rex16:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Soczyczi has a bit of a point, but so does Rex. Suggest we leave the current clog one up, until someone proposed a better alternative. Arnoutf17:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the picture is fine. The caption clearly states that they are wearing traditional Dutch costume. It doesn't say 'This is a picture of Dutch people, going about their daily business' - does it? As a half-dutch person I see nothing offensive in this picture, and I think there is no need to replace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarletsugar (talk • contribs) 14:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know the number of the dutch descendants in argentina?? cuz the number of dutch who comes to argentina last century was about 20.000 (from netherlands) and another wave of inmigrants ((bigger maybe) comes from south afrika after the boers war.. i men afrikaneers.. I think today must be about 500.000 (or more) dutch descendants in Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrewsbury333 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly was immigration to Argentinia, as this [1] link proves, but I can't seem to find exact figures of the current state of affairs.Rex17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've included 'Frisian' (well west Frisian to be precise) as a language native to the Dutch. My reasoning is that if we/the government/ethnologists see Frisians as being Dutch, and in some cases Frisians as well ... their language deserves to be mentioned, despite the fact that they are all bilingual. Rex17:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section on english degoratory phrases includes 'dutch cap' for a pessarium. This name does not come from 17th century hostility, but from the fact that it was invented in the Netherlands (in the 19th century)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.68.220.153 (talk • contribs)
I never knew that it was invented in the Netherlands. Do you happen to have a source to back it up? If so, we'll change it right away.Rex16:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA process, any article that displays an obviously non-neutral treatment of a subject must be failed immediately, and does not require an in-depth review. I call to your attention to the section "Contribution to humanity" in particular as evidence of POV in the article. Notice that the WikiProject for ethnic groups does not recommend such a section in their structure guideline, and the GA-class article Jew lacks one. This is because a section whose sole purpose is to recount the positive events and personages of an ethnic group is a violation of NPOV. The article violates the neutrality policy in small places elsewhere with uncited passages like, "Although comparatively small in numbers, the Dutch have definitely made their mark on the world, as we know it today." Not only is the tone unencylopedic, it isn't backed by a citation (any statement likely to be challenged should be per the criteria). Other troubling places include, but are not limited to: "The image of the Dutch", with the info banner - which is a violation of basic encyclopedic standards (self-referential material is not okay) and the Manual of Style - and with "Dutch views on others". That subsection is clearly inappropriate for an encyclopedic work. If content is "not exemplary of all the Dutch", then it should not be in an article which deals with the Dutch people as a whole. Of course, if you're just trying to say that it is about Dutch stereotypes, then a regular section intro without self-reference would serve that purpose. Overall, the article has major problems which prevent me from providing a hold period, which is solely for minor fixes to what is already a basically good article. Please address these issues and thoroughly examine the GA criteria before renominating. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTuckyTalk01:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
q:en:Eric Cartman: My grandma's Dutch-Irish and my grandpa's lesbian, that makes me quarter lesbian!. It's a rather weak source, in my opinion. For me, having a Dutch greatgrandparent is neither sufficient nor necessary to be ethnic Dutch. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
grandma is Dutch-Irish means that (at best) Cartmans Grandma is half Dutch (but possibly even less), so Cartman is 1/8 Dutch; is that ethnic Dutch. Furhtermore note the character is a cartoon character, and evenso well known for exaggeration; so we should not take the quote itself on face value. Arnoutf (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity may well be one of the exceptions. To be ethnically Dutch someone has to feel Dutch (at least partly) and has to be considered Dutch (again, at leat partly) by other Dutch. Dutch editors to en.wikipedia.org may not be a random selection, but if almost of them share a view on what makes someone Dutch, their combined opinion does matter. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the whole Cartman issue irrelevant trivia, as IMHO (and I am Dutch) a cartoon character (especially one of the type of Cartman) has no ethnicity whatsoever. Arnoutf (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. You could put Kyle, from the same series, into an ethnic group, as its raised as an issue pretty frequently in the show, but Cartman's character really doesn't have anything to do with being Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@145.93.125.93/145.93.123.60: For "Brazilian" vs. "Brazillian", please see a dictionary. For "ethnic group" vs. "group", without "ethnic" the sentence loses its meaning, since most Dutch people do know that most Flemings have, for example, Belgian passports and tend to live closer to the equator.
I did not re-add the addition about "moffen", because:
Edit history shows that the IP adress responsible for the Moffen-edit was not 145.93.125.93/145.93.123.60, but 207.45.43.68 as seen here.Rex (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intro was huge and I had put a "too large" tag on it, and someone improved it. However it's still not perfect, per wp:lead could someone make a lead of four paragraphs? - PietervHuis (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been making an image collage of famous and influential people. The picture of girls with wooden shoes is nice :) but I prefer to have an image collage like many other ethnic group pages do. As an example I took Russians and Georgians of 4 by 3 rows because I think it fits best (many fit in and don’t turn too small). I also tried to make the order as random as I can concerning black & white photos and the direction they look at. When chosing people I tried to select a wide variety of professions.
Whose in it might become a matter of debate in the future, but I've tried my best. First of all this page is about the Dutch group and not citizens of the Netherlands. This prevented me from using people like William the Silent and Anne Frank because they aren't ethnic dutch (although anne is for 25% I think). On the other hand, since this article also details the dutch disapora, it allowed me to use famous ethnic dutch people from abroad, like Dutch-Americans, Afrikaners or Dutch brazilians.
Currently I have , Floris V - because hes the most famous from a long long time ago (I had trouble finding people from before the 14th century), Erasmus, rembrandt (I also wanted to do van Gogh, but hes not that popular in the netherlands and his portaits stand out too much), Thomas Edison, dutch american who invented the light =), Christiaan Huygens (I wasn’t sure if I prefered Antonie van Leeuwenhoek instead, first microbiologists, but I also chose huygens because his image is better – had to chose since theres already many scientists in the collage), Franklin D. Roosevelt - might become a subject of debate since hes not fully dutch, but he was said to be proud of his dutch background,[2][http://www.amazon.com/American-Visions-Europe-Franklin-Roosevelt/dp/0521566282][3] was the most important dutch-american and one of the most important people in world history, and his family name is 100% dutch). Hannie Schaft - Had to add a female, she was a famous symbol for the dutch resistance and good looking, Michiel de Ruyter - famous warhero of the dutch navy, Willem Drees, Hugo Grotius - founder of International law (I wanted to have someone to do with laws because of the Court of Arbitration and stuff), Hendrik Lorentz - probably the most acomplished dutch scientist (after edison), and finally Jan van Riebeeck - first european settler of South Africa (Hes not so famous here, but he is in South Africa, and I wanted to have someone related to South Africa, on top of that I couldn't find nice pictures of Willem Barentsz and Abel Tasman, other great 'explorers'.
Maybe in other respects too. The whole concept of Dutch ethnicity (other than with respect to expats) almost doesn't seem to exist outside Wikipedia and least of all in the Netherlands. I have been looking for serious literature about this subject a while ago to check some of the article's bolder statements (especially on 'Germanic' descent), but either I have been looking in the wrong direction or there simply isn't that much around on this topic. What bothers me is the positiveness with which this article states many 'facts' of which really not that much is known, often relying on one popular or semi-popular source.
Thanks. The article could use some copy editing indeed. I don't agree with your idea that Dutch ethnicity doesn't exist. Especially regarding ethnolinguistics, the dutch have existed for quite a long time. Of course it's not a "race" but it's certainly not less ethnical as say the french or english. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the concept of ethnicity itself is a modern invention, and 'ethnicity' is very difficult to define because it is a subjective idea, not an objective reality. Hence perhaps the poor quality of the sourcing in this article: there are no hard scientific data.
The fact that a group of people at some point in time (notably the 19th century) define themselves as a community and then go looking for some common background, e.g. a supposed common ancestry, does not mean that the ancestors of these people considered themselves cognate in the same way. In fact, the further you go back in time, the less likely it is that people who live scattered over a large area will identify with their 'kinsmen' several hundreds of miles away. Dutch history itself is marked by regionalism. Ethnical awareness could only come into existence with the formation of nation-states. Trying to define a Dutch ethnical identity in the distant past is projecting back a 19th century Romantic theory, which may be studied as an historical idea in its own right but should in my opinion not be used as a means for interpreting the past. I think it would be more realistic for the article to concentrate on the Dutch as a group defined by the territorial boundaries of the Netherlands instead of using the vague term 'ethnic group'. Iblardi (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really, and the problem with your assertions is that it doesn't apply to the dutch only, but would mean that we also have to erase English people and French people and so on, and pretty much the entire defenition of Ethnic groups. Old Dutch was spoken since 500 A.D. at the same time when the germans, the french and the english languages started their existence. That's how it is in a simplified way, a group of Indo-European-speaking peoples that split into different ethnolinguistic classes over centuries. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, the article would be more convincing if it would cite one or two academic sources on the subjects of Dutch descent, ethnicity, ethnogenesis et cetera. Right now it is just full of claims that are not backed up by evidence, which makes it read more like an essay than a genuine article. And no, I do not consider De Roepstem, The Xenophobe's Guide and The Undutchables as authoritative sources, although perhaps some others might. Iblardi (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They probably aren't (I haven't contributed text to this article so don't blame me). If you want to have scientific backgrounds regarding ethnicities and human races and such you'll probably have to look for DNA backgrounds; the luxury of modern times. Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups starts of interesting. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the collage. Im going to restore the picture of the Dutch girls. We need a neutral picture, it's tempting to insert all the internationanlly famous Dutch people but that way you'll only keep conflicts... why isnt rembrandt there? Where's van der Waal? Why isnt vincent van gogh there? Etc etc. Everyone has different preferences, so avoid all that and go for anonymous Dutch people. Just because other articles have it (but make a clear note! not the ones who have received featured status!!!) doesnt mean this one should. Thats not a valid argument.HP1740-B (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, Rembrandt was in there.
If the collage is not neutral, then the old picture of 'anonymous Dutch people' certainly isn't. No 'typical Dutchman' looks like that. The picture communicates an outdated, stereotypical image of the Dutch as clog-wearing farmers and fishermen, and is not representative for Dutch people at large. Iblardi (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collage is probably best, we can place the picture of the clog girls somewhere else in the article. HP1740-B, if you, or anyone else, disagrees on who is inserted this can be discussed. I am also open to change the portraits so it won't be much of a problem. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the collage is a good idea. BUT.... Before the 16th century we cannot speak of the Dutch. Floris V could be labelled as Hollandic, or Frankonian, and Erasmus the same. I don't think that is close enough to Dutch, if it is we could also add Charlemagne. Secondly I would not list Edison as Rooseveldt as neither of these were actually born in the Netherlands and lack the cultural-nation connotations that are part of the ethnic definition (i.e. ethnicity is not alone genetics). Finally I doubt the relevance of van Riebeeck and Schaft who are relatively minor characters. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. You're right about the last four noted. I tried to make a significant connection between dutch americans and the afrikaners since this article isn't about dutch-born but the ethnic group as a whole. Therefore I added the 2 most famous dutch americans, and jan van riebeeck who isn't seen as important in the netherlands, but was very important for the future of south africa as is today. As for Schaft, I had to add at least one woman. Some collages paste some famous model because it looks good but I wanted one whose also famous for her acts. Schaft of course isn't as important as the other character, but shes ok looking and amonst the most famous women in our history (Who else :I).
As for Floris and Erasmus I can't agree with you on that one. This article isn't just about citizens since the rise of the Dutch republic but the entire ethnic group. Erasmus is famous as a dutch person, even though he was born before the dutch republic was established. Floris V also spoke Middle Dutch for example, and we still have the Ridderzaal and such build by him. The dutch can be drawn back since the arrival of Old Dutch. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HP1740-B, it is a completely valid argument. Wikipedia is built on discussion, and it appears that Wikipedia and its users prefer collages in this group of articles. The collage's pictures can be from various points of history, various places within the Netherlands, etc. In general, there are more possibilities in a collage than with the one picture. I agree with Iblardi - the picture does not represent the Dutch, it's too vague. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems with the old Dutch people is to establish when we can start talking about the "Dutch". Personally I can live with Floris V, or even older counts of Holland. But at a certain stage the distinction Dutch-otherwise starts to become blurred.
Arnout I agree that any further back it becomes blurred, although on a side-note I also think much more details can be inserted in the article concerning how the dutch have developed over the milenia.
I think you're underestimating Hannie Schaft's fame a bit, she was placed 2nd highest in the "greatest dutchman show"[4] of all dutch women (excluding jewish and germans) except for Major Bosshardt, besting most women (although by no means do I think this list is very representative). She's also been named after a lot and was the subject of many books and movies. I personally would like to keep her in because not only was she a notable female of dutch history, but also depicts the dutch struggle during WWII (nobody else does so far in the collage) and on top of that she's good and typically dutch looking.
However I also believe other women can be used too, maybe to replace someone else? The first one to go is probably Roosevelt. Although he was proud of his Dutch background, he was only 50% dutch or-so and the president of a foreign country What do you think?
As for the women named right now, Belle van Zuylen's fame arose mostly abroad where she also took on a swiss identity so I'm not sure. Wilhelmina of the Netherlands is quite big, but 'unfortunately' it seems she was German (But I'm no expert on the royal house) - PietervHuis (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ethnicity of the Dutch royal family has come up before, and it seems that consensus is that calling them Dutch is acceptable (after all, Beatrix is even less Dutch than Wilhelmina with German father, grandmother, Russian great-grandmother. But ok, we can keep Hannie Schaft, who is undeniably Dutch. Arnoutf (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes they are Dutch nationals but we really can't call them Dutch Ethnics. It's more inviting to call them Dutch because Germans and the Dutch are both germanic peoples, but it's still not accurate. To give an extreme example, Seedorf can call himself Dutch but he'll never be an ethnic Dutch ;) Our royal house has been predominantly German since Willian the Silent showed up, but (thankfully :P) with Maxima's arrival now there's going to be different blood. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not jump to conclusions. A collage is just what's prefered in some articles on ethnic groups. Most articles do not have a picture in the infobox, and many also have what this article has, a single picture of the group it represents, for example the Thai and Aboriginals. You say that the picture doesnt't represent the typical Dutchman, well then I ask you: does the collage? Is the typical Dutchman a world famous painter, scientist, statesman, resistance fighter or royal? No, not by a long shot. Besides that, it's not the pictures task to represent the typical Dutchman, but just to represent Dutchmen. It does that, excellenty. The discussion above is a great example of the problems with collages ... the collage has been inserted a few times in the last couple of days, and already there is disagreement. Who is Dutch, who is important who is not, who is known internationally, etc. It's a neverending spiral. Avoid it and just leave the neutral picture. If you want to list well-known Dutch people, do so in a separate gallery section. Problem solved.HP1740-B (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HP1740-B your arguments hold no ground. What's in other articles isn't very relevant because those articles aren't this one, but I won't ignore it and say that the Thais people article is underdeveloped and the Aboriginals are only a small ethnic group and don't have much famous people. What he said about the "typical dutchman" is that the clogs picture depicts the stereotype perceived in foreign countries, which is something different than listing famous dutch people from the past which is a lot more informative for the average reader. Also there's not really any disagreements, I recently introduced the collage and we're looking at ways to improve it. There's no "problem" as you phrase it whatsoever and we get along fine. The only problem right now is that you've been removing the image even though so far most have agreed that they like the introduction of one collage or another. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a collage previously with Anne Frank and Spinoza (sorry can't find when but it was somewhere about a year ago) which sparked a lot of discussion. The "clog photo" diffused the debate in the end. So let's be civil and try to decide on the issues without heated edit wars. Personally I think there are a few issues for consensus
Do we want a collage, a photo of a stereotype, or nothing
If we want a collage, how many people
If we want a collage, what claims to Dutchness are needed (i.e. when in History can we start speaking about the Dutch, are descendants of Dutchman still Dutch and into what generation, how strong must Dutch heritage be for someone living in the Netherlands to be called Dutch - e.g. the royal family, Anne Frank, Spinoza)
What representation of the Dutch ethnicitiy do we want to present. I mean, from what historical era's, disciplines (military, science, art, political, etc.), gender balancing.
I think the best way forward is to go through these questions and once consensus has been achieved starting to find the cnadidates that go best with our list-wish. Arnoutf (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pietervhuis, one of the arguments used by supporters for a collage is exactly what you claim to oppose. Namely that 'other articles seem to prefer it'. I've looked into some pages concerning this topic, and there are no guidelines which say they prefer a collage, or a picture at all for that matter. The size of the articles I mentioned, does not matter for this discussion at all. I named them because they to do not use a collage, that stands firm and strong. Another point is this, this is an article that makes it very clear its about an ethnic group. Viewing the articles that I've seen that use collages, they all seems focused on nations, and their collages are quite nationalistic and biased. For example where are the most well known German and Georgian (Hitler and Stalin, red.) in their groups collage? Only 'good' people are shown. That's biased. Like I said before, most Dutch are average Joe's, and in that respect are closer to those girls than a selection of the 'greatest Dutchmen'. The picture caption reads very carefully that it depicts Dutch girls in traditional clothing, readers are hence able to figure out that Dutch people do not dress like that everyday. It's not stereotypical, it's a reality recorded on film. I really think you should first make very clear why you think a collage is better, before jumping in and saying "we need a collage". Okay, "why ?" HP1740-B (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also restored the initial picture of the Dutch girls. For a number of reasons:
The picture seems to have been unopposed for a very long time, in any case much longer than last weeks collage.
Some want to replace the picture with the collage, I think those people need to make clear why their collage is better than the picture and why the picture is worse. With collage installed during this discussion, I as a supporter of the picture get the feeling I'm the one who needs to 'prove' the picture over the collage... seems its more logical the other way around.
There is no opposition to the collage except from you, HP1740-B. You seem very adamant on keeping the clogged girls. Why? Iblardi (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained that in my previous message. Eventhough I'm seeming ly the only one defending it, that shouldnt matter. I'm still a person and have rights to out my opinion/arguments. Just because you seem to outnumber me doesnt make my arguments worth less. I'm looking into the possiblity of a request for comment, or an open wikipedia-wide vote.HP1740-B (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noone said that you can't explain your opinion. In fact, Iblardi asked you for your opinion. About WP:OSE, what about WP:CON? Seems there is a slight contradiction - but either way, it seems that the majority of people would prefer a collage. Also, I don't see why people who hold multiple nationalities can't be included. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate14:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, WP:NOT explains that Wikipedia is built on consensus, and not by voting. The "preference" itself is a valid argument - the picture is far too vague and has limited possibilities, while the collage provides variation and several examples. On Wikipedia, there are conventions that were created by consensus - and this is one of them. As I said, you can challenge it, but it does not necessarily mean that it will change. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate17:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, I have no strong preference for either, but I think this debate is degrading into a nasty naming and blaming one rapidly from both sides. That is not productive
At the last comment of "Onecanadasquarebishopsgate" one question pops up: Provide the link to the convention as HP1740-B has argued that this convention does not exist. If there is no explicit convention anywhere, it is up to this article to reach consensus what image to provide.
Furthermore your statement "the picture is far too vague and has limited possibilities, while the collage provides variation and several examples" is a personal opinion (I could argue that the variation in the collage introduces different vagaries, and that a collage has limitations as well) and not the "hard fact" you present it like.
Anyway the long standing (more than half a year) consensus for this specific article has been the clog-girls single photo, so it is up the supporters of the collage to change consensus, not the other way around. Arnoutf (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HP1740-B you constantly deleting the collage is not an example of trying to reach concensus, it's just being disruptive (no offense). I haven't deleted the clogs picture I merely moved it down to a different section and introduced a collage, an idea that has appealed all users except for you. Yes you're a person and you have rights, but so do we which means that we don't have to wait until we can introduce a new image until not a single person (you) opposes it. The first time you saw the collage you instantly deleted it without giving a single argument, you hadn't even looked at it properly because you didn't notice Rembrandt was in it and decided that you don't like it. You say "wikipedia is not about democracy but who has the best argument". Who exactly decided that you have the best argument except for yourself?
You mentioned 'problems' that aren't even present right now. I gave arguments on why I chose a field of 4 by 3 collage in my introduction: if you or anyone has another idea on that feel free to give counter-arguments, I'm open for dicussion and compromises. We've already explained why it's best to keep the clogs pictures for somewhere else in the article, because it merely denotes a stereotype of present day dutch people. Yes it's historical, but also a selective cultural image based on this stereotype, and a collage has many more options and is a lot more informative.
I invite you instead to help us reach concensus on who is in it. Generally it's best to build one of Ethnic Dutch people who have fame and aren't highly controversial. That's why war criminals like Stalin and Hitler aren't featured on the Georgian and Austrian page (hes not German as you said). And generally people ranging from different times holding different professions. The only concensus that should be reached now is who should be in it and who should be left out. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Onecanadasquarebishopsgate, consensus is a general state of agreement. All I've been reading here comes down to 'we outnumber you, so take it or leave'. Sorry, but that's not consensus.HP1740-B (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PietervHuis, please take a good look at what you're writing. To me, it sounds like this. "We're going to go with the collage, that's final. Let's discuss who's going to be in it.". No. It's become clear to me that you main, and possibly only reason as I see no other clear objections, for being against this picture is that the girls wear clogs. The point is it shows neutral Dutch people. It's true that people from different eras hold different professions, if you'd read carefully you'd have seen that was not my point. My point is that the selection isn't neutral. In history more Dutch were farmer and carpenters than statesmen and artists, if one wants to portray a whole group through a picture do it neutrally. That is what the discussion should be about: why is a collage better than a single picture, with clear examples. Not that "it offers more possiblities", but well formulated examples.HP1740-B (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ps.I'm not going to squabble on what ethnicity (not nationality) Hitler has, though I'd like you to explain the difference between a German and Austrian in the 1930s.HP1740-B (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "against" that picture I merely introduced a new picture that is more informative for the infobox. The picture is only represents a stereotypical dutch people and adds nothing to the average readers knowledge. A collage is not an example of a "biased" collection, everyone who sees it understand its merely a collection of famous dutch people who have contributed a lot to the netherldands or the world over the past centures, aka notable dutch people.
