Jump to content

Talk:Netherlands/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

IPA pronunciation

47.32.20.133, Maczkopeti, Kbb2: First, IP editor, you can't really use a revert to call someone out on edit warring because then you are edit warring. You should have gone to the talk page yourself. Anyway, I think MOS:PRON is pretty clear: "Do not include pronunciations for names of foreign countries whose pronunciations are well known in English (France, Poland)." Newfoundland is not a good example because it is not pronounced as one would expect in English and many people probably mispronounce it. The schwa in "Netherlands" is to be expected just as with "England", etc. By the MOS the IPA should not be there. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a non-native speaker myself and even to me the pronunciation /-lənd/ feels more natural than /-lænd/.
Newfoundland actually can't be compared to Netherlands nor England because it's most commonly stressed on the last syllable, and a stressed /ə/ (which is /ʌ/ in our diaphonemic system - see Help:IPA/English) is never spelled like that in native English words, except perhaps for a small group of words such as what (only in AmE and perhaps also CanE). Neither the noun land nor the suffix -land belong to that group. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

History

I'm uncertain why this article has such an extensive history section. Apparently there's confusion with the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which has existed in its current form since 1815 (more or less, taking continuity through the loss of Belgium and occupation during World War 2), and has various predecessor states. However, this Netherlands concept as a constituent country was only created in 1954. It doesn't make sense to talk about it before that date. There are also a lot of irrelevant dates in the infobox that don't apply to this article. I suggest moving a lot of the historical content to Kingdom of the Netherlands. ghouston (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, just because the state has only existed for a short time in its modern form doesn't mean we shouldn't include details of its history before its foundation - the article describes the people of the Netherlands (and thus their history) as much as it does the modern state. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
You could also argue the other way around: the Kingdom of the Netherlands historically used to be what the constituent country of the Netherlands currently is (BES islands aside). The Kingdom in its current form came into being only in 1954, constituting a new entity with more than just the Netherlands. Yet, the history of the territory that is now the constituent country of the Netherlands includes that of the Kingdom of the Netherlands until 1954 and also that of the many states before that like the Dutch Republic. Thayts ••• 13:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
That's part of the confusion: the Netherlands in this article isn't a "state", and it's not the successor to the actual Netherlands state (the Kingdom). It's just an internal division, and one that's likely to change in future, since the Netherlands tends to reorganise itself relatively frequently. It recently gained some Caribbean islands, for example. Perhaps in a future reorganisation, it will cease to exist entirely, like the Netherlands Antilles. ghouston (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it's probably best to think of the Netherlands, as it's currently formulated, as a state with three semi-autonomous regions (Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten). In theory, the Netherlands is equally a semi-autonomous region, but in practice, it doesn't really work that way. It doesn't have it's own parliament, for example. ghouston (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
In practice, it's also similar to France and Metropolitan France. The former is a state, the latter an unimportant internal division. ghouston (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
We don't know about the future, so let's focus on the past. The Dutch Republic as it was ceased to exist, the Batavian Republic did too, as well as the Kingdom of Holland. But they all are part of the history that led to the current constituent country. I would also not say that the Netherlands is an 'unimportant' internal division, it is the country that de facto runs all Kingdom affairs. Thayts ••• 07:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
It's the distinction between the Netherlands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands that's unimportant. In practice, they are practically the same thing. The Netherlands has over 98% of the population of the Kingdom and probably a larger share of the economy. The idea that the Netherlands has some kind of separate existence as a separate country, semi-autonomous from the Kingdom is only theoretical, since it makes up nearly the entire kingdom, and dominates it economically and politically. ghouston (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, so you would say it is better to merge the two articles? But that's a different discussion that has been held before (I'm no proponent of that myself, because legally speaking we're talking about two different entities). Thayts ••• 17:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd say they'd be better merged, because it would resolve a lot of confusion and wouldn't really lose anything. The idea of the Netherlands as a constituent country can be described in a sentence or two. The problem now is that this article is basically about the Kingdom of the Netherlands: it's talking about a sovereign state, with foreign relations, a military, and an immigration policy, when the (theoretical) constituent state of the Netherlands has none of these things, since they are Kingdom affairs. There's also the history I mentioned earlier: the history section of this article could be copied to the Kingdom article and it would still be valid. ghouston (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Since this article is about a country that is only within the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the latter is the national government, the external links section seems to have several links that don't belong in this article or, if this is where people would look for them, that should be annotated as being for the national government, not the country government per se. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you specify the links or just remove them? gidonb (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Limburgish