To Pietervhuis, there are only 4 editors involved (not counting myself I consider myself neutral). To be honest, with only 4 editors involved I think 1 objection is already getting in the way of consensus decision making. Anonimity is not required for consensus but I think in this case we need more involved editors to change consensus (which is the clog image as the history of this article shows as a fact).
To HP1740-B it would be worthwhile to communicate what you think are the requirements of the picture or collage. Think of your ideal image/collage (forget the clog girls for a moment). If you have a good suggestion, this may give a positive spin to the discussion, rather than the downward spiral I see happening now. Request to HP1740-B Please collect your thoughts and write a single response at a time, to streamline the discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No HP1740-B, I am not saying "take or leave", I said that you can explain your opinion just as any Wikipedia editor can, that's consensus - in this case there is a majority support for the collage. Also, the definition of convention is: "something regarded as a normative example" - nowhere does it say that it has to exist in writing. I helped create the page for the micronations convention, but it had existed long before that. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate22:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced Roosevelt with van Leewenhoek, although there are now 4 scientists altogether. Another one which is likely to go might be van Riebeeck. Here in the Netherlands he's not famous, maybe he is in South Africa, but I'm not sure about his fame there, and I'm thinking about creating a section about the disapora in South Africa just like there's one about the diaspora in the United States. The image of him boarding the Cape can be used there maybe.
Arnoutf you mentioned earlier how you wanted to add recently-become famous people, or living people and add more women. I personally don't like adding living people, just like at Russians, Germans, Italians and many others because it's extra hard to determine which living one would get the honor of being inbetween historically significant figures. However, many other pages have also adapted living persons so if others here also would like to see it introduced that's fine of course.
You mentioned some controversial politcians and people who are best to avoid, Tiesto could be an option. I'm not sure because there's many modern musicians who are succesful, also internationally I think, and its hard to decide which one could go. Another option could be an actor for example, such as Rutger Hauer, or maybe even Carice van Houten, she's also female so thats 2 points. I'm not sure. Thoughts? - PietervHuis (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'd agree with Rutger Hauer, because he is more 'established', but apparently he's gone and only left his autograph... We would also have to try to find a license free picture of Carice van Houten. Iblardi (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's give my ideal format for the 12 people (without names)
Row one. 2 pre republic Dutch people and 2 Early republic people (at least one female)
Row two. 4 Golden age and late republic (at least one female)
Row three modern 1815-now (at least one female).
Additionally: At least one of each: writer, painter, scientist, statesman, military or colonial leader.
If I try to fill this out it would be something like
This lists 4 military leaders - 2 female (Floris V and de Ruyter, Simonsdochter Hasselaer, Schaft), 4 statesmen (Floris V (again), van Oldenbarneveldt, Grotius and Thorbecke), 3 writers - 1 female (Erasmus, Deken, Dekker), 1 painter (Rembrandt), 2 scientists (Erasmus - Grotius (both again..) and an archtect (Koolhaas). It also includes a female for every row.
Alternatives are welcome, but I think a format that roughly follows the timeline and balances gender and occupation to some extent is to be preferred. Of couse a musician or actor is welcome, by providing a nameless "ideal" framework I just wnated to lift the discussion to a more abstract level before going into details. Arnoutf (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the first row, I would suggest Jacqueline of Bavaria as an alternative for Kenau Simonsdochter Hasselaer. She is a high-ranking female and has a somewhat better looking portrait, although I wouldn't know if she counts as 'ethnically Dutch' (comparable with Wilhelmina in this respect?). Iblardi (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To make the list chronologically could be option, but as I explained in the introduction I prefered to avoid that, (many other collages did too). I actually initially planned to do that, but then it starts to look a bit like "dutch through the ages" style, first painting, then black and white photos and finally colour photos. I tried to make it slightly chronologically (floris & erasmus went first) but from there on I simply tried to spread out the photo styles and professions. You listed quite a lot of new characters, including many women. I'm not sure if we really have to hold onto a specific quota of an amount of women since throughout history they rarely presented high functions (I hope there's not female wikipedia readers here right now =/) of course this has changed.
As for the people presented, there's some good possibilities but also some who are possibly not notable enough. I know we can't go with the list of De Grootste Nederlander because kids who bother to pay for something like that decided, but the large list of a hundred nominees was created by writers and such.
Someone like "Aagje Deken" wasn't on it and I've never heard of her before? Same goes for "Eduard Dekker". Kenau Hasselaer.. hmm I don't think so, I mean isn't she mostly famous as a joke kind of? There doesn't seem to be a good drawing of her face (large enough) and I'm not sure if the painter actually had any idea what she looked like. I prefered your initial suggestion over Rem Koolhaas. Iblardi's suggestion of Jacqueline of Bavaria: she does have an interesting portrait, however if she's indeed non-Dutch (initially I read she was 50% but I think I read wrong) I don't think we can use her.
Another question of mine is, who do you think should be the first (few) to go? I myself nominated Riebeeck and I think that IF we decide on using a living person, his current position would best bereplaced by someone living. Cheers. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok good points. Of course we can use some of the input of famous Dutch; but as you state above we will have to value that on its value and not on its place in the finals.
Re my suggestions, they were just an idea how to fill out my wishlist and showing it is possible. And actually I like the parrot image of Herman Brood ;-)I think both Aagje Deken (not my original idea), Hasselaer and Jacoba van Beieren were chosen as pre 19th century females. They are not easy to find. Belle van Zuylen, Trijn van Leemput being 2 other examples. So if we want to include historical women that will be a challenge. (BTW I guess you actually DO know Eduard Douwes Dekker but probably only under his pen-name Multatuli.) Arnoutf (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't really mind dropping Aagje Deken in favour of Belle van Zuylen, that was a more or less random suggestion. Belle's portrait could probably be considered more visually attractive. Iblardi (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping another suggestion: the 13th-century mystic Hadewych would be a very early example of a female writer. The trouble with her, again, would be to find a usable picture. Iblardi (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Belle would probably be better because of the good painting of her and I think she's more respected. I've added her, at least for now. I updated the image of Floris V with a higher quality one, but you're right it's a posthumous drawing from 1625/1650 or-so, even though it was engraved with Latin descriptions. Contrary to what I said earlier, I think we can still use it though, just like with Sir William Wallace and Christopher Columbus, but maybe make a small note about it. I've made a few other changes. I think with 2 females we can just concentrate on finding "greater" people without looking at their gender now. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<- Please consider that it is not about "great" people per se. The collage should give an overview of the width of Dutch engagement; over classes, styles, occupation and time. (btw - good work with the collage so far) Arnoutf (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to replace Edison with either a national-Dutch writer (maybe), engineer (preferably: Cornelis Lely) or a second painter (definitely?). Isabelle de Charrière could be replaced with a female contemporary Dutch writer called Hella Haasse or with another female writer called Annie M. G. Schmidt creating a better balance between contemporary photography and dated craftsmanship - 20th century (which defines the modern Dutch literary and cultural character) and Dutch historical characters. There might also be a need to place a Dutch entrepreneur or businessman? Maybe remove a scientist? Maybe look for someone who is both a scientist (engineer) and a businessman like Anthony Fokker? There must be better examples | There are also no musicians and composers to be found and Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck or Matthijs Vermeulen could be a good start for composers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.24.65 (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: 2 painters; 2 politicians (including nobility); 2 scientists and engineers; 1 war-hero; 1 philosopher; 1 jurist; 1 writer; 1 architect and 1 entrepreneur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.24.65 (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should make the list of pictures 5x4 and the portraits smaller, but not like the articles about Portuguese people and Spanish people which are 6x3 and have unclear and very small pictures. We also have to make sure that we don't and never add as much pictures to our collage as the article on French people; which is ridiculously plentifully and tiny.
Next to this i would suggest that we base the quality of being Dutch on three measures. Ethnicity (can you trace a majority of Dutch ancestry in the last three generations), culture (Have they and there parents been raised in a predominantly Dutch spoken and cultured area; both at home and in the local community) and nationality (Did they posses the Dutch nationality). Anyone we add needs to comply with at least two of these measures.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.24.65 (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about Edison, he's already on the page with Dutch-Americans and it adds confusion. I'll replace him soon. I can't agree with you on those requirements because then we can add someone whose not ethnically dutch in the scientific way of the word, and we could even include Africans. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have for a long time been thinking that this article is in need of serious revision. I will try to explain why.
The article states:
An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. Ethnic groups are also often united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, ritualistic, or religious traits. The defining characteristics of the Dutch as an ethnic group (although no longer as obvious as before) are:
Religion: Although a single religion no longer plays a dominant role in the Netherlands, Dutch society is nevertheless one of Christian descent, evident by history and the great influence of engrained Christian traditions and teachings, which is imminent in a landscape dominated by church towers, celebration of Christian holidays such as Christmas, Easter and Ascension, and several biblical proverbs and sayings.
Language: The Dutch share a common language, Dutch.
Culture: The Dutch culture is a north-western European culture, be it with quite a few unique elements. Dutch customs are also different from other European countries.
Ancestry: The main specific ancestry of the Dutch are the Franks, a migratory Germanic people (themselves an alliance of a number of smaller tribes) who arrived and settled in the Low Countries during the collapse of the Roman Empire and the migration period.
Now, about the Dutch as an ethnic group. First we have to note that ethnos simply means 'people' in the sense of Volk. Can we really speak of a Dutch Volk?
In the article four criteria are touched upon: religion, language, culture, and ancestry. The first criterion, religion, says 'Christian'. Not even a specific creed, but simply 'Christian': a historical characteristic that the Dutch have in common with all of Europe. Hardly a criterion for distinguishing the Dutch from the Germans, the Polish, the Italians, et cetera. Yet in the Netherlands, beneath this veil of Christianity, we find a sharp historical division - sometimes accompanied by violence - between Catholics and Protestants. This is hardly a unifying characteristic of the Dutch people.
Secondly, language is mentioned. Obviously, most Dutch people speak Dutch. Yet ironically, the Queen's Dutch, perfect as it may be, is apparently spoken by a foreigner, as the above discussion on Wilhelmina shows. It should also be realized that until the unification of the Northern Netherlands Dutch was only spoken as far east as the IJssel; beyond that river we are on Low German territory, which was heavily oriented on the German cities of the Rhineland (e.g. Cologne). Only the establisment of the modern nation state of the Netherlands and the accompanying centralization have lead to linguistic unification. Without the modern Netherlands, we would not consider an inhabitant of Groningen a Dutchman.
Then culture: here I can certainly think of a few things, e.g. certain folkloristic characteristics that the Dutch have in common (notably Sinterklaas, although such traditions were often redefined, if not invented, in the 19th century); and a general sense of 'being Dutch' (often sharpened when we travel abroad) based on common rules of conduct (e.g. typically Dutch egalitarianism) and certain shared traditions (which may include Koninginnedag or even such things as popular television programs or, for that matter, stroopwafels). Essentially this is a feeling of 'us' belonging together, often reinforced when travelling abroad and confronted with other peoples' customs. If this means the Dutch are an ethnos, alright; but such an identity can hardly be established on the basis of objective data. If you consider yourself Dutch, then you are.
As for ancestry, this is a thing that can be measured to some degree, but I do not know of DNA research that indicates a direct descent from the Franks, who are called the primary ancestors of the modern Dutch in the article. This may be true in a linguistic sense. However, modern genetic studies on the historical inhabitants of e.g. the British Isles seem to indicate a large measure of genetic continuity since prehistoric times. This situation might be different for the Netherlands, but it does warn against presenting unfounded speculations on ancestry as facts in an article. And as far as invented ancestry is concerned, I can think of no pre-modern chronicles dealing with "the Dutch people".
Shortly speaking, I think the title Dutch (ethnic group) is a misnomer. It lacks scientific basis. The notion of a Dutch ethnos is vague and much too susceptible to subjective interpretations. That is what makes this not an article, but an essay, and it leads to lengthy discussions on the talk page. It has been fashionable to speak of de Nederlandsche stam and het Nederlandsche volk for a while in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is not popular anymore, partly because of post-War sentiments against nationalism, but also because it is in essence nothing more than a romantic idea, which, as I indicated further above, may be interesting to study as a historical phenomenon, but which should not be used as a conceptual framework for writing a modern Wikipedia article. Iblardi (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an amateur ethnologist I understand where you're coming from. Let me first say this, you being Dutch can make it harder to see the boundaries of your ethnic group. I somehow sense you're an atheist, fine I am too, but you need to readjust what ethnology counts among 'religion', religion is more than being registered as a catholic or protestant, christianity has had a major influence on the world, and the Dutch as well. It's not a problem that other peoples have had this influence as well. Then language, Dutch is not the Queens Dutch, Dutch is much broader, it includes everything from ABN to the dialects. Sure some people in the Low Countries speak dialects based largely on Low German (not a lot though) but that not a problem either, Jews for example speak languages from whole different language families but still form ethnic groups. Low German and Dutch are quite close from a linguistic pov, and language though important isnt everything. Ancestry too, ethnic groups do not all have to have the same ancestry, it impossible. What they need is indentifiable ancestry. I doubt an arab, southern/easter european/ black person or asian living among the dutch would find it. Conclusivly, and ethnic group deals with culture, and thus cannot be put between red lines... there is always going to be a diffuse area and internal differences (note these are always more obvious for in that outsiders) but in this case there is still a clearly visible ethnic group. The title and article is justified. Ethnic groups are everywhere, they 're not all noble savages, they live in cities too. Scientific basis can be provided... I have a large collection of books on the subject.HP1740-B (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of books are these? Can you mention titles of publications that deal specifically with the subject of Dutch ethnicity?
An encyclopedia should report academic consensus, not try to set up its own arguments and present speculations as facts. Note that the section I cited above is arguing the case of a Dutch ethnic identity. Whether or not you think the argument is convincing, it is still the original research of someone trying to build a case. Others may disagree. As long as no sources are given, the arguments, for instance the one about religion, may just as easily be reversed to prove the opposite. Iblardi (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Defining ethnicity is a tough topic. There are basically 2 approaches: The genetic approach (overstated- Wier Neerlands bloed in d'aderen stroomt van vreemde smetten vrij) and the cultural approach (overstated - if you feel and act Dutch, you are Dutch). Both have their problems (the first excludes the royal family, the second may include first generation immigrants). To complicate matters the Dutch CBS (statistics agency) uses the definition of ethnicity that you are ethnic Dutch if both your parents were born in the Netherlands (i.e. if your mother was born during a 1 day trip to Antwerp you are officially not ethnic Dutch, but 3rd generation Morroccons (provided both their parents were born in the Netherlands) are).
About Dutch language... That goes to ethnogenesis - the emergence of the Dutch ethnic group. We can be sure there was no such group before the migration age in the 5th century. We can be sure of a Dutch ethnic group in the early 19th century. When the Dutch ethnicity comes into existence can be contested (early medieval, late medieval, union of Utrecht, peace of Munster, Batavian Republic, or even later). This makes the issue difficult.
About the other things. Christian religion and the dutch culture are intertwined, if only in the Catholic-Protestant wars.
Not at all. The arguments about religion can't be reversed. You think way too black and white. The Dutch culture is a Christian influenced culture, this doesn't mean that the Dutch are all christians or that you have to be one to be Dutch. An ethnic Dutch converting to islam for example will not make him/her any less ethnically Dutch. Ethnicity is a complex cocktail of genetics and culture. It's not, like you seem to want it to be, a checklist which you either pass as either Dutch or non-Dutch. I would also like to make a few notes to Arnout. There is no specific date in which any ethnic group emerges, dates can work for nations, not for ethnic groups. Also the Dutch goverments 'allochtoon/autochtoon' regulations are not equal to the terms 'ethnic dutch'.HP1740-B (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops you're right about CBS, that is allochtoon. There is no clear definition of ethnicity. And indeed I agree there is no specific data (as I said somewhere between 500CE and 1815CE the Dutch as an ethnic group emerged... that is a grey area of over 1300 yrs). Arnoutf (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a bit over the top ... the Dutch emerged truly emerged in the early 9th century, before that there was a transition period between the Dutch and the Franks, the main ancestor ethnic group. I think you name 1815 because of the Belgian revolution and the following separation of the Dutch, but that's not a real break off point. It doesn't happen instantly. Remember ethnic groups can change too. Remember, the introduction of roman architecture and technology to the Franks, and their subsequent settlement of the Low Countries (along with other factors, such as religion) paved the way for an 'ethnic transformation' into the Dutch. Ethnicity is an evolving process. I'd wish it was more clear, and that I could give you an exact date... but it's in its nature to be vague at certain points.HP1740-B (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just giving the most extreme boundaries I heard. (btw 1815 establishment of William I as King of the Netherlands; but indeed 1830... Belgium comes into existence). Personally I would narrow down the "grey area" to 900-1500 (i.e. the foundation of the hereditary Dutch realms after collapse of Charlemagne's European empire untill reuniting the realsm under the Burgundians). But I think we agree, it is an ongoing process (perhaps in 500 yrs time we have an article "Ethnic EU-ers" ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps indeed :-). It seems to me, you focus on political divisions as reference points, however in the early periods inventions, kinship, religion and language are much more formative of ethnic groups.HP1740-B (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Language studies are very helpful for determining the roots of an ethnic group. Old Dutch made its arrival since the 5th century, at a time when also the German language and the English language had its roots, earlier than Italian. Since then the Dutch grew out as an ethnic group, people hardly intermixed with neighbouring countries and developed their own families and stuff. The only grey area that in my current perception is who are direct ancestors are. I believe it's mostly the Salien Franks, but are we the only descendants of them? If we are then we could proclaim that we are simply still the Franks. Stuff like that, has already been researched a lot and can be looked up and further elaborated upon, there's probably many books about it (you can read pages on books.google.com). Another grey area currently is that of the Flemmings, who with the recent rise of nationalism have foalks that don't consider themselves "Dutch". Nonsense if you ask me and probably most historicans, same goes for the majority of the Afrikaners. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict]
I think that part of the problem is the title. "Dutch (ethnic group)" makes it necessary for the article to deal only with ethnic Dutch people, yet it seems to be impossible to give a clear and exact definition of what this ethnic group constitutes or when it emerged. As Arnoutf indicated, when you focus on ancestry, you will draw different conclusions than when you focus on language, folklore et cetera. There apparently exists no clear definition of Dutch ethnicity upon which everyone agrees. Yet the article has to assume that there is such a thing, because it has to be organized as an coherent article with a more or less fixed content. The definition chosen is a rather implicit and 'soft' one which is apparently precise enough to exclude several well-known historical figures who have played important roles in defining Dutch culture and are somehow part of the Dutch identity. These choices are not supported by sources on the subject of Dutch ethnicity.
My proposal would be to change the title from "Dutch (ethnic group)" to "Dutch people", meaning people who can be considered Dutch in the broadest sense possible. Then the content should be modified to have it focus much less on ethnicity and much more on other aspects. It should have a section on the problem of defining Dutch ethnicity, but it would also deal with Dutch culture, customs, mentality, emigrants et cetera - in fact, much the same as it does now, but without the purely ethnocentric perspective. This way, we would also have room to include those other historical figures such as Erasmus, Spinoza, William the Silent, Anne Frank and others, without having to constantly discuss if it would be justified to include them in collages and such. Iblardi (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is a clear group of people identifiable as the ethnic Dutch. The larger group you speak of is that of the Dutch nation. Though certainly linked, nationality and the term "nation" are not the same thing as ethnicity and should not be mixed together.HP1740-B (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know what I speak of. That is what I said: move away from the ethnocentric perspective. HP1740-B, I also asked you for titles earlier on, maybe you overlooked it. Iblardi (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I prefer to limit it still to the ethnic group, but instead another section such as "Dutch as a cultural identity" and "citizens of the netherlands". A tracable line exists between dutch ethnicity and nationality. Some of the most notable dutch citizens, we are still proud of today, don't qualify of ethnic dutch. Anne Frank for example was ethnically Jewish, no matter how much nuances are applied, just like how Albert Einstein wasn't German. Anne Frank and william the silent however were still notable dutch people as in nationals, but their contribution of the citizens of the netherlands can better be explained on History of the Netherlands or the page Netherlands itself. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, though even technically Anne Frank wasnt a Dutch citizen. I would advise you (Iblardi) to start an article on the Dutch nation. Another section here would mix them, which would be wrong and confusing.HP1740-B (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am seriously questioning the justification of this article's existence in its present form. I explained my reasons for this but seem to get no answers other then denials without further motivation. There is something strangely familiar about having this discussion on this particular talk page. Iblardi (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The discussion is moving towards the narrow ancestry definition of the Dutch. I don't like that too mcuh, one of the undeniable results of that is that Dutch Royal Family can no longer be considered ethnic Dutch. There is a very wide grey area where nation and ethnic group cannot be distinguished; so basically I tend to agree with Iblardi that Dutch people is not a bad idea (btw this whole discussion has played itself out with other editors a year ago; it should be findable in the archives). Arnoutf (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current compromise (including the clog girls) after all sides were worn down by: discussions several dozens times longer than the current one (at least where it is now), edit wars, blocked users and hurt feelings.