In what way does the EU charter makes Limburgish official with the Netherlands? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, you may enjoy reading this article. gidonb (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. I asked the question originally because I have seen the EU charter used elsewhere to claim a language has official status within a country. An example is Cornish within the UK. My view is that recognition of the EU charter does not grant official status on any language. All it does is show that the country concerns accepts that the Charter says that a specific language is either a minority language (ie spoken) or a regional language affecting a regions culture (ie spoken or not). This is not the same as conferring offial status on the language. I therefore think Limbugish should not be noted in the infobox as official whereas Friesian is officiaal because a Dutch law says in is, in Friesland. There has been a debate on the UK article about the official status, or otherwise, of various languages, which is still ongoing. I note in your link it says, half way down: "Although Limburgish has received legal recognition, the language does not have the same official status as Dutch. Limburgers cannot ask their regional government to use Limburgish as a language of government. All oral and written communications with the government must by law continue to be conducted in the Dutch language." I think this is agrees with my opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct! Limburgish was recognized as a regional language or a level 2 language. It provides fewer privileges than the main or level 1 languages. gidonb (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Netherland

It should be noted that the Dutch officially refer to their country as Nederland, singular not plural; the plural refering to the wider historical region. In English this would simply be Netherland - Netherlands is bit like Englands, Scotlands or Irelands. Also, the article often refers to "The Netherlands" when simply Netherland would do - it is a problem Ukraine also suffered from. Are there actually any countries that are officially known as The [Country]? I've just looked it up, The Gambia and The Bahamas it seems. 86.140.22.216 (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"Netherlands" is the common English name for the country and since it is plural, "the Netherlands" is used to make sensible sentences. Compare it with "the United States". Thayts ••• 11:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Netherland is not a normal English word. It is even slightly more complicated: in UK English you prefer to use "the Netherlands" in US English "Netherlands". In addresses, both are good, depending on the language variant used. Wikipedia prefers "city, Netherlands" because the variant without "the" is also good in a variant of English. The "the" never has a capital letter, except at the beginning of a sentence. So this article is in UK English because it always uses "the" before "Netherlands". --Egel Reaction? 12:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Americans say "the Netherlands" too, I don't think there is a difference between UK and US English there. Thayts ••• 13:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Netherlands is official also in the "Netherlands". IP's suggestion is WP:OR. Also, in this respect there is no difference between US, AU, IE, NZ and UK English. It shouldn't surprise. It's all English. gidonb (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The Netherlands Board of Tourism & Conventions (NBTC) is the English name of the organisation which promotes the Netherlands nationally and internationally. 'Netherland' is not used by the Dutch to represent the name of the country in English. The probable reason for the flurry of activity on the name is that the Dutch government has decided to no longer identify itself as Holland. It will now only its real name – the Netherlands. This will apply in all circumstances.--Dacramac (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Does this decision have any practical implications or is it just a declaration? I'm asking since Holland was informal in English anyway. gidonb (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Practically, it will change some adverts and maybe names of events sponsored by the Dutch government, and they may even go so far as to change the holland.com domain at some point. ghouston (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
ghouston, awesome thank you so much! Some advertisements and branding are close to nothing. Great that you spell this out! Holland was informal and remains informal. gidonb (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

King Willem-Alexander has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add European to al EU Member states as Demonym(s)

Please add and connect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union to al EU member states as Demonym(s)

For Netherlands it would be Dutch, European For Germany it would be German, European etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.54.182.6 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Euro English de facto a languages in European Netherlands

Most people in the Netherlands speak and use English as there daily language especially in Amsterdam, The Hague, and Rotterdam.

Please add English as de facto language and connect it to Euro English — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.54.182.6 (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

onzin. L.tak (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
It is understandable that you get that impression. Many waiters at the tourist spots are foreign seasonal workers, who do not always speak Dutch. --Egel Reaction? 12:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The list in the infobox is de jure. The fact that most people in NL understand and can speak English is mentioned elsewhere. If you would like to change the legal status of English in the Netherlands you would need to communicate with the Dutch government. Not with Wikipedia. We're absolutely no side to your desire. We only report reality as reflected in reliable sources. gidonb (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
English is certainly not the daily language in normal use. Not even close. The Banner talk 14:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Caribbean Netherlands

The lede of this article is incorrect in its wording. It talks of the Netherlands as being only the European portion, and that it along with the Caribbean Netherlands make up a constituent country in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. But the islands in the Caribbean Netherlands are an integral part of the Netherlands. There isn't a separation of the two parts (except by an ocean). I would rather someone who spends more time on this article be the one to make this change, but I will do it if I don't see anyone else make it in a reasonable amount of time. Lexicon (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lexicon: do my edits address your concerns? Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: Yep! Lexicon (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Common Era or Anno Domini?

The article had a mix of Anno Domini and Common Era styles, so I made it consistent with Common Era. Ætoms subsequently reverted that edit, which to me seems lika a violation the style-rules. Or had a consensus already been reached about this? DirkvdM (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey! When I reverted your edit, I was referring to the MOS:ERA guideline which states that "an article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content", but I wasn't aware that there were inconsistencies within the article, so thank you for pointing that out!
I took a closer look and found that the BC/AD notation is used >30 times throughout the article, while the BCE/CE notation is used only twice. Therefore, I think it would be best to stick with the BC/AD notation. ― Ætoms [talk] 17:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@DirkvdM: I changed the two BCEs to BC, so now the BC/AD notation is used consistently within the article. ― Ætoms [talk] 15:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Request to verify recent mobile edits

I'm not knowledgeable on this topic. Could somebody check 2 of the recent mobile edits to |ethnic_groups= parameter in the Infobox, please?

  • [[Malays (ethnic group)|Malays]] was replaced by [[Javanese(ethnic group)|Javanese]]
  • [[Indonesians]] was removed, with the list comma being later removed

Thank you for verifying the changes; much appreciated. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I've updated it to match the current sources. I have some notes because I'm not super familiar with this area which I'll post in a moment. Perryprog (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
DeNoel all right—first of all: the change made seems to fail verification per the sourced site (which I've updated to a 2019 English version), so I've changed it back. I'm also unsure that migrational background is considered the same as ethnicity, so that may as well be the wrong parameter in the first place. Additionally, it's unclear if the source is considering "Morocco" as a superset of "Indonesia"—if it treats them separately then the percentage would be around 4%, not 2%. I've kept it to be closer to what was originally there. I also removed Dutch Caribbean as that makes up 0.0004% (64 people) of the population as per the current source.

Anyway: this isn't all in direct reply to your request, I just want to explain my rationale in case an editor who is more experienced in this area comes by. I'm fairly certain though—especially considering the relative changes of the percentages—that I didn't screw up too badly :-). Cheers, and thanks for the excellent request. Perryprog (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of "the"

The article uses "the" in lower case when referring to the country, but I'm not sure if it is a required definite article, or whether it is part of the name, in which case it would have to be capitalized. The latter is certainly the case with "The Hague", for which the word The must always be capitalized. I'm less sure in the case of The Netherlands, however. When Ukraine was "the Ukraine", it was not capitalized. Mathglot (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Netherlands/Archive2_(Netherlands_v._the_Netherlands) The article is in British English so the definite article is required if you use the name in a sentence. But because in other language variants like US English the definite article is not required, according to the rules of Wikipedia the definite article is not a part of the name. The definite article shouldn't be capitalized. --Egel Reaction? 21:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The definite article is required in a full sentence structure. It is not (!) part of the name. Only of the sentence structure. It is required for all false (i.e. former) plurals. For example, She was born in the United States, raised in the United Kingdom, worked in the Netherlands, and died in the United Arab Emirates. All false plurals. No difference whatsoever between UK English, US English, and other variants of English here. Except in the serial comma... gidonb (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The Hague, on the other hand, is not a false plural. Hague here means hedge. One hedge. "The" is part of the name, not of the sentence structure. gidonb (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Mathglot, "Ukraine" is not a false plural either. It is singular. When adding a definite article to Ukraine it becomes a pejorative. In Russia this is common. Conservative leaders in the rest of Europe and elsewhere use this when communicating a Russian narrative. The case of the "Netherlands" is not comparable at all to "Ukraine" or "The Hague". It is the precise equivalent of the "United States", "United Kingdom", "United Arab Emirates", and "Philipines". gidonb (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Resignations and transition of Power due to scandal

It is being reported that "Prime Minister Mark Rutte and his entire cabinet stepped down." This is due to failure to protect families from "overzealous tax inspectors".[1] . This will need to have a new section added with explanation expounding upon the basis of the resignations and important factors that led to the outcome. Forgive my informality as I am used to the visual editor. --Dobblestein (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we should add one picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua's Number9 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/15/world/europe/dutch-government-resignation-rutte-netherlands.html

Confusing Begin

The following sentence is confusing to me, certainly when you consider that for most people The Netherlands, Holland and The Kingdom of the Netherlands refers to the same thing.

"The Netherlands (Dutch: Nederland), informally Holland,[13] is a country primarily located in Western Europe and partly in the Caribbean, forming the largest constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.[14]"

It reads to me as if the country, both in Europe and the Caribbean, form the the largest constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. I would suggest replacing the first two sentences with the following wording:

The Netherlands (Dutch: Nederland), informally Holland,[13] is a country primarily located in Western Europe and partly in the Caribbean. In Europe it consists of 12 provinces that form the largest constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.[14] These provinces border Germany to the east, Belgium to the south, and the North Sea to the northwest, with maritime borders in the North Sea with those countries and the United Kingdom.

Anybody else agree?