Sorry that I cannot give details, it was just too much to summarise in a single line; most arguments were very similar to those mentioned now and there was little movement on all sides. My edit conflicted message with Iblardi shows that we both shared this deja vu at the same point in the debate..... Arnoutf (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A grey area is no reason to just wipe out the existence of the Dutch as an ethnic group. Consider it a challenge to describe the Ethnic Dutch more explicitly. The only solution which I see with it is that there should be a much greater subsection considering Dutch culture, history and its people in which also Dutch people who aren't ethnic Dutch are spoken about and are listed. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm I can see some merit in that. That could include "clog girlds" but also "carnaval" "Streng gereformeerd" and "Gay parade". Then we could also add a merchant from the golden age. We get rid of the nationality/famous issues and do justice to historical and within group variations. Arnoutf (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could be an option, a collage of random Dutch people of different ages and sexes. pictures could prove hard to find though, with permissions etc. But if do-able, I would support it. However I would support the picturing of Dutch peoples faces, not of different Dutch events/settings the article afterall deals with people, not holidays.HP1740-B (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AAAAH please don't that would be horrible. The Gay Parade in the infobox of Dutch people? Is this page really supposed to acknowledge a stereotype of Dutch people or something? - PietervHuis (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case the discussion below should not have a clear outcome: why would it have to be either the one way or the other? We could also have a collage that contains both notable and anonymous persons, including one portrait of a woman in traditional dress (which is already available in one of the existing pictures). Iblardi (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a grey area between being an 'anonymous' and a 'famous' person. This writer, for instance, is not especially famous, but looks fairly Dutch-ish. Aptly, he has written stories that take place against a traditional rural background. Maybe it would not be a bad choice to use such portraits for representing 'common' people. Iblardi (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to show traditional clothing, we can also achieve this by integrating a portrait of a woman in traditional dress into the collage. Iblardi (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stereotypical. The picture is an eyecatcher that gives a first impression of the topic. First impressions matter. Do we want it to be that the most notable thing about Dutch people is their traditional clothing? Iblardi (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not even traditional (all of) Dutch clothing, only traditional Dutch rural clothing of a specific region (these clothes were never traditionally worn in e.g. The Hague or Amsterdam). Arnoutf (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is tradional Dutch clothing, of course there are internal differences... but it's recognisably Dutch. The Dutch caps are there one of the most universal atriubutes of Dutch traditional garment.HP1740-B (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Biased, as it is a small group of people chooses what they think is a most typical (ie internationally recognised visual) image of the Dutch. Arnoutf (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Biased, only certain Dutch people are portrayed. In the current example: rural girls. Almost impossible to find a single image that is typical (e.g. Staphorst AND Amsterdam Art Scene) for all Dutchmen and women. Arnoutf (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Pictures of anonymi tend to be older black-and-white photographs, which are considered visually less attractive by many people. Iblardi (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless Ibladi has a point that goes for both options: High quality appealing picture, preferably full colour is to be preferred. Arnoutf (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was just about to restate this negative argument as a positive one in favour of the multi-coloured collage. Should it be moved? Iblardi (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Euhm, neither do Erasmus, Floris V or Michiel the Ruyter represent Dutch people today. I do not think this argument is totally distinguishing between the options; and please note we are not necessarily discussing the clog-girls for this option, but all "single image" possibilities. Arnoutf (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are however dutch historical figures. The clog picture does not represent the dutch through its existence, merely a stereotype preceived outside the Netherlands, one that wasnt even present in the centuries before its use, and is today inaccurate. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a clog picture. I don't call the collage 'the nationalistic collage' either so please stop refering to it in such a demeaning manor. These girls represent history as well, it isnt meant to show everyday Dutch people, it shows Dutch people in traditional clothing.HP1740-B (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, referring to that picture as the 'clog picture' as a shorthand makes some sense as the girls do wear clogs. I don't see how this would be a reason for accusing the creator of the other picture of nationalism, unless you have a strong emotional attachment to the folkloristic picture. Iblardi (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be offended by the clogs, it is only to simplify references and distinguish between "any single image" and this specific image of "girls wearing traditional rural Dutch clothing including clogs" (note that most official "klederdracht" - is Sunday/church clothing that often does not include clogs.). Arnoutf (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Dutch klederdracht often includes clogs, as well as small leather shoes. Iblardi, Pieters dislike of the single picture is not the reason why the collage is nationalistic. It's because it's a biased view of "Hollands best".HP1740-B (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<- Ok perhaps you are ight clogs are sometimes part. But anyway the problem remains that this type of klederdracht has mainly been a rural affair; which is very much out of date at the moment. (ps perhaps this is a better image than the clog-girl one). Arnoutf (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it rural arnout, it's tradition. Traditional clothing is always out of date. It's not meant as a contempory Dutch image...HP1740-B (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good picture, Arnoutf, but the focus on traditional costumes is even more explicit than in the old photograph. I think it could certainly be used at an appropriate place in the article. Iblardi (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The collage helps users to identify who is a notable Dutchman in the first place. Specific Dutch persons are not that widely known. Iblardi (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure whether helping identifying "famous Dutch people" is, or should be the aim of this specific article though. Arnoutf (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has not been decided whether or not it is detrimental to the artical, although it might be useful to some, this advantage of should be regarded as an extra that comes from providing an overview of the Dutch in the best possible way we can; no an aim of the opening image in itself. Therefore I would not give this argument much weight in any decision. Arnoutf (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good argument. It combines two functions: it gives information on Dutch people in general, which is the purpose of the article, and it stimulates users to find out more about these people and to enhance their knowledge, which is the purpose of Wikipedia. Iblardi (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article should focus on the Dutch ethnic group, for notable Dutchmen other pager are present. Your argument is easily overturned if I say the Dutch girls are there so people can click on a link to traditional clothing.HP1740-B (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not very convincing. The current picture offers links to many historical figures, whereas your alternative would only link to one topic: traditional clothing. Iblardi (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Valid-it has a lot more potential because we can develop it further into the future and see who is best to represent a given profession, era or symbolic value. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well for one, a single image can only show one style from one part of the Netherlands from one time period. (e.g. the currently discussed one is clearly rural and 19th early 20th century. A collage can cover a broad range of types of clohting and era's and has hence more potential. Arnoutf (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are wearing tradional clothing, in the 19th and 20th century these werent everyday clothes. I would see no difference between this picture and a modern picuture of Dutch people in tradional clothing.HP1740-B (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Biased, only certain Dutch people are portrayed. Artists, statesmen, royalty and scientists. Not typical, let alone average Dutchmen and women. HP1740-B (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All three arguments are pretty much the same as the first of three. A collage of notable dutch people is something other than "biased" it simply portrays notable people who are regarded as famous or important not only by wikipedia users but also historicans, journalists and all the citizens of the netherlands. You don't want to add the most famous carpenter do you? (with all respect to carpenters like my father =) ) The image doesn't have to be "neutral" it just supposed to show notable ethnic dutch people. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To frame this correctly, I copied these objections phrased by HP1740-B to the first list to show that the problems is two-sided Arnoutf (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No! I've been avoiding famous dutch people who don't qualify as ethnic Dutch and you and I seem to agree on that so I don't see what your problem is here. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The portrayal of "the Dutch' best". We need a neutral picture, this one is nationalistic.
So that's the same argument as your first one again. You've repeated it four times now. In which way is it wrong to have it "nationalistic"? It's exactly what the article is about too, and it's very innocent. Everyone knows that not all Dutch people are great scientists or wizards. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, here's your problem. "In which way is it wrong to have it "nationalistic"? It's exactly what the article is about". That's utterly wrong, this article should be free from nationalism: it's about an ethnic group!) HP1740-B (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better is the other way around, leave the clog girls in a subsection. They don't attribute much to the readers mind, they only acknowledge a stereotype. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the idea behind these lists anyway? Why don't you write it down on a piece of paper instead? So far you've been the only person who has problems with "a" collage and now you're trying to blow the whole thing up, and when I place comments you delete them which you aren't allowed to do. It looks like you're never going to agree on this and if the collage as a lead has a lot more support then you're going to have to accept that. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point was to simply list Pros and Cons without debating them, to get a clear picture. I explained this to you 2 times to no effect, resulting this listing to fall into chaos like the previous discussion section.HP1740-B (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to you to decide wether or not an argument has any value. this is a discussion page and you are free to disagree but you are not free to remove content. As for the discussed matter, I'd propose to keep the collage. Most other pages on ethnic groups use them and I don't see anything wrong with it. Perhaps I would have excluded Dutch Americans and Afrikaners but other than that the collage seems fine to me. ForrestSjap (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose was to simply list pros and cons, to get a clear overview.Most were already discussed, it was supposed to be a quick overview of the unclear discussion above.HP1740-B (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I think this has had some success in getting things into the open but is not evolving productively. Below I list problems and benefits of the options. (NEG (negative) arguments against; POS (positive) arguments in favour). Some arguments were listed for both, or apply to both and these are listed separately.
Both
NEG Biased by view of people selecting the image
NEG Biased as only part of the variation can be pictured
NEG High quality image has to be chosen
NEG Placement might better fit other sections
Single Image
POS Anonymous person, so neutral connotation
POS A clearly identifiable, typically Dutch image can be chosen
NEG Stereotypical image does not cover variation in population
NEG Historical image can not cover the whole history of the ethnic group
Famous collage
POS Allows overview over variations and era's (more potential)
POS Links directly to famous Dutch people
NEG Tends to be nationalistic rather than ethnic.
NEG Famous people promote a positive rather than a neutral image
A third option (non famous collage) and the option to include non famous people in the famous collage were suggested. In my personal opinion this might introduce both strong points of the "single image" option to the collage. However (IMHO) only the non-famous collage counters for the negative elements of the "Famous collage" while at the same time it drops the second positive element. Personally I think a good collage would be the best option, however a mediocre single image would have my strong preference over a mediocre collage (I don't think the current suggestion for a collage is good enough) Arnoutf (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the biased and nationalistic connotations of a collage of 'famous' Dutch people. A collage of anonymous Dutch people of different ages and sexes would not be a problem. The question is... can one find enough 'free' pictures of Dutch people. Perhaps there exists a free photo of a Dutch (extented) family which could be used.HP1740-B (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered I still have some pictures I once took at the open air museum, of a Dutch folklore group. Not sure if it's a better picture, but I think it is very pretty and might be helpfull.HP1740-B (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it's full-colour for sure, but it looks more apt for illustrating a folklore section than for giving a general impression of the Dutch (ethnic group). Iblardi (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'm getting the feeling that finding a picture that represents all Dutch people is like chasing windmills. People expressing traditional dance are apt for a picture representing tradional Dutch culture ... thus I think use in the infobox is justified.HP1740-B (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A collage of "anymous dutch people" is a pretty bizar idea. How would it inform readers? Oh, this not just a shoemaker, but a Dutch one! Do you think readers have never seen a dutch person before?
No that picture can't replace the collage. It's a nice picture sure, add it somewhere else where it can fit in, the collage can't fit anywhere else really. Again, the collage informs users a lot of historical figures concerning this ethnicy which is what wikipedia is about. It merely shows that how the dutch have contributed to the world history and the world as we see it today, which is very informative. It nothing to do with with "BIAS" and doesn't violate NPOV as it has been used on many other ethnic pages with ethnic Dutch, and as such can stay. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus man! Why do people need to get informed in the infobox?! If they want to see and read about famous Dutch people they should go to "list of Dutch people"!If they want to get informed they should read the goddamn article, why the hell would they merely read the infobox?! The infobox picture should show Dutch people, preferably doing something typically Dutch. It doesnt matter a minority does it, they're Dutch people and they're dancing a Dutch folkdance, behind them is a scenery of Dutch architecture! How more Dutch can you possibly get?! HP1740-B (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting a bit tired of yourself? You can argue and argue until you are blue in the face but so far up to 7 people have likened the introduction of a collage. No the collage does not "have" to go to the "list of dutch people" its been fine in many other articles without problems. Also you can't define what's "typically dutch", the one with folk dancing illustrates a setting so positive only a theatre play could portray it in real life and as such isn't really "realistic". Your picture is nice so add it somewhere else, I've done it for you in an appropriate section. As for the question, why do we need to be informed in an infobox? "INFO-box". - PietervHuis (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a nice compromise for you is to somehow find a way to list one of those pictures much higher in the article, near the first sections so we have both. Like at the Ethnic Dutch part. Or even right below the infobox. Here I made an example for you[6] this way we have both in the introduction. I'm fine with that (although the specific image is still a bit too stereotypical maybe). Maybe other users see this as a solution? - PietervHuis (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I strongly dislike having one of the folkloristic pictures in or directly beneath the infobox (for the purpose of compromising?) because I consider them even less representative than a collage of notable people. But my point of departure differs from yours, since I am ambivalent towards the article in its present form, with or without those pictures. I am still in favour of using the collage, possibly in a modified form, regardless of the 'ethnic' issue: it still has a wider scope than the single photograph. Iblardi (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting tired of myself, I'm getting tired of you and your attitude. The INFOrmation of the INFObox are the numbers in the INFObox, because I assume wikipedias aim is to INFOrm people through letters, not pictures. Your entire point is based on the 'fact' that you think the infobox now complies with a neccesary requirement. FACT is however that no such requirement exists other than in your own mind ... and I honestly can't think of why I have to repeat myself so often and get so upsett just to make that clear.HP1740-B (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<- Sorry but images should support the text WP:MOS and should therefore contain information. There is no such thing as a non-informative image (not even that of the invisible pink unicorn). There is actually a lot of information in the picture; namely: The Dutch are an old-fashioned, rural society that cherishes tradition and shies away from modernisation (actually that information is also present in the current collage). Whether you want it or not, that INFOrmation is there. Arnoutf (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no such think as a non-informative image then I don't understand the suggestion that the single picture isn't informative. Tradional, and contempory are two different words. I think it's clear to everyone it portrays a tradional image (it even says it twice in the caption) rather than suggesting a contempory image, which you seem (to want) to see.HP1740-B (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YOU'RE the one who said "If they want to get informed they should read the goddamn article, why the hell would they merely read the infobox?!" insinuating that a picture doesn't have to be informative. Now you can back-paddle and say "hey this picture is informative too!" Sure do that, truth holds that a collage is A LOT more informative in many areas. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My attitude as in "He has a different opinion than I do?". Wikipedia isn't limited to informing people through letters, pictures can be used too. Even so below the collage text is presented which links to the biographies of Dutch people who've all represented the Dutch through fame and succes, and all have their own wikipedia page, which alltogether is a whole lot more information than 1 image that shows a dance from the 17th century or so. I find it a nice attribution yes, just like when I surf to, for example, Armenians I find it interesting to see a list of notable Armenians not just recent Armenians but also from centuries ago. I previously didn't know much about Armenians, but after I visited their pages I know a lot more. No I don't think an infobox "requires" a collage, that doesn't mean it isn't a nice attribution. Just like how a picture isn't required to be "non-biased" or whatever you keep calling it, since it doesn't violate any rules (they never get deleted off other pages), it's just your personal preference. It's impossible to find a single picture that sums the entire Dutch group throughout its ages, at least not better than a collage. Culture changes, and so do clothing style, architecture and folk dances. A collage however not only shows a variety notable historical figures but also informs a lot about the history of Dutch people such as their struggle against england, suffering during World War II, (currently) the Dutch disapora which is huge and even includes minor attributions such as clothing style, and there's many more options. Do you think it helps for you to drag out the discussion for days and post entire diagrams of arguments and counter-arguments? We will all eventually agree that a collage isn't a nice attribution? The only reason why you are getting "tired and upset" is because you can't persuade us in deleting the entire collage. You think you're the only one who has to repeat himself? We've been doing it all the time! But we still believe a collage is a nice attribution and will keep thinking so, just like many international wikipedians believe so since its starting to get used more and more. That doesn't mean we don't think the other pictures you've shown us aren't nice attributions, they are and we enjoy using them both. A collage however is made specifically for an infobox, I already proposed to you to move one of those two pictures up or even right below the infobox, although you might not agree on that, expanding the idea of simply using both. Furthermore I really don't want to "piss you off" or anything like that, I enjoy your further contributions, and the newly constructed introduction is nice. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't twist my words. A picture does not have to show an ethnic group through the ages, nor does it have to be "informative" in the way you understand that word, or portray struggles against other countries, a diaspora or what else (note that I don't think the collage does any of this) it should do 2 things: be neutral and show Dutch people. That's all this article needs, neutrality and keeping to the Dutch, which is exactly what I did to the intro you liked.HP1740-B (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it written what a picture "should or shouldn't do"? It's just your personal opinion which you are representing as fact, the collage violates no rules as it has been used with succes on many other pages. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a common practice to provide such pictures for different nations. The selection of most famous people is encyclopedic and has nothing to do with the nationalism. The alternative pictures can be placed in the article, but not in the infobox. So, I support the position by Pieter. Even if "old-fashioned", these people look wise and indeed notable. I like the picture in the infobox.Biophys (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The common practice is disputed as there are apparently also nations with the single picture option.
It has already been proven it's not as common as everyone seems to presume. Just as many articles use a single picture or use no picture at all.HP1740-B (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The common practice is not "disputed" because many nation pages have only recently begun adding collages. It's also not been "proven" that it's not common practice, because most worked on nation pages do have a collage actually. If you check out the natinalities most editors have on wikipedia[7], ALL of them have a college on their national page, except now again the Dutch because HP1740-B deleted it again, completely ignoring WP:OWN. Yes there's nation / ethnic group pages that don't have a collage yet because there's not been many nationals who have gone through the effort yet. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, well you're probably right that he's a controversial person too. I don't think he meant replacing him by someone like that. There's still space open because there's at least one person who might not be significant enough for the collage and instead get a place somewhere else on this page (riebeeck - in a new section concerning the diaspora in south africa maybe). I'm sure we can make something out, but I propose to keep that discussion to the other section. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanting to say that the broad range of possibilities should extend beyond the really old. I think to give a good overview of the variance of the Dutch (rather than historical grey men in black suits) we should add some representation of the modern, female and or dark side of the Dutch. But I agree with Pieter, that is a topic for a different section. Arnoutf (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a neverending topic based soley on personal preference that will last on and on and on. Apart from that it's a incumbent discussion as the collage hasn't been settled on at all. Eventhough Pieter seems to think so.HP1740-B (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think you can continue deleting an image just because of your personal grudge to this image? It seems you're never going to start disliking collages in general. The image doesn't violate any rules, collages are used widely on wikipedia and since an almost absolute majority on this page enjoys the introduction of one collage or another, it can stay. Your edits are disruptive and bordering vandalism. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now seen at least 5 editors (myself not counting) who are supporting one kind of collage over a single image, and only one supporting a single image. I can agree with that majority. To HP1740-B I think you should consider that a consensus is shaping against your personal preference. Do you really think you will be able to convince any of us? or might it be better to concede the issue and direct your effort on composing the best possible collage. My issues is still that I disagree with the composition of the current collage and think it should be (re)considered seriously (Both the English people and the French people show modern icons. The most recent in our current collage is Hanny Schaft.)Arnoutf (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Willem Drees ;) We could yes, although there's also examples of collages that don't have living people. I'll try to re-activate the discussion above. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops missed Drees, although pretty revolutionary on some aspects still a guy in black suit.
Anyway as mentioned above the whole Collage thing is emerging and I like your 4x3 alignment much more than the 20x300 (or another bizarrely huge matrix) of the English. Arnoutf (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the French I think :p Yea that's a mess. You probably overlooked Drees because he was born much earlier than Schaft. I've tried re-opening the discussion at "Whose in ??" above. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely meant the French :-P..... no offense meant to any English person that collage looks good; sorry guys, my mistake. Arnoutf (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a personal grudge against this image, I have already explained numerous times why I think a collage is a terrible idea. That you choose to ignore this and continue stubornly pushing your own point of view is your choice. This is an article on an ethnic group, your nationalist collage, which it will always be, no matter how hard you try it not be, will only prove to be a thorn in this article. Some the people who've supported it here made one comment on this page and never look at it again, but I warn you; this is the start of neverending story of perpetual conflict. Because even after countless adaptions there will people who say it's too male-orientated, too socialist-orientated, too science-orientated, too military orientated, too 19th-century orientated, too golden age-orientated, and you'll never, ever, succeed in pleasing anyone else but yourselves. Just to let you see and hopefully learn, and not because of sabotage or something similar, I'm going to show you how every single version you come up with can (and will) be blown to dust in seconds.HP1740-B (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contentwise: Similar objections as you list against the collage can, and have been, also be raised towards the single image (too rural, too traditionalist, too old fashioned, too stereotypical.....). Each and every image has this problem and that is something we have to deal with to our best capability. Arnoutf (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not harrasing anyone, I remained civil and if any one of you assumed good faith when I made clear I supported the single picture, this whole discussion would not have gotten so terribly out of control. Indeed every image has its downsides but some downsides outnumber and outweigh those of others. I repeat, once again, that a picture of Dutch folkorists is a perfectly fine and harmless picture in a well-written and balanced article on an ethnic group. You prefer a more nationalist aproach which you think is best for an ethnic article, fine. But I'll be here every step of the way, making clear whats wrong. Not a threat, not WP:POINT just me, teaching you why you are wrong, or in any case more wrong than I am.HP1740-B (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weird idea of civility, and please read WP:harrasment. Anyway, without arguments you can repeat a trillion zillion times that a picture of Dutch folkorists is a perfectly fine but doing that alone proves your violation of WP:POINT (thanks for bringing that one up). Finally: You teaching me requires you to have some knowledge I don't have, so perhaps you have some good source (wich have not been forthcoming) or you have personal authority and are a professor of ethnicitiy at a well regarded university, in those cases I might reconsider my opinion, otherwise you desperately need to be teached how to communicate and cooperate. Arnoutf (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guys let's just end this. HP1640-B you're entitled to your opinon, but so are we, I have often had to withdraw myself from sections of other articles too, simply because a whole community disagrees, and I still disagree with them today. That's just wikipedia, a free encyclopedia. I myself am currently not insulted by anything during this discussion and I think that you can only blame your own persistency for its length. If you're really going to "rub it in" all the time when a discussion related to the collage goes out of hand then I won't be intimidated by such behaviour, but right now I don't consider there to be any "bad blood" between us and encourage the two of us, and others, to keep contributing to this and/or other related pages. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry got carried away yesterday evening. I agree, let's try to discuss in a constructive way how to develop the image collage. Arnoutf (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement to make a point.". How eerie. I have presented my arguments numerous times, in fact my option has more PROS and less CONS behind it than your option. So perhaps you need to come up with some overwhelming source or an experts opinion, instead of me. Instead you and Pieter keep pushing your own collage, that's fine, but like I said I'm here to show you that collages are unworkable in a truly ethnic-based article.HP1740-B (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the discussion above. I started out very neutral about single-image versus collage, and criticised several inclusions in Pieters collage. So pushing my collage is not justified.