Dutchdavey (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Your initial reading is correct, the BES islands are part of the Netherlands proper. CMD (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Neither the current nor the suggested texts are great. gidonb (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 2021

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

The result of the move request was: a consensus to not move this page. The nominator is aware that the problems are related to the content of the article rather than the title itself. I'm closing this early as this is highly unlikely to succeed in the remaining days. (non-admin closure) (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


Netherlands → Netherlands (Constituent country) –

This article does not refer to a sovereign country but the constituent country, which causes a lot of confusion. The Netherlands is both the name of the constituent country (to which this article refers) as well as the short name used by the sovereign country Kingdom of the Netherlands. The sovereign country, which is the member of the UNO, OCD, WTO, EU, NATO, etc. goes in all those instances by the short name The Netherlands. Furthermore, when people and references think of /refer to the Netherlands they mostly refer to the sovereign entity and not to the constituent country.

As a parallel, the article Denmark also refers to the sovereign country Kingdom of Denmark (which also goes by the short name Denmark) and not to the constituent country.

This proposal also considers moving Kingdom of the Netherlands to Netherlands, as this is the name under which this sovereign country is known all over the world and formally referred to in the UNO, OCD, WTO, EU, NATO, etc. SFBB (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Injecting a parenthetical disambiguator here is completely unnecessary. I dispute your contention that "when people and references think of /refer to the Netherlands they mostly refer to the sovereign entity and not to the constituent country". I think the exact opposite is actually true. When most English speakers refer to "the Netherlands" they are talking about the territory in Europe. And as far as your Denmark example, the constituent country of Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark apparently share the same article, so that's not directly applicable to this case where there are two separate articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify: both the country of Netherlands as well as the constituent country of the Netherlands have territories in the Caribbean and both are primarily located in Europe (so the argument about talking about the territory in Europe applies either to both or to none). SFBB (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I've read Wikipedia:Article titles and that's precisely the reason for proposing this change. The commonly name used for the Kingdom of the Netherlands is Netherlands and that's what the short name is most commonly used for, not for the constituent country. SFBB (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. That's precisely the point for the change. To be able to use the common name Netherlands for the actual country, which is Kingdom of the Netherlands and not the constituent country. SFBB (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course it is confusing, as the country and the constituent country share the same common name, but there's nothing that wikipedia can make about that (blame the Dutch). What wikipedia indeed can do, is to avoid that people searching for a country, end up in the article of a constituent country. SFBB (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, all sovereign countries in the world in eswiki (see List of sovereign states) go by their common name and not by the official name (e.g. Republic of China is Taiwan and Syrian Arab Republic is Syria). The only exception in the encyclopedia is Netherlands, in which case the common name is occupied by a constituent country and not by the actual country. This situations absolutely ad-hoc and it should be corrected. The proposed change satisfis WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION (indicating the the constituent country is not an actual sovereign country and so avoiding confusion) and WP:CONCISE (using the common, short name for the sovereign country instead of mostly not used official name for a sovereign country) SFBB (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article Kingdom of the Netherlands mostly discusses the organizational structure of the kingdom and the country's relation with its Caribbean territories. I think the average reader typing "Netherlands" in the search bar is more likely looking for information about the Dutch culture, geography, history, and economy. These things are not really addressed in the article Kingdom of the Netherlands, so I would argue it is most useful to send readers to the current article Netherlands. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tristan Surtel: you're completely right and the idea would be to move that content to the article Kingdom of the Netherlands. It would make much more sense that this information would be in the article of the actual country than in the article about the constituent country, which is basically an administrative structure. SFBB (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
That would also be a possibility (akin to what's done in Denmark, but I think it does not hurt to keep a small article fully dedicated to the constituent country, dealing with the administrative and organizational issues only. But the main article (includign history, culture, etc.) should be about the actual country. SFBB (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Merging the two articles like what is done with Denmark is the only way anything is going to change. I'm not sure if merging the two articles is a good idea or not, but I'm willing to listed to the arguments for and against such a merger. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
More importantly, the argument has to be laid out more clearly than it has here. I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what is being proposed.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "The Netherlands" is the common name for the main country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and that's what most people mean when they mention the word "Netherlands". JIP | Talk 19:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support a move to Netherlands (constituent country) (lower-case c!) and moving Kingdom of the Netherlands here. I think that having the article Netherlands not be about a sovereign country is more confusing than giving this convoluted polity a convoluted title. This should have a been a multi-move and should probably be withdrawn by the nom and re-nominated as such. I would also consider a merge discussion. The Denmark case is apt. Srnec (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Srnec: I guess withdrawing this and re-nominating it as multi-move would have to be the way to go. I just thought that it would be so obvious that no one would oppose moving the article about an organizational construct to make space for the actual country, but I clearly overestimated the reading capacities of the community and the proposal is receiving a lot of oppose votes from users not taking a single second to read what this is about (not all, but the majority; some users have expressed some valid concerns that obviously would have to be taken into account when doing such a move). A merge would also be an option (actually, what I picture is kind of like a merge, but keeping a short article for the constituent country dealing only with organizational stuff). SFBB (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Did you ever bother reading what's being proposed? per common name does not make any sense here: there are two entities that share the same common name: a sovereign country and a constituent country, and this is about giving priority to the actual country over an organizational construct. SFBB (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Like I said above, you'd have better luck trying to merge Kingdom of the Netherlands into this article the way the Denmark article is structured. As long as there are two separate articles, the status quo is very likely going to be maintained. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Add another vote for merging the KotN article here.--Khajidha (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Question how do you refer to the country that's member of the UNO or of the WHO then? or the country that is member of the EU, lead by Mark Rutte? of to the constitutional monarchy led by Willem Alexander? or the Dutch soldiers of the NATO? or to the football team that competes in the FIFA World Cup? or the team competing in the Olympics (there was a time when the constituent countries were allowed to have their own teams/federations, but not anymore)? all of them is the Kingdom of the Netherlands and not the constituent country. SFBB (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
AS I said before, the merge is indeed a valid alternative and I'd support it. The important thing is that people searching for the Netherlands, end up in the article about the country and not in the article about a political construct (which btw is fairly new; the entire history section of this articles refers to the KotN and not to the constituent country). SFBB (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding the comparison with Denmark articles in the original post and some replies, it is incorrect that there is only a single article, there is a separate article about the wider Danish constitutional arrangements at Danish Realm. CMD (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Usage of "Netherlands" to refer to the constituent country is way more common than to refer to the complete kingdom. Also, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is not exactly comparable to the Kingdom of Denmark. Note that this discussion has come up before and was closed with consensus not to move. Thayts ••• 11:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The situation is exactly the same as in the Danish case, e.g. sovereignty, passports, international representation, governing, sports teams, etc. (if no, please provide a reference, but I'm sure you will not, because you won't find any differnce). And second, there was a vote before, so what? back then people voting showed that they do not really know where the KotN ends and where the constituent country (political construct created in 1954) begins and the same is happening right now (apparently some users voting here wrongly believe that sports teams representing the KotN would be representatives of the constituent country, which is incorrect; or that the constituent country would refer to the European portion of the KotN only; or that the Netherlands would not be the common name of the KotN). The only thing that both votings are revealing is that when people don't really know, they prefer the status quo. SFBB (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be a bit on edge. To give you an example in sports, Aruba has its own National Olympic Committee and previously the Netherlands Antilles did too. The Netherlands Olympic Committee primarily represents the constituent country only (although Dutch Caribbean athletes outside Aruba can choose to participate for either). In 1954, when the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands was signed, "Kingdom of the Netherlands" got a different meaning than just the European part as it was expanded to explicitly include the former Dutch colonies. Together with the Netherlands, they became constituent countries on an basis of equality (even though international representation for the most part is done by the constituent country of the Netherlands). This distinction is not clearly made in Denmark, in which Greenland and the Faroe Islands are merely referred to as autonomous territories and the territories together are referred to as the Danish Realm (rather than the Kingdom). In the Kingdom of the Netherlands, you also have the Kingdom Games for example which emphasises all constituent countries to be a proper part of the Dutch kingdom.
I'm also not saying that "Netherlands" is not a common name for the kingdom, but its meaning depends on the context in which it is used. Like I said in my first sentence, it most commonly refers to the contituent country, though.
And I was just linking to the previous vote for reference, what's the harm in that? Thayts ••• 17:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. "Netherlands" as a short name for "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is only used when the constituent countries don't represent themselves individually, i.e. only in international relations. In virtually all other cases, e.g. international sports events, "Netherlands" usually refers to the constituent country and not to the Kingdom as a whole. Also, as per WP:NATURAL, natural diambiguations are preferred over parenthetical disambiguations. In other words: Wikipedia policy demands the use of the full name for the sovereign state to distinguish it from the constituent country, even if it's not its common name.