Furhtermore the number of arguments is only relevant if each argument has the same impact. (would you rather go for an option where you get 50 coins of 1 cent (i.e. 50 pro arguments) or for the option where you get 1 Euro (i.e. 1 pro argument). Simple counting is not sufficient.
Even more, I have always framed my opinion as such, an opinion not a fact, therefore it is my personal opinion which is thoroughly sourced by me saying so. However as soon as issues that are contested are presented as facts rather than opinion the person stating his/her opinion as a fact has to provide evidence that it is indeed a fact and not merely a strongly stated opinion.
Finally, there is now a 6 to 1 majority for a collage of some sort. I think it would be more productive for the development of the article to accept that that is as close to consensus as we will ever come. Arnoutf (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat again - Consensus IS NOT EQUAL TO unanimity. You said what you wanted to say, that has been considered and the opinion has moved away from your suggestion. Seems like a U-1 consensus starting to solidify to me Arnoutf (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a fresh idea. Why don't we add a row of accomplised Belgian/Flemish people into the collage? Then it might be more expressive of the intent of the article. Just an idea. But a good one, I think.--Buster7 (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I"m not sure where to go with this. I sense the exclusion of Belgians, and now Frisians, limits the broadbased potential of this very informative article. Do you see an opportunity to reconsider?--Buster7 (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Frisians were never part of this article; as an ethnic group (genetic dimension) they have been separated from the Dutch for much longer (already pre-800) than the Flemish; as an ethnic group (cultural and national dimension) the Frisians are much more part of the Dutch then the Flemish.
I think this addresses a core issue. How narrowly do we define the Dutch ethnicity. If we strictly limit it to nationality we need to include the Frisians and exclude the Flemish. If we focus on language we need to include the Flemish, exclude the Frisians; but also should include the Surinam and Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. If we consider ancestry we might consider adding the Flemish, but not the Frisians. But is we include the Flemish on ancestry we also should include the South African Boers; as the Netherlands ancestry is closer to theirs then that of the Flemish. Finally if we consider religion, we could argue that the Catholic South of the Netherlands (Limburg-Brabant-Zeeuws Vlaanderen) relates to the Flemish, while the Northern parts are in a single group with the Frisians, and many of the people from northern German bundesstaten.
In brief, there are arguments to include and to exclude the Flemish, the same for the Frisians, depending on which criterion in the description of ethnic group is considered more important. There is no easy answer. The only easy answer is that it should have all of "shared ancestry", "shared language", "shared culture" and that would leave us with the small Netherlands Dutch group minus the Frisians. Arnoutf (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know there is no easy answer. Generations of History have taken place. Dutch is a dynamic and multifaceted word. It can mean so many things to so many different people. I guess what I'm striving for is inclusion rather than seperation. That was my point. I won't belabor it. As you know, Im new here, Im just finding my way around. Granted, this is a Historical Article and needs to reflect historic facts. I understand your vantage point. I hope you can understand mine. While we are recording the History of the past we can also change the History to come. Bedankt!--Buster7 (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that the narrow definition can be used relatively neutral, while most broader definitions would have to use arbitrary reasons to exclude... to say it bluntly, coloured people (i.e. genetic/racism is lurking). I would not mind including others; the Flemish and Antilles or Surinam people into the Dutch ethnic group either, there seems to be people some people against; so that leaves me with no other choice than to support the smallest possible group, that can at least be neutrally compiled. Arnoutf (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure how you can make a distinction between Flemish and Dutch people. That would mean that a person from Maastricht is considered Dutch, while a person from Maaseik is considered Flemish, even though those people probably have more in common with each other than with people who luve further away in their country. In fact all the main Flemish subgroups (Vlaanderen, Brabant, Limburg) have an equivalent in the Netherlands (Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, Noord-Brabant, Limburg) so this distinction seems very artificial. --Lamadude (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well first of all it does not work the other way around, the Groningers, Drenthen and Hollanders have no equivalent in Belgium.
Secondly there is a cultural difference between the Dutch and the Flemings, although there is a certain gradual differentiation between the Northern Dutchmen, the southern Dutchmen and the Flemings. It will never be a hard distinction anyway (how to distinguish the Germans from the eastern Dutch). Arnoutf (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnographically speaking the Dutch and Flemish are virtually identical. However people tend to focus on differences rather than similarities. HP1740-B (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not exactly understand your reference to ethnography, which is about a specific scientific method to describe human societies; and as far as I know has relatively little to do with ethnicity. Nevertheless I agree the Dutch and Flemish are closely related (as are all humans, and north-western European societies in general).
I agree that the Dutch Limburgians are closer to the Belgium Limburgians than to e.g. the people from Groningen. The problem remains whether we can lump together the Flemish and the Groningen people in one ethnic group and leave the Frisians out of that cluster (the Groninger have much more in common with the Frisians than with the Flemish; and the Groningen, Drenthe and Overrijssel people have in turn a lot in common with those from Lower Saxony; than with the people from Zeeland. So yes, I agree the distinction between Flemish and Dutch seems arbitrary if you consider the continuum crossing the borders, the problem is, if we consider them as one where do we draw the line. Arnoutf (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of factors that could be taken into account. Language, history, culture, architecture. It's not as arbitrary or as you would make it seem. In fact, I genuinly doubt if someone from Overijsel would identify more with a German than a Fleming or a person from Zeeland. We left the dark ages you know, people do look further than the church tower of the next village.HP1740-B (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So this whole article is founded on "a number of factors that could be taken into account"? And this is not arbitrary? People do look further than the church tower of the next village because the Netherlands are a nation, with one standardized language, one government, one legal system, not because of some vague and elusive set of factors which cannot be approached objectively and therefore can never be either proven or refuted. Iblardi (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No we are no longer in the dark ages (not even the dark ages of the 20th century where ethnicity and race were mixed up). That is exactly what makes is so difficult. Indeed it tends to be that arbitrary: Language - might include the Frisians; but also Surinams; Dutch Antilles, and perhaps the Afrikaanders. History would distinguish between Flanders and Dutch from 1648 onwards (but would definitely include the Frisians). Then again prior to 1648 the Lowlands were part of the Holy Roman empire, so going back before 1648 would lump Dutch with Germans too. And again, historically it could be argued the ties with South Africa; Surinam and Indonesia are more recent than with Flanders. Culture; well I don't see much distinguishing the whole North-Western culture (unless you look at literature, but that is introducing language through a backdoor), Dutch and Flemish painting and sculpture is not that distinct from English and German art forms. Architecture: The Flemish architecture is much more similar to the Wallonish architecture than to the stereotypical Dutch; on the other hand Overrijssel (Twente) and Guelders (Achterhoek) architecture are very similar to the German style just across the border.
In other words, as soon as we start crossing the border include the Flemish, there are many reasons to include the rest of the word (which I would not necessarily object to, but which would make the focus a bit too broad). I think there should either be a very narrow focus (excluding the flemish) or we might enter an endless debate just how broad the group should be. Arnoutf (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In above post I wanted to make the point that most dimensions of ethnicity are continua. By identifying specific ethnic groups, we try to create a categorisation within a multi-dimensional space. The number of such categories is always somewhat arbitrary; and with every number of identified categories there will be exemplars near the edges that could fit into multiple categories, making the boundaries a bit arbitrary (is the platypus a mammal, and what does including that animal imply for the mammal category border). Arnoutf (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You confuse national issues with ethnic ones. Ethnicity is a combination of factors, the sum of which form the ethnic group. Just because another group happens to build a similar kind of church doesn't make them Dutch, or the Dutch any less Dutch. That's a rather odd way of reasoning. Just like refering to a political split of regions like that of 1648 as a somehow pivotal moment in the Dutch ethnos ... HP1740-B (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the issue of nationality is connected with the question of ethnicity. If it weren't for the unified country and the standard language that arose in the last four centuries, Groningen would probably not be considered 'ethnically Dutch'. The reverse applies to the Flemish. Iblardi (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just specified the four factors (Language, history, culture, architecture) you provided above; and showed for each of them that they are a continuum that slowly changes. (1648 would classify as the moment in history the Dutch and Flemish histories could no longer be seen as one I think; although that coincides with nation building; but that is indeed part of history. I agree that 1648 is putting a rather exact date on a process that had been going on from the Spanish fury onwards; and was arguable only ended with the creation of Belgium in 1830). For each of these factors separately it is not clear to say where Dutchness ends (ie the same type of church); and the combination is not necessarily without arbitrariness eiter. That is the only point I want to make. There is always arbitrariness in seperating ethnic groups. Arnoutf (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between Dutch and Flemish national culture; and Hollandic, Zeelandic, Brabantian, Limburgian, Lower-saxon or Frisian cultures is that they are transcendal, they represent something without boundaries. for example; if is discuss the relationship between the northern-Netherlands, the southern-Netherlands and Flanders, and i feel the need to divide the three into two concepts based on nationality; then there would be no reason not to discuss the relationship the northern-Netherlands and Flanders, have with the southern-Netherlands. In other words. it's the northern-Netherlands that are at the center of the Dutch-nationality; it is Flanders that is at the heart of the Flemish-nationality, and the southern-Netherlands is an area of distinction that belongs to both extremes because it is an intermediate area, a cultural gray-zone. But the two cultures are distinct: The Dutch Calvinists and the Flemish Catholics are very different in temperament. The first is more British (west), more German (east); the other more French (south). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.24.65 (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of mirrors my point that the east is more German directed (and protestant like the Germans across the border), the west is more directed to the sea and indeed England, and the South is catholic and similar to the Belgiums. I would say however that the prototypical Dutchmen is from the Randstad; making everything south of Rotterdam, east of Utrecht and North of Amsterdam a gray area indeed. Arnoutf (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but because there is both a linguistic and a national border between Germany and England; the west and the east have a tendency to grow toward each other, this has happened on a smaller scale with the southern-Netherlands and the rest of the Netherlands. The same can be said about including the Frisians into a Dutch ethnic groups: They are not separated from the rest of the Netherlands by a national border and partially not separated by a linguistic border (friesian people are multi-lingual). We could say that the Netherlands consists out of 5 (or more) different ethnic groups that have grown closer to each other in the last 400 years because of a shared national and linguistic border that resulted in a shared Dutch culture. in other words, the Dutch state brought related ethnic groups closer together, just like the German and the Belgium state have done this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.24.65 (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had been wondering about the flemish too. Point is, in old literature they were always described as simply dutch, but nowadays flemish is often presented as an ethnic group, also by the cia factbook for example. If it wouldn't we could have simply concluded them as Dutch. Concerning the scientific term, there may or may not be a difference ethnically. I believe I read somewhere that the flemish also descent from the celts, unlike the Dutch. HP1740-B do you know anything about that? - PietervHuis (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If and when you decide that the Flemish are not Dutch, it would disway any ambiguity to be sure to remove the 6 million from any mention on your population table.--Buster7 (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that Flemish are somehow 'Celtic' as opposed to the 'Germanic' Dutch is a myth that started to appear after the Belgian revoltion. In more modern cultural theories on the Low Countries and the Dutch, such as the Nordwestblock-theory, genetics show that the Flemish and Dutch are identical genetically.HP1740-B (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean completely celtic, but partly. I heard some rumours that west-flanders had celts. Anyway, if you can add sources for all you just said, we can include the flemish and make a side-note that some consider them a seperate group, instead of the other way around. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter...yes it is ...in the info box, under Total population
25 million - 28 million
(~ 34 million with addition of Flemings)...See it now? I know it is a tiny, teeny, almost not visible inclusion of 6 million Flemish... but...there it is!--Buster7 (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a gallery to supplement the infobox image. I have taken the idea of the anon-editor a bit further by filling in some "gaps". With my recent additions (open for discussion) I tried to create a continuous line from Erasmus until now, i.e. I have included at least one person who was born before the previous one died. This resulted in a fairly long gallery, but I nevertheless hope you like this idea. Arnoutf (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to tweak the gallery? 1 Herman Brood: Bad choice. 2 Jan-peter Balkendende: bad choice. 3 Edwin van der sar: bad choice. 4 Hindi Laroussi: Bad choice.
1: Not a native Dutch music style, not well listened or popular, does not cross several generations, does not cross economic class boundaries, did nothing innovating, did not too excel at either music or art: Suggestion:toon hermans, herman van veen or zangeres zonder naam.
2: Not the most influential primi-minister, not very influential in political sciences, has not administered any serious political changes, does not score high for his achievements in other forms of media: Suggestion: wim kok or pim fortuyn.
3:Not such a bad choice but i would suggest a native Dutch sport be given priority.
Fair enough just to explain, put up Brood and Balkenende to show the broad diff between the Dutch (Brood being bohemian, and Balkenende being, well....) I only chose Balkenende because he is currently in power; but changing is fine. Fortuyn might actually be an interesting choice (althoug in practice less influential than Balkenende) as he was pretty explicit, although I doubt his painting is good enough, and there are no Wikimedia images on the other hand we do have Image:Gerrit Zalm 2006.jpgImage:Wilders.jpgImage:Femke Halsema-roel.jpg. We could also add someone else entirely e.g. Image:Wubbo Ockels.jpg as first Dutch astronaut. And I do like van Veen. For sports we could go for a speed skater; e.g. Image:Erben Wennemars celebrating.jpg. I can live with Hind not being ethnic Dutch, but legally she is. Can we put in someone else, tried to find a Jamai image to keep into spirit but could not find one. Will have another look around. Arnoutf (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well NO; I disagree. We are outlining an overview of the Dutch. Most Dutch are neither well known, nor the best in their field. I would say about 95% is average. So why do we need the best of the best in their field. Anyway I am pretty sure that excludes Floris V, William the Silent, and Thorbecke who were relatively fine statesman but not comparable to others (Charlemagne as medieval, Charles V compared to William of Orange and e.g. Bismarck for 19th century). And the influence of Fortuyn on politics is next to zero anyway. Comparably de Chariere and Hannie Schaft are not major players. So I think putting up that demand would invalidate the whole exercise.
And anyway, recognition comes usually after the fact, and since we are writing about the Dutch ethnic group from 2008 we need to include more representation of Generation X and Generation Y; the current selection having only a single person less than 60 yrs in age; and he is from 1970. Putting up the "best of the best" guideline makes this impossible as history has not yet has time to tell. Arnoutf (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should remove all famous people and only place pictures of ordinary Dutch citizens. That way people are able to get a better picture of the day to day lives of the Dutch through the centuries. I suggest that we place people from different professions and age-groups together, for example what did children wear around 1900, the Golden Age and in the present day; what makes a politician, farmer, shop-owner or labour different from there ancestors working in the same professions? that would work much better then only famous people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.24.65 (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which won't be easy, but if we would manage that would be great. (put up Balkenende again because I really have a problem with the painting of Fortuyn, if you have a good photo, we can discuss (IMHO Balkenende has more influence now than Fortuyn ever had) Arnoutf (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced Balkenende with Duisenberg because he had more influence on Dutch and European politics then both Balkenende and Fortuyn put together. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait for some input from others before closing it indefinitely. I am fine with the current selection. (btw as you appear to be a serious editor consider making an account) Arnoutf (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's best to exclude guys like Fortuyn, also because he's a controversial person. The gallery is quite big now, and includes at least two ethnic germans. If that qualifies then we could also add someone like Clearance Seedorf for example. Not my prefrence, but then I feel that it should be more explicitly stated that that section is not just about the ethnic dutch. Also that skate guy is probably best to be replaced with Bergkamp maybe, and Tiesto can replace Edison maybe? - PietervHuis (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing controversial about being gay. Many famous Dutch people have been gay. Too exclude gay Dutch people would we an insult to our culture; because we love our gays dearly. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhh, did I even mention his sexuality? I was talking about his political ambitions which were controversial, and are still controversial today. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because someone who is gay cannot enter the Dutch parliament? Because of the way he spoke about his homosexuality and his relationship with other men? Sir, i must ask this before we proceed: Are you Christian? Do you believe in the literal truth of the holy bible? 85.146.24.65 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again work on your reading. I never mentioned his sexuality. He's a controversial person because of his political views. But if you want to include his self-written essays on his darkroom adventures I guess it fits right in. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think personalizing this discussion isn't particularly helpful. Fortuyn's homosexuality was never an issue in the Dutch media, and neither did he gain such a huge number of votes by virtue of being openly homosexual. It was his polemic style and especially his outspokenness regarding immigration issues that made him controversial. Iblardi (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Christian heritage taught me never to judge anyone: and i am not going to judge anyone including fortuyn's political ideas and i hope you won't do that either, because we most be neutral and not choose a political side: Left, right, christian, conservative, marxist, green or nationalist when writing an article about the Dutch. when you dismiss fortuyn based on his political ideas then you are breaking encyclopedic neutrality and insulting a large faction of Dutch people who voted on him. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is sufficient 3rd party reporting calling Fortuyn views controversial (as opposed to those of the mainstream parties, which you can agree with or not, but that are not considered (very) controversial. If we consider these it is not us that are doing the judging, so no breach of neutrality
Secondly remains, that although Fortuyn stirred up Dutch politics, his views have accomplished next to nothing.
Procedural point; when selecting a gallery we need to judge "worthiness" without doing so we should include all Dutchpeople who ever lived. Arnoutf (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm no that's not the point. The point is that there's no need to insert a random controversial politician who was unable to accomplish anything. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Why have a gallery at all? There already is the image at the top right, containing images of 12 famous Dutch people. The gallery adds nothing to this. An image gallery mau be relevant for a visual artist (like Rembrandt), but to have one here is completely unnecessary. I note that e.g. neither Germans, Italians, Swedish people or French people have one (they all have a small gallery at the top right, just like this page), and that WP:LAYOUT is not really enthusiastic about them. Do they add anything to the understanding of the article? If you want to include famous people, do the images add anything that a list of names and achievements would not? The article is already pretty long, so there's no need to add decoration. Fram (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is because we are testing this feature on a wikipedia page. We want to have more input from other people and then decide in what direction we want to take the image gallery. Maybe only show typical Dutch citizens or Dutch culture (architecture, food and living-room) 85.146.24.65 (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really favour a gallery either. There's already a List of Dutch people page. Best is to find a way to integrate these persons in the article or approriate sections. Best solution would be to make a commons page about Dutch people and link that. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is possible to relocate the pictures through the article, that would probably be best. As it is now, I do like the gallery because I think it offers a nice visual counter-balance against the other, more traditionalistic images in the article. Iblardi (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in favor of a photo gallery. As Fram says it's purely decoration. It will become like an over-decorated Christmas tree with no end to who goes into the gallery. Right now there is some logical conversation related to inclusion (or not). But that won't last. Someone will want to add Rin-Tin-Tin down the line. Then the arguement will be, "Is he a Dutch or German shepherd?"--Buster7 (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing the discussion I have no strong opinion. I like the chronological order as that gives some view about evolving modern Dutch (and fashion). On the other hand merely duplicating an expanded info box setup seems indeed irrelevant. (this latter argument can go two ways - removing/changing gallery or reducing the topbox image to say 4 dutchpeople in which case the gallery does add). Arnoutf (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept atheism (but would need some consensus first) as a group under religion (although it is none), as that is active denial of a deity; and is relevant in the context in my opinion. A problem is that there is no explicit number of atheists (the CBS data only talks about no (strong) beliefs; rather than strong disbelief). The other issues are as much religions as capitalism (which is dogmatic in itself ;-) and should not be mentioned. Arnoutf (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it provides an interesting aspect of the social fabric of the Dutch people, atheism is NOT a religion by definition. Its a declaration of sorts, but it does not forward the listing of religions. Perhaps a footnote...--Buster7 (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is no religion, but is related to religion. But I get your point. I updated the religion box and added "41% no reported member of church organisation" first of all, that is what CBS measured (CBS does not report atheism) secondly it shows the secular nature of the Dutch completing the 100% tally of religions, and showing who the missing people are (ie non-members and not e.g. Wicca, Scientology etc). I hope this is an acceptable solution to you guys. Arnoutf (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are two situations regarding Population that should be addressed. 1) The second sentence erroneously states that the Dutch form "a considerable part of the population of Canada,[30]Australia,[31] South Africa[32] and the United States.[33]". This would imply that the Dutch % of population in those countries is significant or noticeably large. It is not. Canada has approx. 30 million residents of which under a million declare Dutch ethnic origin. The US has over 285 million of which a little over 5 million are of Dutch heritage. Australian figures reflect similar percentages. These totals are FAR, FAR from considerable. In regards to South Africa the statement, while still misleading, may be closer to the truth. Can someone rephrase this section so that it reflects the facts?
2) Flemings are still included in the Infobox population figures but excluded in the article, the talk page, the Infobox gallery, and the gallery at the end of the article. Which is it...in or out? Presently, it's both ways!--Buster7 (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considerable is open to multiple interpretation. Some rephrasing maybe indeed needed. From Dutch POV the numbers are significant and considerable, the other way around they are not.
I would say "out". They have their own article. We should acknowledge some shared ethnic past but "past" that is all. Arnoutf (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True re: defs of considerable. But here it is used to refer to an amount. And the percentages of Canadians is 3 1/2% and for the US its less than 1.5%. Austalian #'s are similar. Maybe it's better to omit this sentence since the numbers don't support consideration?--Buster7 (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion that ethnicity and nationalism can not be seperated; because nationalism shapes culture and culture shapes nationalism, and i therefor suggest that we intergrate the two. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example; the type of famous people we but in our collage tells me much more about the nature of the Dutch people; there goals and the achievements they want to be remembered for, then a simple image of the Dutch and former Dutch territories. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree nationalism is a cultural issue, it is only a very small part of that, and thus an even smaller part of ethnicity. So I would argue against explicit references to nationalism.