I'd also like to discourage proposing a merger of the two articles. Aruba, Curaçao, the Netherlands and Sint Maarten have an equal status within the Kingdom of the Netherlands and should be treated as such, also on Wikipedia. Suggesting that "Kingdom of the Netherlands" and "Netherlands" should be merged shows little understanding of (and respect for) the Kingdom's constitutional structure. It's like merging United Kingdom into England or vice versa. ― Ætoms [talk] 12:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
First of all. You're completely mistaken and you're examples show it: in all international sports events the name Netherlands refers to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and not to the constituent country. The Royal Dutch Football Association or the Olympic committee NOC*NSF, among many others, are institutions at country level (i.e. KotN) and not at the level of the constituent country (that's why Curaçao and Sint Maarten are not allowed to have their own representatives and have to compete for the Netherlands; Aruba is only allowed to compete independently for historical reasons) see here.
Second, I'm also not sure if you really understand this topic. The constituent country is a political construct created in 1954. Before that date only the country KotN existed and the whole history/culture section of this articles refer to the KotN and not to the constituent country:
Third: the comparison with UK is a good one, in the sense that the information associated with the UK is different from the information associated with England. Same applies here, with the difference that the political construct of the constituent country was created in 1954 and up until then only the KotN existed. The situation is 100% equivalent to the Danish case. SFBB (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Your source does not say why Curaçao and Sint Maarten would not be allowed to have their own representation. The Netherlands Antilles of which they were previously part did have their own Olympic Committee, it's just that that constituent country was dissolved and no new Olympic Committees have been created for the new constituent countries (yet). Thayts ••• 17:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@SFBB: Sorry, but this is just not true. Aruba and Curaçao have their own FIFA member associations and their own national football teams competing in the qualification rounds for the 2022 World Cup. Indeed, Curaçao and Sint Maarten currently don't have an NOC of their own, so athletes from these countries may choose to represent Aruba or the Netherlands instead, or to compete as an independent Olympic athlete. This is explained at Netherlands Antilles at the Olympics#Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles. Simply put, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a sovereign state (not a "country" as you keep calling it) that unites four countries under a single monarch. That being said, please stop bludgeoning the process: you've made your point and repeating it over and over again is not helpful at all. ― Ætoms [talk] 18:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ætoms: I'm not bludgeoning anything. I'm just disproving completely wrong arguments that have been brought forward and have nothing to do with the actual facts. It's not that Curaçao and Sint Maarten currently don't have an NOC of their own: they don't and they won't have any NOC because only sovereign country may have NOCs, and the NOC representing the entire country of the Netherlands is the NOC*NSF (which is open to anyone with a Dutch pass). As previously said, the Aruban NOC only exists as reminiscent of an old rule, as it is clearly exemplified by the case of Netherlands Antilles at the Olympics#Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles.
Second, for the purpuses of wikipedia, the general understanding of a country is a asovereign state as shown Lists by country. A constituent country is neither what wikipedia nor an average English speaker understands under country.
And third, it is not that KotN be a political construct created to unify 4 constituent countries. The KotN has always been the country and the constituent country of the Netherlands, is a political construct created in 1954 when the colonies were intended to get more autonomy still within the same country. That'S a fact and it cannot be twisted. SFBB (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
And to keep putting more facts
  • Since 1932, het Wilhelmus is the national anthem of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and not of the constituent country. There is not national anthem of the constituent country (and aabsolutely no ruling about it).
  • The motto Je maintendrai is the motto of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and not of the constituent country.
  • The coat of arms in the article is the Coat of arms of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and not of the constituent country.
  • Amsterdam is the capital of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as stated Grondwet voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlande. There is absolutely no document in which a capital of the constituent country is mentioned (if something the capital of the constituent country could only be The Hague).
And I could keep going on and on. Most of the information in this article refers to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and not to the constituent country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFBB (talk • contribs) 22:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is very much a political construct to unify several countries since 1954 (as I explained in my other comment). Together they form a sovereign state. The former colonies were not actually part of the country. In Dutch, the word land is used to refer to each part, which literally means "country"; no equivalent of "constituent country" is even used in the language. Also, why is it that for example the article on England starts with "England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom" instead of "England is a constituent country that is part of the United Kingdom" (and is not even mentioned anywhere in the article)?
I can explain your list of facts by Article 42 of the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which says that the constitution for the constituent country of the Netherlands is arranged by the Grondwet, while the other constituent countries have separate arrangements. I think that the name "Grondwet voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden" is inherited from the very first version of 1815 (and it probably also applies to the whole of the modern Kingdom in some sense, but to be honest I'm no expert on the constitution). Thayts ••• 23:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