Can you also please explain why to add a former anthem which has only to do with the country, nothing with the ethnic group, is in Dutch (hence incomprehensible to English readers) and, as said before is no longer in use. Arnoutf (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be informative; i can supply an english translation?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
@85.146.24.65. This article is (going to be) about the Dutch ethnicity. Anthropology and nationalistic rambling have one major difference: Anthropology describes a particular people, while nationalism describes why a particular people is superior to other peoples. There is no room for the latter here, if you want to write about it, write a book; not an encyclopedia.HP1740-B (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article draws from a lot of different sourches including: Linguistics, sociologie, history, archeology, politics and arts. I find that my case for including a political movement is valid. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly i must point out that some of your phrasing might be considered insulting, for example:
1: Nationalistic ramblings is not only insulting but also very wrong; By placing science next too a cultural, romantic and spiritual movement you make it seem like nationalism should not have any authority, and as a science it should not; but as a cultural movement i can.
2: nationalism describes why a particular people is superior; i view this as slander.
3: By suggesting that i should write a book rather then write in good spirit on this encyclopedia you give me the impression that you want to see me removed. I find this very unfavourable. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalism has no authority, because it is, by its nature, biased. It is no science and neither is a 'cultural' movement. Its a doctrine. On your points 2 and 3: I made it very clear what I think about your views, and if you see that as insulting, then that's all up to you. I indeed want to "see you removed", not because I think you edit in bad faith, but because I think your personal views are a threat to the integrity of this article.HP1740-B (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalism (and any other issue) can only have authority in Wikipedia when science, or other reliable sources provide it with claims to mainstream authority. Other claims to authority do not conform to verifiability, neutrality of point of view and original research policies. It is up to the editor who is convinced an issue is worth mentioning to provide the sources. Statements as "It is my opinion" are fine for talk pages but can have no influence on the mainspace article without reliable sourcing. Arnoutf (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must suggest you pay attention to the fist point i made; nationalism is not a science but a broad cultural movement that includes the celebration of a soccer victory and the study of ancestors and history. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I insist you pay attention to the relevant wikiguidelines who do not consider a "broad cultural movement" as relevant source. These guidelines make you initial point utterly irrelevant. Arnoutf (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Music, art, sports are all broad cultural movement; monarchist, republicans and marxist are also broad cultural movements that shaped Dutch history, politics and culture. You don't remove them because you need them to describe the Dutch people and there history, so you need nationalism to help you in this, because it is made out sports, geneaology and the pratical application of history. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalism is the precursor of Facism. I'm not sure how to ask "85" if he wants to make the article even more polarized. Nationalism and ethnicity are not synonomous. I understand the desire to display a national pride or spirit. But it is a slippery slope. Chauvanism, jingoism, "my country right or wrong", and isolationism are the children of nationalism. For instance, not everyone can seperate the ethnicity of the German people and the history of the Third Reich. To some they are the same. We need to protect what this article conveys. A reliable Source is necessary.--Buster7 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your are now confusing patriotism with ethnicism. Patriotism has even less to do with ethnic groups than nationalism. Arnoutf (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Patriotism concerns the pride one (might) take in their respective homeland/fatherland. This has nothing to do with ethnicity.HP1740-B (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody ever argued it was a biological ethnic group. The connection you have repeatedly failed to make is that "patriotism and nationalism fit into the culture mold" in any way relevant to ethnic group. Just saying that this is clearly the case is NOT making it true. Provide the references! Arnoutf (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Dutch is not a biological ethnic group;" Uhm where did you get that idea from? The Dutch ethnic group is as existing as any other ethnic group from a scientific point of view. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Nationalism is the precursor of Facism" I think you're confused with Racism. Both can go together though (nationalism), as long as there's respect between nations. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re: PietervHuis...Fascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence”...Roger Griffin, Nature of Fascism, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991, p. xi--Buster7 (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to insert and section about (political) ideologies: Conservatism, liberalism, nationalism, marxism and christians-democratism. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This is not different from those in other countries, and even if it where, the relevance to the ethnic group is not clear. (of course if you can provide academic references stating these are relevant to Dutch ethnicity we can discuss) Arnoutf (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is my believe that you personally hold a personal grudge against me. I find it very difficult to believe that you do hold religion as the personal expression of a ethnic groups but not politics. i believe that we are here to document the Dutch people, not attack some unimportant stranger. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide a rationale how these political ideologies are identifying characteristics of the Dutch I am happy to discuss and even to include if we reach an agreement. Without such rationale I truly don't see why it defines the Dutch (most Western countries have similar political parties, so why is this specifically Dutch?). Arnoutf (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before someone else brings it up, it might surprise some that in the section I rewrote/added today, no references are provided. This is because I have written it from a draft and did not write down the exact reference pages. The sources of this draft will be provided tomorrow.HP1740-B (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think your effort on streamlining history is pretty good, although I doubt a bit about using Golden Era in relation to the Ethnic Group, as it is more the GE of the republic and not the ethnic group. I would also start the modern Era with the Batavian Republic as that was the first truly unified (ie not federal) Dutch state. And some copyedit on style. I think these are minor issues. Will try to do some of the copyedit (ie style and grammar no content change) in a while. Arnoutf (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, HP. Your editing is bold. As Arnoutf says, there are minor copy-edit "glitches" but the content flows. The upper part of the article has shifted and is now dynamic and unifying. Thanks for your effort.--Buster7 (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed well done, be sure to take my comments as constructive critisism; not as a negative comments. I think your edits are indeed significant improvements. Arnoutf (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HP1740-B, I think you have done a good job in terms of organisation of the text, but I am critical about some of the content. I have two requests:
1. Could you give me some more information about the embedment of the passage in Blok's book that you use as a reference for the sentence The Dutch can generally be seen as a continuation of the Franks? I find that an interesting statement and wanted to look it up in the introduction of the 1974 edition, but that one doesn't contain any statement to that effect. In fact, the author makes very little mentioning (if at all) of the relationship between early medieval tribes and the modern Dutch throughout his book. I do not have ready access to the 1979 print used in the article. I would appreciate it if you could give me some more background on that reference -- maybe this is the result of a major revision by Blok.
2. I also couldn't find the source of the sentence By the late 10th/early 11th century, a group emerged which not only was culturally Dutch, but also identified as such, which should be on page 54 of the 1979 version. I would like to know how Blok is arguing this, given the fact that as far as I know there are no written sources from that time that speak of the Dutch as a clearly identifiable group. Iblardi (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@1, I find that very odd. I'll try to look if the newer prints incorporate it or leave it out like the 74 version, if a sudden backdrop of "ethnic remarks" is present we might need to reconsider this source. I find that (v79) especially in the section on Germanic tribes etc, Blok sporadically mentions the relation between ancients and modern Dutch. About the background, Blok explains the arrival of Franks and their dominance and subsequent influence on the Dutch and Low Countries. @2, afaik Blok refers to the common cultural developments. In view of the above, I will try to find additional sources for this claims given the possible doubtfulness.HP1740-B (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HP1740-B thanks for the nice contributions. Earlier you mentioned you were convinced that the Flemish people were Dutch. You've been adding a lot of history of this Flemish community, and now I'd like to ask you what makes you think they are? Can you come up with some sources? I mainly have my doubts because according to other sources the Flemish are of Celtic descent as well. The Menapii for example are often named as a Celtic tribe and they lived in west Flanders. I'm on vacation for a while so I don't think I can reply. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pre migration period populations are not as dominant in the modern ethnic make up as once though. Following the 'rediscovery' of ancient Latin texts such as Germania and Bello Gallico, lots of Romantic Nationalists simply sorted their pickings. Modern research and theories (such as the Nordwestblock-theory) show that culture and genetics were already quite close among the people living in the Low Countries before the arrival of the Franks, the major influence in both the Dutch as well as the 'Flemish'.HP1740-B (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current Architecture Gallery is overdoing it for two reasons. Too many pictures. Too much colonial past. I would rather suggest something more condensed and modern something like:
The focus lies with traditional Dutch architecture. It's a good thing that there is a great variation in architecture among the Dutch, but whether its truly a part or associated with them is another matter. Many people picture Dutch people living in "Dutch houses", not De Stijl houses. I even think the RS-house is the only building in that particular style. Its important to differentiate between architecture in the Netherlands, and Dutch architecture.HP1740-B (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is important to differentiate between architecture in the Netherlands. I would say that many style (including e.g. Rijksmuseum) although built by a Dutch architect and in the Netherlands is not Dutch architecture (e.g. the Neo-Gothic style of Rijksmuseum is more of an English architectural style).
That said, Dutch architecture (nor architecture in the Netherlands) ended in 1800.
My problem with your suggested gallery is that it gives a broad overview of colonialist Dutch architecture. Traditional Dutch architecture includes many types of farm buildings (none pictured). This way I think we give a very much stereotypical and nationalistic view of Dutch architecture (no windmills yet....).
The Stijl is a very, very Dutch movement. The builders of the Stijl, Le Corbusier (France) and Bauhaus are the precursors of the global modernist movement. Basically, the Bijlmer is a direct continuation of the ideas co-developed by the style movement. I dare to put to the fore that more people in the Netherlands are living in Bijlmer type apartment buildings compared to colonial style. So modernism is both a Dutch contribution to global architecture AND very influential inside the Neterlands.
For more modern Dutch architects (Meccano; Koolhaas), I chose for Delft University because it is both in the Netherlands and a typically Dutch Design - postmodern building. Many Dutch architects realise more buildings outside then inside the Netherlands (Koolhaas being most prominent).
In brief, we should not limit Dutch architecture to stereotypical colonial architecture because this is stereotypical (clogs and windmills) and in my opinion even nationalistic. Furthermore, 20th century Dutch architecture has been, and still is, very influential in the development of cityscapes all over the world, and deserves attention. Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I speak of Dutch architecture I refer to a broad movement. Very basically I need to see a string of similar buildings appearing virtually in all corners. Crow-stepped gabled houses, and their variations, fit that profile perfectly. Their construction did not end in the 1800, and they (specifically their simpler variants) have influenced most post 1920 houses, where the majority of the Dutch people live in. There is only one De Stijl house, in my eyes hardy exemplary for Dutch architecture. That said, you are of course right about farms, more modern houses, and they probably need to be incorporated. I don't see, in any way, how the pictures could be perceived nationalistic. Also, stereotypes do not fall from the sky.HP1740-B (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 1930's (and its copies) style of building of Oud and other architect was only partially based on the 17th century houses, it was definitely leaning towards modernism. I don't say Stijl (more than only that house by the way, Rietveld Schroder is only the most well known, Rietveld built several similar houses, as did van Doesburg, Dudok and many others) is the type of house most people live in (just like not most people live in canal houses), but that style is highly influential in Broek and Bakema, Herzberg and most other 1960 architects. So if we include Canal-houses (where only a few people live) we can just as well include Stijl houses.
Secondly, boasting of colonial past (which the case of putting up foreign Dutch style houses can be considered to be) can easily be considered nationalistic.
Thirdly, and I think this is a key issue, do we want to put up a "stereotype of the Dutch according to the world" or do we want to try to sketch the Dutch as they are (in which case we may discover we are much the same as everybody else). If we chose the first approach, your arguments above make perfect sense; if we take the latter, the issue becomes more complex. I opt for the second approach. Arnoutf (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again you mistake Dutch architects with Dutch architecture. Also, a lot of Dutch people live in Dutch-gabled houses. Virtually every town has them, most of them not even near a canal. I also just saw pictures of Dutch styles houses, some with chestnut trees next to them and some with palms aside them. That you see colonialism and slaves being whipped is more a production of your mind.HP1740-B (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people in Gabled houses. Probably a few thousand at most, because I seriously doubt there are more than that many left. But that is not the issue. More people live in modernist houses. Again, not the issue.
What I see is houses in former colonies, all related to colonial past (I did not mention slavery so that is the production of your mind): South Africa (apartheid), Malacca (former colony capture by military power), Willemstad (important slave trading center). Again not the main issue.
The issue seems to be what Dutch architecture is. That is a good question. In my opinion Dutch architecture is architecture that is designed by Dutch architect, and is grounded in Dutch architectural tradition. In my view all of Berlage, Oud, Rietveld, Broek en Bakema, Koolhaas (and hence architects following their ideas) qualify for this. Can you please give a clear definition what you mean with Dutch architecture? Arnoutf (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to understand what a Dutch gabled house is. Dutch architecture is architecture with a form of tradition, especially concerning housing.HP1740-B (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dutch gabled houses are houses where the gable has an ornamental function. This style went mainly out of tradition in the Netherlands in the 1800s.
It seems we at least partially agree on the definition (we agree that with tradition you mean Dutch tradition I guess). I do not agree with your limitation on housing though as some industrial architecture are definitely part of Dutch architecture (e.g. Windmills, van Nelle Fabriek, Stelling van Amsterdam, and Ir.D.F. Woudagemaal). Arnoutf (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly you agree the limitation to housing is practical for this article, but not an inherent element of your proposed definition. In that case, I can see your point to include only housing with consideralbe coverage. Arnoutf (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proposed image of settlers (brave Dutch explorers bringing civilization to the wild) with tulips (stereotype) is a very nationalistic, and in the modern context irrelevant depiction of the Dutch.
While I am open to discuss the collage (to some extent), I truly do not see why a foreign stereotypical image would represent the Dutch in any way. Even the Clog-Girls image from a while ago was more neutral and less stereotype. I reverted that change. Arnoutf (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without intending to cause a problem, I must say that I kind of miss the collage (in the infobox). It took a lot of effort/discussion to create and the finished product had quality (not to imply that the tulips arent...well...very yellow)--Buster7 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right ... modern context. Have you noticed that all the people in that collage are dead? Drees alone died 20 years ago, and he was well over a 100 years old. Apart from that no one in the collage possess such a fame that they are even recognizable to the average person. There is nothing wrong about traditional garments, clogs and other 'stereotypes'. Fact is that most people do think about that when they think of Dutch people. I have observed many similar articles here on wikipedia, and I found nothing to prove me wrong. Javanese people people hits the spot. With what many would consider to be a stereotype. What is nationalism is that collage, not Dutch costumes. Ask yourself this, those people who dress like that, what do you think is on their mind? Celebrating their heritage or establishing themselves as culturally superior?HP1740-B (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want to put up a stereotype. If so please convince the British to insert the bowler hat, the French a baguette, and the Americans with a 200kg Hamburger eating redneck.
Yes, the people in the collage are dead, but they contributed to the current Dutch identity (ie how the Dutch feel about themselves, which is very much different from the stereotype). Ask a Dutch person whether (s)he identifies with 18th century colonists in Michigan, or with any of the persons in the collage. This article is in my view about the Dutch, not about international stereotypes on the Dutch. Arnoutf (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ask Dutch people if they identify more with those 18th century colonists or Floris V, I think I know the answer. The point of that image is this; when I see a girl in Dutch garment, I think of the Dutch. I don't think of Postwar socialism (Drees), medieval feudalism (Floris), physics (Lorentz) or how my sperm looks under a microscope (Leeuwenhoek), no, I think of the Dutch. Apart from that I and other Dutch people (undeniably) think of the Dutch, other people also think of the Dutch, and that is the real issue. The fact that no one wears that anymore, doesn't matter. The fact that it is used to sell more butter to the Germans, doesn't matter. It is an undeniable and international part of Dutch culture.HP1740-B (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re your ideas. You can say that, I can say the opposite. Ask some elderly Dutch whether they identify the Dutch with (vadertje) Drees or some 18th century settlers in Michigan, no doubt in my mind, it will be Drees. Whether they identify with Floris V or the same settlers, with Erasmus or the settlers, with Hanny Schaft or the settlers. No doubt in my mind, all of these will be more identified with than settlers in Michigan. Of course you may provide a survey published in an academic journal to prove me wrong.
The other issue you raise is indeed the core. Do we want to report the "self identification" of the Dutch as a group (ie in-group identification, which in my opinion includes Drees, but not the settlers); or do we want to focus on international positioning of the Dutch (where I would grudginly agree the settlers are better, but would prefer "Clog girls" even more). Arnoutf (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps you could do the same and get an academic survey that proves me wrong. We are not talking about "clog girls" or "statues" here. We are talking about 2 picture styles. I would sincerely doubt if the name Drees, or any other person in that collage, would be named if a Dutch person would be asked to describe his or her ethnicity. It's not a case of individuals you see ... that would constitute a cult. Its a collective feeling that makes up an ethnicity. Ask yourself what images make you think about that collective.HP1740-B (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not Brass 18th century dressed settlers in a Michigan tulip field. I think the top-10 largest Dutchmen election might give a hint. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I already said, I'm no longer talking about specific photographs. Cultural identity isn't made up by a list of persons. It is a deeper feeling, and if a clog picture can recall that feeling and do it in an international recognizable way ... then go with the clog.HP1740-B (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural identity is probably multidimensional; a stereotype almost always an oversimplification. To capture the complexity you may need multiple images. De Grootste Nederlander may give an idea which dimensions/issues are most important in the view of the Dutch in 2004. Arnoutf (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see a big difference in how we both view Dutch culture. I view the people listed in that tv show as being eccentric 'results' from Dutch culture. Not the essence of Dutch culture.HP1740-B (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we seem to have different view on how to position Dutch culture, and hence this article. I see the people flagged up in Grootste Nederlanders as identifiers of an underlying (latent and non-directly-measurable) self-identification structure of the Dutch. (By the way: I agree they are not the essence, but I think they are the best indicators (ie better than a stereotype) for that culture we have). I suggest to wait from some additional input, as I think it is unlikely we will convince each other at this stage. Arnoutf (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Difference in paradigms I think. Is culture built up from individuals (bottom up / more psychological approach), or is it something independent of the individual members of the society (top down / more sociological approach). I think we should just agree we disagree and let input from other editors inform this further. Arnoutf (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that a "list of people" is the culture, I meant that the Dutch culture is a dynamic, multidimensional thing, formed by all the Dutch. Arnoutf (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because (as I tried to explain above), while the culture is not the list, the list maybe an indicators of some of the ideas in the culture (e.g. De Ruyter, De Witt, Rembrandt may indicate that the military, political and artistic elements of the Golden Age are part of the culture / Hannie Schaft of the cultural idea that all Dutch were resistance fighters). What I mean is, the culture is made up by the (often implicit) ideas and feelings of all Dutch (ie culture is a latent and social construct). As such it is not directly measurable; generally recognized historical figures may give some insight into these feelings. That makes an election like Grootste Nederlander an interesting sample of current culture. In such elections it is not about the actual Dutchness or importance of these people, but how much of the Dutch today recognize their implicit image of the Dutch in such figures. (btw the choice of the twelve in the collage may well be subjective, but that is another issue for another topic) Arnoutf (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bull. First of all, I consider this view to be false and elitist. I do not consider the Grootste Nederlander tv show to be as reputable as you seem to want to pose it. People, or better; a minority of the Dutch populace, cast their votes, on people they personally liked. That's personal preference based on personal values. A culture cannot be represented by individuals, symbolics should be preferred. I'll give an example. I believe Johan Cruijf was on that list fairly high too. Now, do you think that Cruijf is the cause of footballs popularity among the Dutch, or that Cruijf became such a good player because football already was a part of Dutch culture? Which view would result in a picture of Johan, and which would result in a picture of a ball?HP1740-B (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bull?? Ok that is your opinion. By now, I have given my view on culture and embedded it in an academic tradition. You obviously disagree. Therefore you must have a better alternative. How do you define and measure culture?
I agree Grootste Nederlander is not a reputable source. I think Cruijff is popular because football is popular (compare e.g. with field hockey where we are often world champion, and how many players have the same status as Cruijff). I also think that a Dutch cultural identification with football would look for a Dutch symbol, ie a Dutch player, Cruiff; the colour Orange (btw indeed a symbolic self-identification with this colour, but quite different from the international stereotypical tulip), or similar; but not the ball as that is not related to anything specifically Dutch. Arnoutf (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you gave your view on culture embedded in an academic tradition? I don't want your view on what constitutes culture, I want to know why you consider a collage (be it of 12 dead people, or in whatever other form) to be more representative, recognizable and identifiable for, and by the Dutch people?HP1740-B (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More than what? More than a single image of an international stereotype? First of all (as I repeatedly said) we should focus on self-identification, rather than international stereotype. Secondly (as I said repeatedly above) culture is a multidimensional construct (e.g. history, sports, arts, architecture, language etc etc); it is impossible to give such a multidimensional construct in a single image. Why people and not symbols; because the article is about the Dutch ethnic group, ie it is about Dutch people, not Dutch images; or Dutch culture. Arnoutf (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep rambling about stereotypes? It's a picture of Dutch people in traditional dress. A stereotype doesn't have to be negative. Do you deny that:
Such dresses are part of Dutch cultural heritage?
Dutch people themselves identify with such an image?
Other people identify the Dutch with that image?
Culture is indeed a wide spectrum, (e.g. history, sports, arts, architecture, language etc etc), but may I remind you that this article is about Dutch people more than Dutch culture? Hence a picture representing Dutch people, not Dutch culture, is to be the norm. With a single picture I avoid needless discussion and am open to meaningful discussion. I demand that the following questions be answered positively:
Does the representation contain clearly visual sings of Dutch culture?
Do Dutch people identify the representation as being Dutch?
Do other people identify the representation as being Dutch?
Those are the only questions I need to ask about any image. Compare that to your collage. It is unworkable and you know it.HP1740-B (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statues make me, a Dutch person, think more of New World nostalgia and invented tradition than of real Dutch people. We might as well use that cartoon that was featured in the stereotypes section long ago. The collage is fine. Iblardi (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The interesting thing is that the concept of "ethnic group" becomes meaningful when a culturally connected group of people feels threatened. This may happen to smaller communities in oversea areas; in this sense, the picture showing the settler and his wife and their tulips may even be appropriate -- but only for that specific situation, not for the Dutch who stayed home. Iblardi (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To your first question Such dresses are trivial, unimportant part of D-c-h. No Dutch I know identify with that image; Some people may identify the Dutch as that image.
To your second set of questions. The collage contains signs of Dutch culture, the clog or tulip images don't. If your (tulip) image is considered being Dutch (which I am not sure about at all); it is an outdated romantisised image that almost nobody will take seriously. On the other hand the collage contains a lot of representations that identify as Dutch to the Dutch (Drees, Hannie Schaft etc), and it also contains some international represenetations of the Dutch (e.g. Rembrandt) So for your second questions: 3 no's for the Clog Girls and the Bronze statues alike; 3-yesses for the collage. Arnoutf (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read more carefully, I didn't ask you if they identify with that image, I asked you if they identify the image as Dutch. A very big difference. Now let me judge your collage objectivly:
Does the representation contain clearly visual sings of Dutch culture?
No. None. Men in suits, men in paintings, men on woodcarvings.
Do Dutch people identify the representation as being Dutch?
They would identify a few people, most wouldn't recognize half of them, as being historical Dutch figures.
Do other people identify the representation as being Dutch?
To your arguments: Yes the collages conveys being Dutch as they represent Dutch naval power, Dutch literature and Philopsophy, Dutch visual arts, Dutch politics, Dutch science.
Most people would identify with the Dutch cultural elements (see above) represented by these people; even if they don't recognise the image (note that there is a caption; and it is the content not the visualisation perse).
Ask an average person about Rembrandt (included) chances are he will be recognised as Dutch. But you have some thing of a point here, the selection in the collage is Dutch centered, we might consider adding some more international icons of Dutchness (van Gogh? Willem de Kooning? William of Orange? Vermeer?). The exact composition of the collage has always been open to discussion.
But now please answer my same questions to the alternative (e.g. the bronze settlers image, or the clog girls)
Does the representation contain clearly visual sings of Dutch culture?
No. None. Tulips and old fashioned clothing are a romantic stereotype of Dutch culture, not part of contemporary Dutch culture.
Do Dutch people identify the representation as being Dutch?
Only a few people in isolated villages would ever consider wearing such clothing seriously (ie not as a tourist attraction). So no.
Do other people identify the representation as being Dutch?
Probably several people who have limited knowledge of the Netherlands might identify it as Dutch, but such international stereotypes are not what we should report here; and I have seen no other Countries-Ehtnic group doing anything like that either. Arnoutf (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where to go - Self identification or International view of the Dutch
Some recent edits made an underlying issue in this article clear to me.
There are two Dutch people: International views, and Internal view.
The first Dutch people is how the international community considers the Dutch, and how the Dutch sometimes (often) position themselves abroad. These Dutch people include Gabled houses, Windmills, Clogs, Tulips, etc. etc.
The second Dutch people is how they identify their group membership as a Dutchperson. There is some, overlap, but not very much (few modern Dutch would identify very much with clogs, windmills and tulips as core of their identity). I would say these Dutch identify with some historical figures (e.g. Willem of Orange, Drees, etc.), but also with modern trading (Rotterdam, Schiphol), modernist art and architecture.
A similar duality lies in the opening of the ethnic group aticle with the definitions (the first linking to my second Dutch people and the second definition linking better with the first).
An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. Ethnic identity is also marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits.
In my view the focus of this article should be on the approach "Identify with each other", where international view and international stereotypes should be treated as secondary.
However, that is not up to me, I think this is an essential issue, and needs to be resolved before major editing and restructuring on these issues is to be continued. Arnoutf (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With a picture of a traditional Dutch scene I can see both the self-identification and foreign recognition being served. It's not so much a case of hitting the 'core' (which I think no picture or collage will ever capture) but to get a picture up there that is identified as, and linked to Dutch people. The fact that "very much few modern Dutch would identify very much with clogs, windmills and tulips as core of their identity" is quite irrelevant. The modern Dutch would likely think of drop and hagelslag... is that the contemporary "core" of Dutch culture? It's about identification. Do Dutch people identify girls in traditional Dutch clothing as being Dutch? Yes, they do. Do foreigners do the same? Yes, they do.HP1740-B (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you are eloquent and it is always a pleasure to read your discourses. Both sides are educational. But...I feel an old windmill starting up! We have discussed many divergent and differentiating aspects of the Dutch and their cousins, the Flemish. One of the attributes that both sides are proud of is Diplomacy.--Buster7 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a mistake to take the very concept of Dutch ethnicity for granted. To me it is clear from Arnoutf's post that ethnicity itself does not have one single, but several different definitions which are hard to reconcile with each other. It isn't a concept that can be applied neutrally, because it's all "in the eye of the beholder". I have found that in modern historiography at least, ethnicity (or Dutch ethnicity at any rate) is no longer considered a useful term for describing historical events. Instead it is studied as a historical phenomenon in its own right. An example of this is Martijn Eickhoff's De oorsprong van het eigene, which analyses the way in which people tried to define the historical Dutch "volk" in the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- and their definitions varied in accordance with their different opinions. Another example is this citation from Thimo de Nijs and Eelco Beukers' Geschiedenis van Holland, p. 31: (In Dutch for now, but the authors express the views of Reinhard Wenskus, an influential ethnographer.)
"Etniciteit wordt in de hedendaagse geschiedschrijving gedefinieerd als de wijze waarop mensen, om zich te onderscheiden van andere groepen, vorm geven aan een eigen identiteit. Ze doen daarbij een beroep op het idee dat ze een gemeenschappelijke afstamming kennen en binnen de groep (eeuwen)lang gemeenschappelijk geestelijk en cultureel erfgoed hebben doorgegevan. Beide vormen van gemeenschappelijkheid zijn echter vrijwel altijd gebaseerd op mythes: genetisch bestaan er in de geschiedenis geen homogene groepen en ook het culturele erfgoed van een samenleving verandert voortdurend, door interne ontwikkelingen, maar vooral ook door invloeden van buitenaf. Kenmerken die al sinds de Oudheid worden gehanteerd om verschillende etnische groepen van elkaar te onderscheiden (oorsprong, taal, recht, kleding, gebruiken, woongebied etc.), blijken alle betrekkelijk maakbaar en vloeiend te zijn. (...) Hedendaagse onderzoekers willen graag weten hoe het komt dat etniciteit verandert en hebben daarbij oog voor het complexe samenstel van factoren dat daaraan bijdraagt."
In my opinion, the fact that we haven't been able to find a single modern study on "the ethnically Dutch" speaks volumes. Now, I don't say that there doesn't exist a Dutch identity. I just don't think there is enough valid material to justify a complete article on the Dutch "ethnic group" and its (presumed) history. Iblardi (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scholar.google.com search on 'Dutch and "ethnic group"' found me some (in my opinion relevant) work by Maykel Verkuyten (e.g. [8]) on ethnic group identification. (But then again, it is my dream to publish in JPSP once, so you may call me biased ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm... Judging from the abstract, this might be an interesting mirror for 'some of us' indeed. ;)
Yet, in its own way, it does seem to confirm the subjectiveness of ethnic identity in general... But I really can't tell until I have read the entire article, which I will do shortly. Iblardi (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a psychological point of view; obvious as JPSP is the best journal in social psychology. It may not be the most relevant of his work (mainly about in-group out-group issues in relation to ethnicity), but the PDF is freely available; and may hold interesting references for other sources on ethnic group. Arnoutf (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I would like to stress that there is an institute called the Meertens Instituut. It deals with Dutch ethnicity, and is a huge resource. HP1740-B (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that while there is some connection ethnography, the Meertens institutes' mission, and ethnic group are not as much related as the word may imply. Nevertheless Meertens institute is likely to be a good source and being a KNAW institute can be considered a reliable source without any hesitation. Good suggestion. Arnoutf (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting material indeed. Especially Dekker, Roodenburg and Gerard Rooijakkers (eds.), Volkscultuur. Een inleiding in de Nederlandse etnologie makes for a good read. This and other publications reinforce the impression that this article is working with ethnological concepts that have become obsolete half a century ago. The traditional concept of "volk", which is an a priori assumption in this article, has long been discarded. Today ethnology no longer focusses on groups and collective mentalities, but it studies cultural phenomena in their historical, geographical and social contexts. Why is this article still lagging fifty years behind? Iblardi (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my proposal would be to turn this into an article on (objectively identifiable) "people from the Netherlands" rather than a subjective and, in my opinion, conceptually problematic "Dutch ethnic group". With all respect for the intent of the creators, this article as it is now is basically a POV story. Iblardi (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, let's consider NO image in the infobox. It seemed that all concerned were in agreement (for the most part) with the editing that HP was implementing. Then...the old problem of images resurfaced...and...now....here we are, at an impasse!! Let's not lose the collaborative clearing we are in.--Buster7 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know? Another institute in the Netherlands: CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek) is not giving any indicators they are very careful about the construct. Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The CBS has no time for ethnicity, after committing effective suicide with supposedly PC terms as "allochtoon" and "autochtoon".HP1740-B (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bold statement about the CBS which does not seem very neutral a point of view about a well respected institution. Arnoutf (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've come to the realization that Arnoutf is addicted to discussing matters ad infinitum. According to an edit counter the greater majority of his edits are indeed to found on talk pages, not on Wikipedia articles. I have nothing personal against this user and I think discussing is fine, but not when it forms an obstruction to article improvement. Continual bickering for the protection of a status quo, proven (summary below) to be unworkable and offering no other solutions is the real threat to this article. Progress is agreed to be needed but at the same time opposed. Therefore I've decided to take the initiative, once more, myself. It is sad that it has to come to this, again, but I believe a good article is possible, if there is sufficient goodwill.HP1740-B (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responses. Number of edits in any forum are no indicator of quality; a well researched, well written article built offline counts as a single edit. Todays discussion (where I tried to reason, but only got opinion back) counts as many. Which is more effort, or valualbe. If people listened to reason, I would discuss less. On top of that your conslusion from your edit count is flawed as I guess about half of my talk-page edits are the assessment and tagging of articles for projects. No discussion involved, just maintenance task. Arnoutf (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The number of decisions to be considered are without end, and contradicting. A simple example: In the collage 12 spots are available, the following statements are equally defensible but neither is compatible with another:
The ratio of men and women should be equal among those represented.
The origins of those represented should be a representation of the entire Dutch region.
The religions adhered should be of an equal ratio among those represented.
The ratio between dead and living persons should be equal among those represented.
The time line of Dutch history should be equally divided among those represented.
An unworkable concept. All statements are equally just and defensible, with no way of ever deciding which concept is right or the best. Not even mentioning the high abstract level of portraits supposed to represent general Dutch culture.HP1740-B (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re practical issues.
Gender issues has been discussed before. Consensus was to include a number of women, but that equality is not needed.
Origins of the entire region. In my view most of these people are not geographically specific (perhaps with expception of Floris V of Holland). If there is no clear geographical tie, balance is irrelevant
Religions, similarly, there is not a single religious leader, so why should we even notice this
Ratio living dead equal. I don't understand, there are many more dead than living people in history; so why does this need to be equal?
Time line. The spanwidth of the time line is covered, from the early Middle Ages (Floris V) until fairly recently (Drees). However periods of decline and stagnation contribute less to Dutch identity and do not requires equally many relevant people.
And I would like to add one
If should cover all aspects of Dutch culture. And it comes close with: military, politicians, writers, painters, writers, philosophers, scientists.
A single picture solution does not have such disadvantages. A very simple and clear framework is provided, apart from the fact that the person(s) represented have to be anonymous, to ensure neutrality and avoid needless strife based on personal preference, the image needs to comply with 3 basic requirements. They are based on factors used in the definition of ethnicity. Namely, representing Dutch culture, self-identification as Dutch, and extraneous identification as Dutch. If an image is compliant, the remaining discussion will concern aesthetics.
I will search various images, and hope others will do the same, which fit this profile and initiate discussions on which is to preferred. These pictures will follow below shortly.HP1740-B (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the risk of putting it over the top. I would put forward some problems for the single image:
The image should reflect the whole broad and depth of current (ie 2008) Dutch identity
The image should cover both historical foundation, and modern implementation of Dutch identity
There should be no gender point of view.
Religious, traditionalism, nationalism or any other philosophies to Dutch life should either be omitted, or being a representation of the Dutch
In my view, these problems are much easier accounted for with a collage, but feel free to suggest a single image that fits these criteria. If you find one, I would most likely support it (but I doubt it exists). Arnoutf (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof only your personal opinion.
As Iblardi and myself are clearly in favour of the collage over a single image, there is clearly no consensus to change the status quo situation (collage). Indeed end of discussion, replacing the collage for a single image without achieving consensus will be reverted. Arnoutf (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contary to the last entry, HP does have a supporter to his viewpoint. In "vicious circle" and "single picture" HP has convinced me that his solution has merit. In other words, he does not stand alone. --Buster7 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Two in favour is however no consensus in this case, therefor it is not up to HP1740-B to close the discussion unilateraly. Arnoutf (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you didn't close any discussion. Rather, your proposal was rejected because the arguments you used were found unconvincing. You now try to reopen the discussion because apparently you can't take your loss. How can I conclude otherwise? From the beginning, no one has taken issue with the collage but you. But although you seem to have this inexplicable urge to replace the collage by a folkloristic or otherwise stereotypical image (clogs, tulips), the matter has been decided. The discussion is still on this talk page and you can check it if you want to.
Having said that, I am not principally against using a single picture, as long as it gives a truly representative image and not some horrible stereotype, charming to foreigners though these may be. Otherwise I'll stick with the collage. I am curious to hear Buster7's opinion though. Iblardi (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second that suggestion, if we manage to find a single image that is a truly representative image and not some horrible stereotype; I will support that. Arnoutf (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed...I'm not crazy about the tulips from Holland, Michigan image but I'm sure we can find an image that we can all agree "carries the day". I have begun searching thru Pictures for the day with that in mind.--Buster7 (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a fellow editor/photographer to perhaps assist. I don't think he would mind if I transferred his comments....Re: Talk:Dutch (ethnic group)-- I'm sorry... I looked over the discussion, but it strikes me as a truly thorny tangle. I like the collage, but the arguments against it are not unreasonable. Trouble is, it's hard to imagine a single image that wouldn't suffer similar debate. I went through a similar discussion on an Irish page that went nowhere (though I just looked at Irish people, and was interested to find a collage there). Good luck! -- Mwanner | Talk 13:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)...the search continues...--Buster7 (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your effort. I tend to agree with Mwanner that it will indeed be very difficult to find an acceptable single image (much more so than constructing an acceptable collage). Arnoutf (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch are mainly the descendants (both genetically[34] and linguistically[35]) of the ancients Franks
The Teleac site that is referred to does not literally speak of genes, but let's not quibble over words. Speaking of the Franks, it says:
"Het Nederlandse volk stamt min of meer van deze immigranten af" ("The Dutch people more or less descends from these immigrants"; note the subtle difference).
The site, however, does not appear to be entirely accurate. On a different page it says: "De Germaanse stammen die met hun invasie van de lage landen een einde maken aan de Romeinse tijd in onze regio, verenigingen zich met de Saksen en de Franken." ("The Germanic tribes that, by invading the low countries, end the Roman period in our region, unite (misspelled) with the Saxons and Franks.")[9]
Now, I find this a little confusing. The Roman period was ended by an invasion (after c. 400, since there was Roman presence in the Low Countries up till Nijmegen at least through the 4th century) of tribes that were not Franks or Saxons? What tribes could these be? The information seems to be presented in a somewhat confusing way. Little wonder, because the composition of the population of the Low Countries in the Early Middle Ages is pretty unclear. (Frankish) written sources speak of Frisians in the north and west (with a presence in Utrecht at some point) and Saxons in the east. We do not know exactly who these Frisians were. Were they descendants of the people that lived in Frisia during Roman times? Is it merely a general term referring to all inhabitants of the area above the great rivers? Archeologically, the existence of a "North Sea culture" ranging from Frisia to Flanders has been established, with strong cultural ties to Saxon England. Did Frankish immigrants replace these people, as must be the case if we take for granted what our own article says? There is some evidence that large parts of the population of Frisia were replaced by immigrants from the region of Denmark, and on its turn the future Holland may have been re-colonized by the former inhabitants of the region that is now Frisia. At any rate, linking the modern Dutch directly and only to the Franks would be inaccurate.
On the other hand, a higher degree of cultural continuity may have existed around the modern Betuwe region ('Frankish', so to say) and in Limburg (if my interpretation of Blok is correct). Yet, this continuity may well stretch back into prehistoric times. In that case, saying that the Dutch descend from the Franks is meaningless, because the Franks would be only one stage in a much longer chain of genetic descent.
I therefore propose to be careful and to omit any reference to genetic makeup until it can be supported by proper sources. Iblardi (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's substitute "mainly" for "only" then. But would you agree with the general line of the argument that this is too bold a claim to make considering the scantness of the data and the problems of interpretation? Iblardi (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of counter-arguments I shall assume that the statement "The Dutch can generally be seen as a continuation of the Franks" is based on this part of Blok's text (from the prologue to the 1974 print, p. 7, originally in Dutch):
"In treating our subject we have to distinguish sharply between two periods: that of the southward and that of the northward movement [i.e. of the Franks]. (...) the name 'Franks' in the first period covers a notion altogether different from the second; first it indicates members of a Germanic 'tribal swarm', later the carriers of a state which derives its power from the fusion of Germanic and Roman institutions. (...) the second [phase] laid the foundation of the medieval society and thus has consequences up until our own days. This continuity also enables us, by arguing backwards together with a comparison of circumstances in other parts of the Frankish empire about which we have more data, to learn a little more about the Karolingian Netherlands than the poor direct sources have to tell us."
Blok merely observes that the Frankish conquest of the Netherlands under the Carolingian dynasty laid the foundations for medieval society in this area, meaning that it was christianized and incorporated into the political structure of the Frankish empire. He doesn't mention any explicit link between the Dutch and Frankish peoples. Iblardi (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As announced earlier, here are my picture results so far. Personally my favorite is the first one, because of its everyday character while at the same time being typically Dutch.HP1740-B (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First and second are nice. I like the first one most as well. Typically Dutch city street scene with bikes (and graffiti ;-)
I agree, you have managed to provide a convincing image that is not too stereotypical. I have no problem with this. Well done. Arnoutf (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is more or less what I had in mind when thinking of a neutral single picture. I am doubting between the first and the second picture. The first one is in black-and-white (may I ask why?) and looks as if it was taken in Amsterdam specifically, which might not be appreciated by editors from other parts of the Netherlands. Both are, in my opinion, immeasurably better than the traditional images. Good contribution. Iblardi (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About half the population is living in cities, with many more commuting. Also, this image may even hold for relatively small rural towns. What is typically Dutch about suited businessmen? What is typically (and averagely) Dutch about students, only about 5-10% of the population attends University. Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why it's in black and white, got the image from Flickr, and not sure if it's Amsterdam either ... it could be any medium sized town afaic.HP1740-B (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as overly Amsterdam centred (although it is likely Adam). Similar images could have been taken in most medium or large cities with some history (all cities but Almere and Zoetermeer and the like). I saw some copyright issues, hope you can sort it out. Arnoutf (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from one of the logos in the background it's likely The Hague. But I'm fine with this picture. It's identifiably Dutch, and contemporary. Iblardi (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see which one you refer to, but believe you immediately. Does not matter at all, just goes to show how hard it is to see the difference (point in favour of the image!). Arnoutf (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I was just being curious myself and looked up the big "V" sign, which apparently belongs to a wine store. But it doesn't really matter. I think the picture is fairly generical. Iblardi (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is a very good solution. As stated, it could just as well be any small town. I don't see a single skyscraper. Just the Dutch being Dutch.--Buster7 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm I don't see why you are trying to replace the collage with yet another picture HP1740-B. Especially not of random citizens talking. I might as well upload a picture of myself on commons and use it to illustrate "a dutchman". You've tried before to replace the collage with a single image and most people didn't like it (after long long long discussions). Now I'm gone for a while and I see that you are attempting to do it again even though back then you announced you wouldn't.
I don't really get your problems with the collage we made. We seem to have the same idea of what dutch ethnicy means and they are all ethnically dutch. What we can do is make it smaller or change whose in, but now that I'm back I'm voting to keep it again. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This here isn't a democracy so just voting won't matter. If you scroll up you can see there's been much animo for a collage by a lot of different users so we're allowed to use it. Also the picture up now might get deleted because it depicts random people who are recognizable. - PietervHuis (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW..."This here" is improper English. I know quite well this is not a democracy. I was responding to your use of the word "voting" now that your back. You vote...I vote...everybody votes...and then we can gauge Concensus. OK?--Buster7 (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the lesson. I didn't mean voting literally, but we've done it before and the collage was chosen with overwhelming support. Almost all other ethnic group pages have one as well so we're allowed to use it and there's no reason for deleting it. Not that one of those other images isn't welcome; although I don't see the point in having poorly dressed dutch people talking on the street as a prime example of dutch people, it can go to an appropriate section I guess. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! 12 to 1. That IS overwhelming. I assume the 1 was HP. Please provide a list of the other 11 (besides yourself) and a date for when it "was chosen with overwhelming support".--Buster7 (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Pietervhuis. There seems to be a slight problem with the tally of 12 to 1. When I go over the discussions (re:Pro/Con,Collage/Image in the Infobox) I come up with a much lower ratio. This error could be due to another discussion/consensus about a collage AT THE END of the article that started up. I certainly don't want to rehash all the conversations: as you point out, they are available above. I would , however, like to have an accurate read of the consensus for Image or Collage in the infobox. We were moving toward an image until you returned the conversation, once again, toward a collage. I think that there is accord about the Image in the Infobox.--Buster7 (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I was on vacation. I'll resume the discussion later because the way it is now is really awful in my eyes. Two overweight males and a skinny female are supposed to represent the Dutch? Bad move. No consensus is reached. - Pieter_v (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I counted and it was 6 to 1 to be precise. That one was HP indeed. Iblardi seems to have changed his mind, and along with you the score would now be 5 to 3 in favor of a collage. But since those votees were from a while ago I'll make a new subject and ask for people to vote again, alright? - Pieter_v (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
cool...But since there are two seperate conversations regarding two seperate locations, lets keep the "voting" seperate and clear. Please understand: we are a jury considering what goes in the INFOBOX. Thanks.--Buster7 (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I think HP's edits on linguistics, statistics and history are in general improvement. One issue that maybe debated is whehter we need such an extensive history on the emerging country but that is a relatively minor issue.