English in the Netherlands

Apart from the Caribbean Netherlands also the city of Amsterdam and The Amsterdam Metropolitan Area recognizes English as official second language https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engels_in_Nederland#cite_note-4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a446:4e09:1:e874:3afd:c6a:df6a (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Holland

Every now and then, something like "also called Holland" is added to the first sentence of this article, which is often changed in wording time after time and eventually removed before popping up again. I think it's better to get to a consensus on if we want to have it and if yes, in which words.

Personally I don't really mind what it will be, but there is something to say for both. Officially, the country's name is not Holland. Strictly speaking, Holland is only a region in the Netherlands. Dutchmen from outside Holland also don't like this name for the country. However, fact is that in the English-speaking world (and also outside) the country is often called and known as Holland anyway and even the Dutch government is promoting it with that name. I think this usage should perhaps also be acknowledged in an encyclopedia like this.

So, do we want to keep it in and in what wording, or do we want to omit it? If it's kept, then we should have a reliable source for it or otherwise still remove it. Thayts ••• 21:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The NL is often, not rarely, called Holland, even by the Dutch themselves. The answer then is simple - it should be noted somewhere in this article, logically at the start. The problem is not so much with the editors who want to insert the word Holland but with those pedantically correct editors who do not. A good comparison is with the UK-England debate: even though those within the UK who refer to the UK as England, has dwindled to a trickle over time, many outside the UK still regularly persist with this habit, the Dutch included. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, so I'd like to get to a consensus so that we can refer to this discussion later. Thayts ••• 07:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
"Holland" is predominantly used as a synonym of the "Netherlands" in Dutch. In English it is virtually always or plainly always a synonym of the "Netherlands" and it often is the first choice name. This is the English-language Wikipedia so I support putting it in the first phrase of the article and keeping it there. I suggest "The Netherlands, informally Holland, is a country in Western Europe." gidonb (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Thayts and User:Roger 8 Roger, do you agree with this proposal? Anyone else? gidonb (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


Agree Thayts ••• 17:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the phrase in the lead. Thayts ••• 21:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! gidonb (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree FWIW, I agree with the rationale. The government may not use it anymore for tourism purposes, and the term is luckily obsolete in sports. Technically the term is incorrect and only refers to part o the country. However, this term is still in widespread (though informal) use, and as long as that the case, we should mention it... L.tak (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Edit: lack of XP working with Wikipedia, sorry. It is simply wrong; it is the Netherlands, not Holland. Regardless of what some (or even many) of us might be shouting during football matches. Please remove / update it to make this more clear, thanks! Anecdotal reference to this matter somewhere later on in the article would be fine... I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:a0c0:11e4:7c7f:7d9f:9124:eba7 (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
To explain the confusion a bit: Holland vs the Netherlands. The Banner talk 09:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
It may formally be wrong, but if it is commonly used for this purpose by so many English speakers then it does have that meaning to those speakers. As an encyclopedia, I believe this should be acknowledged on Wikipedia, if only to make it clear to the reader this is a country that is also known by that name. The controversy of its use is explained further down the article. Thayts ••• 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
no Disagree The Netherlands has been historically referred to as "Holland" for the same reasons the United Kingdom was referred to as "England" or the Soviet Union as "Russia", simply due to the fact that those regions were the most influential politically and economically in their respective countries. Many people mistake the United Kingdom to be the same thing as England. Should it also be mentioned on the United Kingdom article that it is informally referred to as "England" in that case?
Dutch people living outside of North Holland and South Holland, or what people living in Holland refer to as the "provincial people" feel insulted when they are referred to as "Hollanders". Especially when considering Friesland has a separate dialect and history and Utrecht has a history predating Holland within the development of the Netherlands. --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
no Disagree Calling the Netherlands "Holland" would be similar to saying "Berlin" instead of "Germany" or saying "New York" instead of "United States". Just my 2 cents. Tommy has a great username (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a great point, but it isn't. The designation Holland comes from before the 17th century when Holland was politically AND economically more than 80% of the Netherlands. I made sense then and it stuck. Also note that "The Netherlands", since 2000 more often "Netherlands" is an awkward plural word or plural sounding word. All in all Holland is used often. The people are Dutch and not Hollander; That is not used in my experience.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankk20168 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree TobyJ (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree Though maybe geographically incorrect and though people outside the Randstad may feel left out, it is a name that is often used to refer to the country both in spoken language and secondary sources (also according to the Oxford English Dictionary). It is different from calling Germany Berlin, because both secondary sources and people talking about Germany never do this. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree ― Ætoms [talk] 12:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree Holland is the formal name that the Netherlands uses in most languages. In English, it's informal but extremely common in use. Hence it should come right after the formal name, as suggested above. The comparison with Berlin for Germany is ridiculous. Holland is just another name for the Netherlands that could also mean something else. Berlin is not a synonym for Germany! All objections so far are prescriptive or wishful thinking. Wikipedia is descriptive. gidonb (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
no Disagree Makes no sense, if has to be mentioned we should mention that it is not just informal but wrong. JonahF (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::no Disagree Holland and the Netherlands are not the same thing. Holland is a region in the west of the Netherlands, the rest of the Netherlands is not Holland. Calling the Netherlands "Holland", be it informal or not, is simply wrong. An encyclopedia is not supposed to give wrong information. PPP (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Was banned for sockpuppeteering in this discussion and elsewhere on enwiki. gidonb (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, are we seriously having this discussion again? Every archived talk page of the Netherlands has a discussion about some people who seem to think they can name countries as they please. The Netherlands is the Netherlands, not Holland. If you don't like it, change the constitution. PPP (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