However, the culture section seems to be representing a romantic, historical view of the Dutch culture (esp Architecture, Literature Music (clog dancing...) and Art). I think we should seriously modernise that view, and take the current Dutch culture as starting point (of course if we need older stuff to interpret that, fine, but now it reads like an Anton Pieck like scene). Arnoutf (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Interactive map is working. If I make my browser (FireFox 3) small, there is not problem; howver as soon as my browser window becomes larger (more than 2/3 screen (widescreen) size, or full screen) all place names are move north. Den Bosch gets north of Amsterdam, Amsterdam name ends up on Texel. This map is not stable. We should not use it.
Second. Even if it were stable, what does it illustrate? I think placing such a large image with a short section like architecture is seriously overdoing it. Unless of course we seriously expand the architecture section, but I am not sure that is central enough to Dutchness to do. Arnoutf (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just ready to come here and ask you two to take off the gloves and work together, but I'm happy to see that is happening. Re: the new map (green w/blue) I think it is wonderful. I would like to see it back and work out the "bugs" of accurate city locations, etc. while it can be viewed by our readers rather than hidden away "in production". Also, the images are headed in the direction we discussed. While not mentioned in the article, bycycling is certainly a social aspect of Dutch (and Flemish...can't forget them!) life.--Buster7 (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I managed to fix the problem. The image of the Potsdam house which was overflowing from the section above pushed the image down, but not the labels (or something like that). This created a lot of ugly white space though. Arnoutf (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The map is working alright, and although it is a little prominent, I like the fact that it combines optical information on geography with info on architecture, which has educational value and suits the purpose of an encyclopedia. Maybe the dots representing Jakarta and Willemstad could be corrected, they seem to have fallen off their respective islands. Iblardi (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have go it working. I have no problem with the map in it self. Just wondering if it would not be better suited for Architecture of the Netherlands (I added it to that article, where I think it truly contributes most). If it is there, should it also be here. Arnoutf (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you don't give up, so I'll stop the edit war and I added {{disputed-section}}. I really don't understand why you state that the Flemish people don't exist. I, and all other Flemish people, really aren't Dutchmen. SPQRobin (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But...SPQR does raise a valid point that has confused me since I started this process on this page. I know I am a Fleming. But Am I a Dutchman?.. Over the past couple of months there has been an inferance that the Flemish were not intitled to be considered Dutch. We didn't fit the bill. That is why I deducted the Flemish from the info pages population figures. That is why I was adamant about the "Belgian joke". If anyone has noticed I have shifted to calling us cousins. I would rather work toward unity instead of discord. I realize we are editing an article but it is about the core of who we are. Of all the peoples in the world, our early years of "indoctrination" are probably the most similar. I think HP's point is that there is no Seperate Flemish ethnicity. Not that the Flemish don't exist but for all intents and purposes they are the same as the Dutch. I'm confused. I don't live there. But, if I was a reader, a visitor to this article: this section would confuse me!--Buster7 (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was Hugo Claus who once said, "I am a Dutchman and a Fleming, but not a Hollander". I understand it can be confusing, but "Dutch" used here has no national connotations. Dutch refers to the Dutch ethnicity, not those living in the Netherlands per se. That doesn't mean that I don't know that Belgium consists of Walloons and Flemings. Flemish is a valid term to use; in politics and in general use, for the people of Flanders, but when it comes ethnicity, ie to heritage, ancestry, language and culture, the Dutch (Netherlands) and Flemish are the same; and they are called the Dutch.HP1740-B (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be a concensus on who exactly the flemish people are yet. I've spoken to flemish people and most aren't even sure themselves, and I find this here too. I would like to welcome them as brothers, sure, but just as well as a distinct ethnic group. Some Flemish are fine with the idea that they are Dutch, others dislike it. The truth is what is important, but as there's no concensus amongst scholars yet it kind of qualifies as Own Research to state that the flemish aren't an ethnic group. The cia factbook for example lists the flemish and the waloons as two distrinct ethnic groups. Therefore I think it's too early to state that they are the same as the Dutch, although I'm curious to read about it some more. - PietervHuis (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter...everytime you talk about the Flemings, it is condescending and high-handed. Your "truth" seems to be that the Flemish don't speak a language, they have no definable ethnicity, that there is no way of knowing that the Flemish aren't just a figment of our collective imagination. Here is a TRUTH for you to consider...we are not leaving!--Buster7 (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall saying that there's no flemish ethnicy or any of the other stuff you mention above. Read what I wrote again. I'll take it for granted that there's no flemish language considering the fact that it's nothing but a dialect. But seriously, I hardly spoke about the flemish before. You must have me confused with someone else. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try to get this into your head, there is no such thing as 'being brothers', that the vocabulary of romantic nationalism. When concerning ethnicity there is no "Dutch and Flemish", just "Dutch" and those "Dutch" are not nationals of the Netherlands, but are people who speak Dutch, have similar heritage and culture and live in both the Netherlands and Belgium. I believe I have done my best to reference the section, with all literature exactly backing the statements, Flemish are ethnically Dutch and no separate ethnicity. Note that the entire article encompasses that, it's not an article about the Dutch Dutch, with the Flemings only being mentioned once for numbers, everything from the architecture to history, to religion is made to include both.HP1740-B (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you need a prove... I have not much books about Flemish/Dutch, so let's take daily life: Flemish people watch Flemish TV channels and not Dutch TV channels. We know no celebrities (known people) of the Netherlands. What have we to do with the Dutch people? Another thing: We DO NOT SPEAK DUTCH LANGUAGE, although I unfortunately have to say that we write Dutch (what is even not true in very informal writing). The Taalunie even says that the spoken language is not united: there is a Dutch spoken language in the Netherlands and a Flemish spoken language in Flanders. A prove is this weblog of a linguist. SPQRobin (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
If you need more sources: The BBC says Flemish is a West Germanic language (...). SPQRobin (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not proof, that's original research. Flemish speak Dutch, the website of a British television broadcaster might claim otherwise, but your own constitution doesn't agree with that. A large language will always have regionalism, but that doesn't mean those are confinded to Flanders: people in North Brabant go to the beenhouwer as well. If dialects are spoken in Flanders, most of the time it's not Flemish, but Brabantic. Spoken in the Netherlands as well. The fact that you don't watch Dutch tv doesn't make you a separate ethnicity. By that logic, the populations of both the Netherlands and Flanders would be largely Americans or British. This isn't proof, its an opinion with external links.HP1740-B (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that we would be largely Americans or British? Because you watch English TV channels? I'm sorry, but we in Flanders don't. SPQRobin (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what original research is. You are just giving your own opinion, and are making ridiculous statements like; "Because you watch English TV channels? I'm sorry, but we in Flanders don't". Well SPQRobin, I'm no stranger to Flanders, having lived there for over 5 years. If you don't watch English programs, would you then care to explain to me why a broadcaster like 2BE has over 90% Anglophone programming (only sports is in Dutch)? What marketing strategy would that be if people in Flanders "don't"? Discuss like an adult or leave this article alone.HP1740-B (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway there's also reliable sources that present the Flemish as a distinct ethnic group[10] (CIA factbook). So when there's sources that present them as Dutch, and yet other sources that present them as ethnically flemish I think it's save to conclude that there's no concensus on the Flemish yet and we shouldn't present them as being Dutch. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@HP1740-B: I didn't give ridiculous statements, it was rather a question. But I'd like to know what your sources are: I searched for information about the reference "Sire, er zijn geen Vlamingen" and I found that it is a book about "(...) geschiedenis van de Vlaamse bewustwording", so I wonder what proofs would be in that book, you don't give even any pages. (Although I don't have that book) SPQRobin (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Pietervhuis; Last time I checked, the CIA factbook was not a reference for any anthropologic subject. Not reliable, not the least.HP1740-B (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@SPQRobin; No, you did make ridiculous statements, I even quoted them for you. The book "Sire, er zijn geen Vlamingen", is about the history of Flemish nationalism and secessionism, it debunks many statements/myths held by certain Flemish nationalists. The main instruments being that 'the Flemish' do not exist and aren't as unique as they are told to believe, because they are part of the larger Dutch grouping. I didn't quote specific pages because the book is essentially one continuous "speech" coming to a summary conclusion in the end.HP1740-B (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For god sake, read your links before you post them. It mainly is about Flanders, and it doesn't list the Flemish as an ethnic group, it list the inhabitants of Flanders as indo-europeans. Apart from that, I don't see any backing credentials on this site. Not that if it had them the information would be of use any way.HP1740-B (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This comes back to the issues of definition of an ethnic group and that of ethnogenesis. When is something a different ethnic group? How long does it take for a single ethnic group to split into two seperate ones? I do not think there is a "correct" answer. I do think the Dutch and Flemish have been "drifting apart" for several centuries; so probably the relation Nehterlands-Flemish ethnic groups is grey rather than black-white. Arnoutf (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually it goes back and comes down to this; the article in it current form has references. All the arguments and sources supporting opposing views has either proven to be irrelevant or began with "I think".HP1740-B (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree referencing, using high quality references is essential. And since you start this. The current version is predominantly based on 2 references. Tulkens and the Civis Mundis Yearbook. Both are popular science publications, rather than peer reviewed. academic publication. Tulkens is a philosopher and retired teacher, the remit of Civis Mundis is public opiniating on policitics and philosophy. Neither claim any expertise in anthropology. So I would welcome better references for these. Arnoutf (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They don't meet the two criteria for reliable source from WP:Reliable perfectly.
Criterion 1: "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." - Failed - popular science is not peer reviewed
Criterion 2: News organisations. "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed". - Failed - Tulkens is no news organisation, Civis Mundis states it is not mainstream if you read their web page
They also do not meet those of unreliable source (Self-published / Extremist).
In any case, you opened Pandora's box here by stating the current references are better than those of the opposing views, so it is up to you to uphold that claim. Arnoutf(talk) 18:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I want to say is that you cannot build a case on these references as they do not meet reliability criteria. By asking me to provide references you are reversing the burden of evidence. In practice, these references are used to support the claim the Dutch and Flemish are one ethnic group. If anybody disagrees with that, all this editor has to do is provide reasonable doubt on the sources to remove the claim; evidence of the opposite is not needed for that (of course any subsequent claims they are separate ethnic groups do need sources). Personally I have no very explicit views (see my Grey argument above), my comments here are strictly to underline that rigorous referencing discipline is essential, and may mean an editor who cannot find strong evidence should drop a claim on own accord. Arnoutf (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As these sources are not unreliable, as you yourself admit, I can only deduct that they are thus reliable and leaves me to wonder why this discussion is indeed needed. I'm not planning on turning into yet another endless debater, who seem to stalk this article, and will thus not pursue this any further. There is indeed nothing to pursue, and I would greatly appreciate it if you put as much energy in questioning my references/sources as in being a productive editor. HP1740-B (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comment. They do not meet reliability requirements hence are reliable???? You say your references are more reliable than others. My comment gives evidence that that claim cannot be uphold as they do not meet reliability standards (but I acknowledge they are also not outright unreliable - in other words they probably are not false or coloured (not unreliable) but we have no way to establish that (not reliable)). Sadly the (low) academic level of many editors requires me to put in a lot of energy and sacrifice productivity in arguing that personal opinion should never be presented as fact; and thus preventing articles from being taken over by people who do not know what they are doing. Of course I could engage in edit wars to try to achieve that, I prefer the talk page. Arnoutf (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider myself to belong to the people who do not reference their edits, and would prefer it if you did neither. Also, I wonder what worth peer-reviewed sources have in certain fields, or if they are indeed valued as much as you claim they are. Today's featured article doesn't have any of them either. My sources are reliable, written by respected people. Until proven otherwise they are reliable, if not 'peer reviewed'.HP1740-B (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link I gave really was about ethnic groups of Europe (read the page title in your web browser). But ok, because you are difficult to convince, I wanted to know what Ecyclopaedia Britannica says about ethnic groups in Belgium. And, Belgium » People » Ethnic groups and languages says: "The population of Belgium is divided into three linguistic communities. In the north the Flemings, ...". It says only "linguistic communities", but the section is about ethnic groups as well, and that section does not mention any other information about ethnic groups, so you can conclude "Flemings" are also meant as ethnic group. SPQRobin (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually I'm going to base myself on what is actually written. Not what a biased person says is meant. The article lists Flemish and Walloons as linguistic groups, just like the Belgian government and everybody else.HP1740-B (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Pietervhuis...Your prejudice is subtle, but shows itself in your response. "....nothing but a dialect", and your constant diminuation of the Flemish by refusing to capitalize. I'm not sure where it was, what article, but I remember the impression I got from things you wrote. If I'm wrong, I apologize, I don't think I'm wrong.--Buster7 (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. And yes I'm pretty sure Flemish is a dialect. Flemish and Dutch compares with British and American English. You seem rather nationalistic. - PietervHuis (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flemish is not a dialect. Flemish, as in 'Standard Dutch as pronounced in Belgium' is an accent, just like 'Standard Dutch as pronounced in the Randstad' is. Linguistically there are 2 Flemish dialects; West Flemish and East Flemish, the majority of the dialects spoken in Flanders, as well as the source of the accent described above, are Brabantic. The difference in speech is no where near the differences between American and British English. HP1740-B (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you read Belgian magazines or watch Belgian television you can hardly deny that common Belgian Dutch (='Flemish') has a number of lexical and grammatical peculiarities that make it stand apart from common Dutch as spoken in the Netherlands: for instance, the use of aan corresponding with the French à (de trein reed aan een hoge snelheid) and other gallicisms (het raam geeft uit op de zee), words as solden, promotie (for uitverkoop, reclame), schoon vs. mooi, proper vs. schoon, opkuisen vs. opruimen, colloquial use of gij and different use of u, and so forth. It is not merely 'an accent'. Iblardi (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the International Organization for Standardization..."There is no one definition of "language" that is agreed upon by all and appropriate for all purposes. As a result, there can be disagreement, even among speakers or linguistic experts, as to whether two varieties represent dialects of a single language or two distinct languages. For this part of ISO 639, judgments regarding when two varieties are considered to be the same or different languages are based on a number of factors, including linguistic similarity, intelligibility, a common literature, the views of speakers concerning the relationship between language and identity, and other factors". Also, I am no more or less nationalistic than you. The difference is that I do not degrade another nation to uplift my own.--Buster7 (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I, although you seem to be offended that I don't spell "flemish" with a capital. Fact is that the official languages of Belgium are Dutch and French. Just like with Switzerland for example where it's French and German. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that you are purposeful in your indefensibile omission. One need's to "read between the lines" to notice it (prejudice), but once observed it becomes obvious. I don't expect you to admit it or acknowledge it. I merely bring it to your attention.--Buster7 (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The official language of Flanders is Dutch, just like that of Dutch Limburg. And it does not differ more (I would argue less) from Dutch than Limburgian (see: Languages_of_the_Netherlands). I think Flemish migth be described as a regional language variant of Dutch. I am not linguist so I am not sure. I would suggest to find some scholarly source on the status of Flemish Arnoutf (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading that my idea was not far off the mark. Thanks, this link is very much illuminating (for those not familiar with Dutch - There is one written version of Dutch - There are two main versions (substandards) of spoken Dutch - Netherlands Dutch and Flemish - which are of equal level). Arnoutf (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that all sources quoted speak of Belgian Dutch and Dutch Dutch, Flemish is what the author himself uses, not his sources.HP1740-B (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that maybe due to colloquial use; of Flemish for Belgian Dutch. Looking at: Languages_of_the_Netherlands Belgian Dutch consists of Flemish (east and west), Brabantian, and Limburgian. Does anyone object the use of Belgian Dutch and Netherlandic Dutch (Dutch Dutch seems a bit problematic to me - repeated word) - systematically throughout? Arnoutf (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Encyclopedia Britannica has to say[11]Netherlandic language English Dutch , or Flemish , Netherlandic Nederlands , Flemish Vlaams: A West Germanic language that is the national language of The Netherlands and, with French, one of the two official languages of Belgium. Although speakers of English usually call the Netherlandic of The Netherlands “Dutch” and the Netherlandic of Belgium “Flemish,” they are actually the same language
The website cited by SPQRobin provides more nuance. It states written dutch is indeed one language, but that spoken Dutch consists of two sublanguages - Belgium and Netherlandic Dutch. In other words, if there is one single "spoken" Dutch it is the average of Belgium and Nehterlandic Dutch, not Netherlandic Dutch with Belgium Dutch as a dialect. Arnoutf (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Beschaafd" [civilized] implies that there's also an "Onbeschaafd" [uncivilized] language, which is an unwanted name, I think... SPQRobin (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Standard Dutch (it could have been called Model Dutch or Ideal Dutch or Regulation Dutch) also implies that any other Dutch is non-Standard and, therefore, not as acceptable or dependable or "good".--Buster7 (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprisingly, you miss my point. But that's alright. I don't have any major misconceptions about this article. I still make the mistake of sometimes focussing on the editor(s) rather than the article(s). Let's move on! --Buster7 (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the further reading section is currently useful as it contains very specific books that will not provide a very clear comprehensive view on the topic. If nobody objects I will remove the section soon (as some of the books maybe useful as reference for the article text, I am putting this idea up here for comments rather than being bold). Arnoutf (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I am against "deletioning" especailly when the items deleted are harmless and impartial. How can we know what our future readers will desire? This type of section provides a springboard to further investigation. Why not leave it for the readers to use? That's my thought.--Buster7 (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of my points; all text in Article space should serve a purpose. So harmlessness is not sufficient; all text should have a function; otherwise we could add all books ever published on any topic (ok I am overstating this). In this specific case I even doubth this is completely harmless nor (most of it) impartial. For example Xenophobe and Unducthavble are comical books on Dutchness (and hence supporting stereotypes of the Dutch). Many of the books are on Dutch colonial presence (hardly relevant and possibly sensitive to some), and a title like "The Persistence of Ethnicity: Dutch Calvinist pioneers" can hardly be called impartial can it? Arnoutf (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
go down to ".....resulting in a political division of the Dutch.....". Right there!! Thats when it happened!! That's when we were divided into two entities...by outsiders. In all the reading I've done for all the editing of the past few months, somewhere it said, "But nobody asked the Belgians". Meaning the people. The same could be said for the Dutch. Was there a referendum vote by the stakeholders- the people? I am going to stay in this section for awhile. If I make changes you fellow editors don't agree with...let's talk.--Buster7 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the informations. I was very interesting to read and maybe even a bit too detailed sometimes. However I was investigating the topic for a school asignment and I wanted to add a link that might give some experiences from students that have been studying in the Netherlands. Have a look at http://www.memyselfandthedutch.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.29.6.46 (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main Southern economic and cultural centers have traditionally been the cities now making up the Flemish Diamond, followed by those present in the Brabantic City Row.
This is rediculous, this would mean that cities like Ypres and Bruges have not "traditionally been economic and cultural centers" even though they have been some of the biggest Flemish cities. The whole concept of the "Flemish Diamond" can only be used to describe the urban sprawl around Antwerp and Brussels since the 2nd half of the 20th century anyway. (and even then it's debatable) If nobody objects I'll delete or rephrase it in a week from now--Lamadude (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wanted to see why you include Flemings as part of Dutch ethnicity. Suddenly, I discovered that you give no reference at all! So, or you give a valid reference (web page or book with page number) or you change the article so it doesn't include Flemings (the actual thruth). See my user page for sites which state that Flemings are an own ethnicity. Friendly greetings, SPQRobin (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ceterum censeo hoc nomen esse delendum. In my humble opinion we should get rid of the idea that there exists an objectively definable Dutch ethnic group anyway. The article would be far less controversial if it was not built on that idea, which is an assumption, not a documented fact. Changing "Dutch (ethnic group)" to "Dutch people" in the sense of "people from the Netherlands" will put an end to this kind of disputes. Iblardi (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, I don't have ethnicy? I think your idea that there's no Dutch ethnicity is your personal opinion but it's well documented. And changing it to that would result in nothing because there's nothing special about just being a citizen of the netherlands. History of the Netherlands is the place for that. As for the Flemish, I indeed haven't seen sources from experts or scientists that they are the same ethnic group. - Pieter_v (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably so, but their relevancy to ethnicity is less clear. Nationality is both objectively definable and undeniably relevant in an article about Dutch nationals. Iblardi (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably definable only in the sense that it covers people of all ethnicities and cultures that have a Dutch passport. This article isn't about Dutch nationals, I guess you can create one. There are two article for German people too, one that covers ethnicity, the other that covers German nationals. The last article however, just like with French people, is complete nonsense, most of it is about history which should be covered in the history section of said country, and the rest are a bunch of stereotypes. There's nothing special about holding a specific passport. - Pieter_v (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult issue, definition of ethnicity; I think an interesting remark was made recently in the Netherlands by a Caribbean representative who stated that the Dutch Caribbean had been (culturally and legally) Dutch for centuries longer than Dutch Limburg. If we do not hold race as an important ethnic group criterion, exclusion of Dutch Caribbean (ie Curacao, Aruba) people would be problematic if we would retain the people from Limburg. (If we do include race as a important criterion we should be explicit about it). Arnoutf (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on their parents' place of birth and their nationality, Limburgers are considered 'autochthonous' by the CBS. If this article would profess to be about the dominant part of the Dutch population which is classified as 'autochthonous', it would at least have a clearly defined subject (although that classification is also of limited use for what it tries to describe). The current ethnographic approach, on the other hand, suffers from a lack of clarity and, possibly, scientific foundation. An ominous sign is the absence of sources outside Wikipedia which treat this subject in a similar way. The vagueness of the concept 'Dutch ethnic group' is also expressed in the controversies surrounding this article (should we include the Flemings or not?). And the fact that this article still seems to approach ethnic identity as an objective reality instead of the artificial social construct that it has come to be regarded by anthropologists, doesn't help at all. This is not to say that this article's content is worthless, or that a Dutch identity does not exist, but I must confess that I am uncomfortable with the whole concept of the Dutch 'ethnic group' as expressed here, with its supposed collective history and the implications of common descent. It just smacks too much of early 20th-century Romantic sentiments. Iblardi (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mind using the 'autochthonous' definition of the CBS; note however that again many Suriname and Caribbean Dutch; who have Dutch nationality and whose parents were born in the Netherlands are actually 'autochthonous' Dutch and that several third of fourth generation Turkish and Moroccan Dutch people will also be autochtoon (and if we adopt that definition, ethnically Dutch). Like you, I am getting increasingly uncomfortable with the definition of the Dutch ethnic group; which always seems to revert to these early 20th-century Romantic (and race/descent related) sentiments. Arnoutf (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of autochtoon/allochtoon is not an option in an article concerning an ethnicity. These are fixed political terms, related, but not at all identical to 'ethnicity'. Dutch ethnicity is established. Iblardi's propsed "name change" hence isn't a change of name, but of intended content. Dutch people aren't all ethnically Dutch. Culture isn't a constant and neither is language; but Dutch culture does exist as does the Dutch language. Genetics has some influence on ethnicity, but again this isn't an absolute. There is no Dutch genetic code. On the other hand, Asians or Black people cannot be ethnically Dutch. Not because of racism, but simply because of basic self-identification. I've done my very best to keep 'judging' or negative 'comparisons' out of this article; and consider it to be neutral. Once again; keep politics out of this article.HP1740-B (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: my proposal entails both a name change and one of intended content. HP1740-B, in the course of the past months I have come to the conclusion that you are never ever going to provide credible sources to backup your statements about what you believe to be unchanging truths about human society. I don't know where you picked up your ideas, but they are not sufficiently sourced to provide a base for this article. It shall be changed accordingly. Your one-sided proclamations shall not dictate the content of this encyclopedia. Iblardi (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Asians or Black people cannot be ethnically Dutch" - But over time fourth, fifth generation Caucasians might?? Why would skin colour influence "basic self-identification", I think (speculation) that many coloured people from the Randstad identify more with the Dutch than some villagers from e.g. south Limburg. Of course there maybe anthropological research that states something different (I don't know of such a scientific publication), but without that, I cannot but conclude that you suggest we adopt a racist definition of ethnicity (although you deny it in the same sentence). We should either be explicit about such a racist definition, or remove it altogether - and accept the consequence that skin colour is not an issue. The current implicit racist connotations are very worrying. Arnoutf (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely resent any implied racism on my or the articles part. An ethnic group is defined by certain indicators. For example language or cultural similarities, skin complexion is part of kinship and decent. This doesn't at all mean that Black people or Asians (it's really wrong to generalize so much as to create 'three' groups while there effectively is only one) are inferior in any way. It's just a fact that most people are born into ethnic groups ... and only under special circumstances will be "accepted" as being part of the community. That's not racist, that just the way it is. Bummer for the PC-gurus among us, but some things are the way they are.HP1740-B (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, if we want to include "descent" and being "born into ethnic groups" in our definition of the Dutch, we should be explicit about it. In the current definition this descent issue is implied in the rather vague "Indo-European ethnic group". In the earlier lead the descent issue was explicit in the statement "The Dutch predominantly descend from various Germanic tribes". So I stand by my comment above. Either we make it explicit again, or we drop it altogether. Right now it is implicit which is plain wrong. Arnoutf (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So this article is about white, 'Caucasian' Dutch people after all. Surely it is very important to have an article on this subject, since it is well known that Dutch society is built up along very clearly defined racial demarcation lines: the Dutch ethnic group is formed by those who have full Dutch ancestry or could pass for genetically Dutch people on account of their lighter skin colour (for instance: people who have German or Hungarian ancestors), and on the other hand we have those people of a darker complexion, who could never be considered "truly Dutch" by the Dutch ethnic community. Bummer for those of Asian or African descent who were adopted by Dutch parents at a very early age; they will always be rejected by this well-defined Dutch community, and they know it. There is no doubt at all that this notable fact about Dutch society absolutely needs to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Poorly referenced, maybe, but then again, who needs references when you can rely on your gut feeling telling you that this is "just the way it is"? As everyone in Holland knows, the racially defined Dutch ethnic group is a given fact. We are, after all, a tribal society with carefully guarded ethnic boundaries. Iblardi (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Iblardi here (sorry for putting in the badly sourced Germanic thing, I forgot that the sources were indeed very bad). And indeed (as I have argued before) if we adopt the "strict" descent definition of the Dutch that excludes the royal family (with Claus, Bernhard, Hendrik, Emma (all German), Anna-Paulowna (Russian), and Wilhelmine of Prussia (German again) it is clear our royal family is not Dutch.
My proposal is to drop all explicit and implicit reference to descent and genetics from the Dutch ethnic group (which will allow (certain) Surinam, Indonesion, Carribean people to be part of the groups, as well as the adopted children from Iblardi's example. Arnoutf (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to us to make such decisions. This is an article on an ethnic group, not a PC essay on Dutch society. I don't like to use the term "genetically Dutch" because that's a bogus statement, there is no Dutch genetic code for Dutch people. Also, Dutch (ie Netherlands) society is a separate issue from the Dutch ethnic group, though granted it is the most dominant there. Within an ethnic group, undeniably, complexion matters. In a way it's too bad that people think like that, but they just do. People with a white(r) complexion are able to 'fit in', darker complexions simply prohibit this. It has nothing to do with 'fair' or 'unfair' it's simply the way it works. It doesn't make anyone inferior or less than someone who is able to 'fit in'. As for references, everything I've just said can be backed up by them. I don't see a ref behind every claim you make on talk; so don't expect others to do it. Article implementation is when references come into the picture.HP1740-B (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forget claims of fairness or unfairness. Your basic assumption, which is also the one the article is built on, is wrong. You seem to assume that ethnic groups, the Dutch one in casu, are an eternal truth, leading an objective existence in the same way that physical phenomena such as gravity exist. This is not the case to begin with: "ethnicity" is something that was invented during the 19th century, when it was fashionable in science to think of humanity in terms of "peoples", "races" and "nations". This way of thinking was later revised, but not before it had spilled over into popular culture, which is always slow to adjust to scientific developments. Your assumption must be based on what you have picked up here and there from those popular sources. I have dared you several times to show me your literature, but you never did. I must conclude that you don't have any decent sources to begin with. Iblardi (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing, for heaven's sake, what segment of Dutch society do you have in mind when you say that even well-assimilated people with dark complexions would be prohibited by their skin colour to 'fit in'? This isn't Apartheid-era South Africa, you know. Iblardi (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly urge you to down your tone. If you'd read any of my contributions, you'd would have seen that ethnicity is fluid. Modern study of ethnic groups or cultural-linguistic groups has long since passed the 19th and 20th century. Most 19th and 20th century 'anthropologists' sought to prove some kind of superiority of their own race or ethnicity; modern science has long since passed that state. We are not here to set 'the rules', like Arnoutf wants, or make unfounded assumptions, like you do, we are here to describe an ethnic group. That's it. 'You dared me to show sources'? Please, try to be exact. What particular statements do you regard as unsourced? List them, I'd like it if you'd be specific rather than ubiquitous.HP1740-B (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iblardi you're going way too far, accusing someone of racism. Racism means the believe that one race is superior over another. Nothing here says that. Ethnicy is a scientific term. You can't decide which ethnicy you have or want to become. Every person has one ethnicy, or more if you're a hybrid. You're born with it. You're confusing ethnicy with nationality and identity. 62.163.232.175 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please continue discussion in chronological order, not to confuse later editors.
Racism also includes the idea that traits (and ethnicity is a trait) is related to race. If you are born with a certain ethnicity - that implies ethnicity is indeed related to genetics, and hence race (your own choice of the derogatory word "hybrid"underlines this), and is in that definition indeed a racist construct.
While ethnicity maybe a scientific term, in spite of repeated requests of several editors, no scientific sources defining Dutch ethnicity have been provided (see my earlier posted questions below), without which the alternative definition of ethnic group that focusses on identity (which includes nationality) cannot be stated to be inferior by the genetic/race centered definition you seem to adopt. Arnoutf (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Simple question; citation needed tags in the intro are clear. We need a source that include the Flemings within the Dutch ethnic group (Lead line 1):
The Dutch people (Dutch: Nederlanders (help·info)) are a Germanic-speaking ethnic group of the Netherlands, Belgium[citation needed] (where they are known as Flemings)"
And secondly we need a source that the Dutch inhabiting the lowlands were indeed known and the same (as far as possible) as the modern Dutch (Lead line 2)
The Dutch historically inhabited the coastal lowlands east of the North Sea known as the Low Countries, and parts of northern France.[citation needed]"
Thirdly and less simple. We need a well sourced description of the Dutch ethnic group. Neither NIDI, CBS does provide one, and a report between RIVM and NIDI even explicitly stated that a description of ethnic groups is almost impossible to find. Without such a description it is impossible to exclude (or indeed include) anyone into the Dutch ethnic group, which would leave us no option to revert to a very broad definition of the Dutch ethic group (e.g. autochtonous=Dutch ethnicity; regardless of genetic background). Arnoutf (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are descriptions also by authors over the ages, but as far as I know there's no scientific description yet. DNA is still in research. I remember a recent article about a murderers dna that was found, whose roots were traced back to Germany, so that's promising. But as for now, the only thing we can go by is people whose family line stems from what is today the Netherlands (yes excluding Belgium). 62.163.232.175 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be very careful with older authors (reference to "over the ages"), as the 19th/early 20th century authors tended to have a romantic and what we would now call racist view to ethnicity. I would be very hesitant to adopt any source older than say 1980.
I am not sure what the DNA would be relevant for in this context. If we have sources for established family lines from todays Netherlands as ethnicity support, that may be a possible solution for the problem of definition, mind you we still need the source, and weird things (like the royal family, with not a single Dutch spouse in the last 200 years, not being ethnitically Dutch) may be the result Arnoutf (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that's weird. Everybody knows our royal family doesn't consist of ethnic dutch people. They're mostly German, and now with the Argentinian princess having made her enter, half spanish (probably). It's nothing rare, the British royal family also consists of many ethnicies, because royal families all over europe used to marry each other. 62.163.232.175 (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I don't think it is weird either the royal family does not qualify as ethnic Dutch, but a lot of people respond something like "if the royals are not ethic Dutch, who can be"; which is, with the lack of a comprehensive definition, as good an argument as any other. Arnoutf (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No they're defenitely not ethnic dutch, but they're dutch nevertheless, since they contributed a lot to dutch culture and hold dutch passports. "If the royals are not ethic Dutch, who can be" Who can be Dutch? Do you mean that nobody is 100% Dutch (for example how many have some foreign blood)? Or something else? 62.163.232.175 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does n't really matter. The Oranges not being ehtnically Dutchis just the consequence of emphasising family over identity and nationality. Arnoutf (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To user:62.163.232.175. You say:
"No they're defenitely not ethnic dutch, but they're dutch nevertheless, since they contributed a lot to dutch culture and hold dutch passports."
I find this answer interesting. You could have mentioned just the passports, but because of the Oranges "contributing to Dutch culture" you apparently consider them not only Dutch nationals (by virtue of their passports) but also 'Dutch' in a different, somehow 'augmented' sense. How would you define this kind of 'Dutchness'? Iblardi (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:62.163.232.175 (do we already know you under a different name?), I was not saying "user:HP1740-B, you are a racist". What I was implying when I mentioned South Africa is that while concepts of ethnicity along racial lines might "work" in an extremely segregated society where ethnic and racial differences are continuously emphasized, they cannot automatically be applied to the Dutch context. There is no evidence for the statement that a coloured person would never be considered part of the Dutch ethnic group by the members of that group. Maybe this would be the case if racism was embedded in Dutch society in the same way as it was in South Africa, but it is not. Which goes to show that ethnicity is not an absolute truth but a social construct. As I said before, it's all in the eye of the beholder. Iblardi (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm Pieter_v. What I meant about our royal house contributing to our culture is simply their role in Dutch culture. You don't need to to be ethnically dutch to be culturally dutch, or to contribute to dutch culture/history. Look at our football team, it's composed of many different ethnicies. Look at the president of France, whose Half-hungarian and some other ethnic background. When it comes to our royal house, we can dedicate large paragraphs about them on pages such as dutch culture and dutch history, but this page here is devoted to those who are ethnic dutch. That also involves people in foreign countries (the US) who are, at least partially, ethnically dutch even though they've maybe never visited the Netherlands and don't speak a single word of Dutch.
As four the apartheid comparison. Do you think people in South Africa don't speak about ethnic groups? As in "we're all ethnic South Africans"? That doesn't exist and they still talk about ethnic groups. Even the ANC government. Check out their demographic figures, there's many different type of ethnic groups in SA, even cultures. They're often only South African in the sense of sharing the same passports. Today it all became multicultural, and they live side by side, sometimes intermixing. Apartheid was something completely different, one ethnic group (or race actually) was given more rights to the other. Look at the United States of America. They all consider themselves Americans don't they? Yet, there's no "ethnic american" unless you're talking about the few native inhabitants. They all have a different ethnic background, often a melting pot of ethnicies. 62.163.232.175 (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Ilbardi means (correct me if I am wrong) is that ethnicity as a social construct (of self-identification) may differ between cultures. Where in some societies self-identification maybe more related to family background and genetics (as in South Africa) in other societies the self-identification places emphasis on other things. (BTW note that the existence of races (see note3) in human beings is contested as genetic differences within humanity are far too small/marginal to talk about races (as we do with e.g. dogs).) Arnoutf (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Differences may seem small, but can still be very big. Our DNA sequence is identical to that of a chimpanzee for 99%, yet (hopefully) there's major differences because of that 1%. Not to say that the same goes for races, but you get the point. There's obvious differences in general looks. Possibly other things as well. You think it's a coincidence that it's mostly Africans that generally score the most points with running at the olympics and with marathons?
Yes ethnicy plays a different kind of role in every society. In our society ethnicy isn't important. In others there's still a tribal clan-system. I consider myself Dutch, but I'm not even sure how much I descent from the Dutch myself. I think I'm close to full, but I'd have to start a family tree to find out. Whatever the outcome would be, I'd still consider myself Dutch ;) 62.163.232.175 (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re race. As far as I know we have far over 80% of genes the same with all animals (including insects) so small differences in genes may have big consequences. Species definition is usually that two species cannot breed to a fertile child (e.g. horse and donkey can interbreed -> Mule but those are infertile; Chimpanzees and humans cannot interbreed). Races is down on the ladder and is way below species; but races may differ. Consider the difference between dog races chihuaha and the great dane, this race differences in dogs is obviously much larger than any differences in humanity. Actually skin colour seems bound to very, very few genes, to the extent that you could as well argue that eye-colour or all kinds of invisible characteristics within same-coloured humans involve many more genes. The Africans that run best in Olympics are usually those of rural highland areas (Ethiopia and Kenyia tends to be very high; Uganda and Congo (lowlands) do not score good on marathons). Lowland Africans do not score as good (but other highland regions have similar advantagous - e.g. the Nepalese Sherpa's and the Colombian cyclists come to mind). Hence that is rather a local adaptation related to very specific local situation than anything correlated with skin colour. Furhtermore genetic variation within the different African peoples appears to be about 20 times larger than that of all the rest of humanity together (i.e. the different African peoples differ more between each other than the Dutch from the Chineses, the Apaches or any other non-African people) (This is seen as evidence for the out of Africa theory, which makes sense to me). So no, race is probably too large a distinction within humanity, and even if we would distinguish race on genetics alone, this would be very confused and hardly related to visible characteristics.
Re your Dutchness, if you consider yourself Dutch, and I think from your edits you are, that is good enough for me. It is not about you (or me) being less Dutch it is about who is also Dutch, and who cannot and can never be (in my opinion there is not necessarily such a latter category).Arnoutf (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Humanzee is still a mistery ;) What you told me about the African athletes is interesting, I never looked at it that way. As for the Race debate, there's several theories. As a humanist I, same as you, don't care much about racial differences. There are obvious differences though, such as height and strength (compare Indonesians with Africans). Looks are also generally important, it's what helped shape civilisations for thousands of years. Same goes for ethnicies, usually well defined ethnic groups generally look-alike. The debate is interesting but we shouldn't shift from improving this article. I'm still in favour of keeping the article limited to an ethnic group, because if you're going to write about people with a dutch passport it will be one big pile of original research. I think the best place for what's been bugging you and Iblardi is the Dutch culture article. This includes people of all ethnic and racial backgrounds and deals with history and traditons and what not. Maybe we can place a link to it in the introduction. As for this page, it'll never be a giant masterpiece. When it comes to writing about ethnicy it usually should be limited to demographics and other statistics, want iedereen is uniek. (Behalve ik). 62.163.232.175 (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without sources that provide answer to the questions below this will remain a clash of viewpoints; as any description of the Dutch ethnic group is equally (in)valid if no sources are provided. i.e. without sources each and any description can be labelled as original research; and I think that is why Iblardi has a problem with the narrow definition, which is non-verifiable. Arnoutf (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed the case. It would also be useful to have a clear description of what the term 'ethnic group' really means before we define Dutch ethnicity. Iblardi (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I was not entirely happy with the old (e.g. 27 April 08) definition of the Dutch ethnic group (The Dutch people (Dutch: Nederlanders (help·info)) are an ethnic group forming the majority (80.9%) of the population in the Netherlands.[29] Historically the Dutch chiefly lived in the Low Countries and Northern France but since the 12th century have migrated all over the world.[30] The Dutch predominantly descend from various Germanic tribes[31][32] and speak Dutch, one of the three most spoken Germanic languages today.[33]); at least that version was referenced and relatively verifiable (if not the truth per se, but in my opinion the truth does not exist anyway). The current definition (The Dutch people (self-designation: Nederlanders (help·info)) or Ethnic Dutch are an Indo-European[citation needed] ethnic group traditionally[who?] inhabiting the coastal lowlands east of the North Sea (geopolitically: the Low Countries and northern France[citation needed])) is a mess in my opinion.
Picking it apart phrase by phrase:
"self-designation: Nederlanders" - is an unsourced statement (any dictionary will give this translation, but that is no self designation). This is already highly problematic, as a bit later on the Belgium Flemish and even some Northern French apparently self-deisgnate themselves as Nederlander???? (This was not a problem in the older version
"are an Indo-European[citation needed] ethnic group" perhaps a bit trivial, but this genetic/historical descent is unsourced. By placing it in this way; the genetic (highly debate) approach to ethnicity is taken here. Again the careful wording "predominantly descend from various Germanic tribes" takes much of the sting out of this problem in the older definition but NOT here.
"traditionally inhabiting" This requires a reference, "traditionally" without a very very strong source is a weasel word (ie a claim that cannot be verified because unverifiability is worked into the phrasing).
"inhabiting the coastal lowlands east of the North Sea (geopolitically: the Low Countries and northern France)" - Again an unsourced mess; and clearly incorrect in places (e.g. the Alsace, while undeniably northern France has never been part of the Dutch atmosphere)
Basically, this definition would be better phrased as "The Dutch people are a European population group living in the lowlands east of the Northsea".
The definition is essential as this will set the tone for the whole of the article. Where should we go from the current mess? Arnoutf (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that assuming the Flemish are Dutch is too controversial and has no good sources (same with Northern France). I don't really see the problem with 'traditionally', that means the Netherlands is our homeland. And Nederlanders is simply the translation, every ethnic group page on wikipedia shows the native name of a people. Maybe we should change "self-designation" to "Dutch". - Pieter_v (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "traditionally inhabiting" in the current context reflects to the whole lowlands; ie including Northern France. I think the wording there is problematic. Arnoutf (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was doing some maintenance on this page, and noticed the appalling state of the referencing. If you look at Wikipedia:Citing sources, it is clear that (if known) author and year of publication must be mentioned. ISBN on the other hand is not essential. If we now look at the reference list we notice e.g. "The Dutch Republic Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806, ISBN0-19-820734-4" - where both author and year of publication lack. If it were only this single reference it would be an easily fixable problem, but there seems to be no standard style for citations adopted at all for this article. If we would ever get this article beyond C or B class this needs to be solved and soon. Please be consistent in referencing, it takes a bit more time, but will save time and frustration later on; and is the task of the editor adding the original reference. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
"GsNed" :
{{Nl icon}}Geschiedenis van het Nederlands by M. Van der Wal. Taakstrijd in België.
{{Nl icon}}Geschiedenis van het Nederlands by M. Van der Wal. Northern France.
{{Nl icon}}Geschiedenis van het Nederlands by M. Van der Wal. Middelnederlands.
"GrNed" :
Source, the aforementioned 3rd chapter (p3), together with the initial paragraphs of chapter 4, on the establishment of the Dutch Republic.
Chapter 2, paragraph 1; On the Feudal period in the Low Countries.
Chapter 3, paragraph 2; ''The Age of Burgundy (1384-1477)''.
Chapter 3, forming political unity, paragraph 3; ''The Age of Habsburg (1477-1588)''.
Combining information found in chapter 4, paragraph 4, and chapter 5, paragraph 1. On the Dutch revolt and the Southern occupation respectivly.