But at some level, we can and we do. Germany makes no sense to the Deutschen that live in that country. Japan, Greece (Hellas) are some other countries where the English name has little to d with the local name. Sure China, India, and Birma have successfully bullied the world into changing their names or their city's names in the English language. But except maybe for Peking, Bombay, and Birma you will find few references to those changed names. The name Holland will appear in many English texts and English language readers will want to understand what that means and also why.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankk20168 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

::::no Disagree Holland and the Netherlands are not the same Pee-Tor (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet of PPP. gidonb (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sigh :( Here we go again. PPP, what the Netherlands is officially called, and what it is often called in unofficial contexts, is irrelevant here. The rule is what it is called in commonly used English. Evidence, if needed, of what it is called in common English is supplied by RSS's. What someone in Breda calls the country, in English or in Dutch, or what they are thinking at the time, is totally irrelevant. For the purpose of this article the OED is a RSS, but even if you want something better, there are plenty of top quality sources that will confirm the Holland is often used by English users to refer to the Netherlands. This has been discussed and decided. So, please stop barking up the wrong tree and move on. And, do not start an edit war! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, shall I add to the page about the United Kingdom that it's also called England then? No, of course not, because it is wrong, just like calling the Netherlands "Holland" is wrong. Of course that matters more than what it's commonly called. Since this mistake is regularly made, it it notable for this article, but with the notion that it is actually incorrect and with a link to an article about the real Holland. Also please explain to me why you wrote this as a reply to someone else's vote. PPP (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
PPP, I would like to ask you to remove the disputed tag if it is only placed there for the "informally Holland". Nobody here is disputing that originally Holland referred solely to a region of the Netherlands (as is explained in Netherlands#Holland). However, at least in the English language, Holland has come to refer to the entire country, even though it originally only referred to part of it and even though Holland can still be used to refer to that region. The meaning of words is determined by how they are used and that can change over time. Reliable sources overwhelmingly support that Holland can mean the entire Netherlands. Britannica: "Netherlands (...), also known as Holland". Oxford English Dictionary: "The name of a province of the Northern Netherlands (...); now usually extended to the kingdom of the Netherlands". Merriam-Webster: Holland 3rd geographical meaning "NETHERLANDS". Cambridge Dictonary: Holland 1st meaning "a name that is sometimes used for the Netherlands". Oxford Learner's Dictionary: Netherlands "a country in western Europe, also called Holland". Van Dale: 2nd meaning of Holland "Nederland". To compare it with your example of England for the UK. Merriam-Webster, the Oxford English Dictionary, the Cambridge Dictionary, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, and Van Dale don't mention the entire United Kingdom as a meaning for England and don't mention England as an alternative on their United Kingdom page. Britannica does mention it, but says "Outside the British Isles, England is often erroneously considered synonymous with the island of Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) and even with the entire United Kingdom." So, there's a reliable source saying it should not be used. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not necessarily on the official name of something. You keep repeating that using Holland is a mistake rather than just informal, but so far you have presented no reliable source that agrees and Wikipedia is no place for original research. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I have not opposed to having the phrase altogether, only to add the notion that de facto calling the Netherlands "Holland" is wrong, because it is, as per previous consensus (see archived Talk pages). If we were to follow "what people say", we may as well add that the Corona virus is a hoax, because a lot of Americans, and thus a large portion of the English-speaking world, says that. As well as that God created the world in seven days and that Trump has won the elections. And of course that the UK is also known as England. See how silly that is? If we follow everything people say, we are no longer an encyclopedia, but merely a website with lies. The fact that a lot of people say that, is definitely notable, but we must add that in fact it is wrong. Not to mention offensive, because particularly Frisians, Limburgers and Caribbeans are often offended when calling the entire Netherlands "Holland", which is probably why it is so often removed from the article, and I can tell you, it will happen for as long as Wikipedia exists. For references, I refer to archived talk pages, because apparently we really are having this discussion again, as we have it each time this talk page is archived. We had consensus a number of times before, I would also like to see that this will be noted on the talk page once this is archived again. PPP (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Facts in language are fundamentally different from facts in nature. As you say, a lot of things are being said that are untrue. First of all, that is why Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources (per WP:V). A lot of misinformation about COVID-19 is being spread, but Wikipedia is only supposed to include what reliable sources say (i.e. the scientific community and reliable media). Among reliable sources, there is an overwhelming consensus that COVID-19 is not a hoax and that Biden won the elections. The Netherlands being called Holland is reported in such reliable sources as I have enumerated. You keep saying that it is wrong "because it is", but you have still presented no reliable source saying that this is a mistake (see WP:BUTITSTRUE). Second of all, words in language are a convention. If everybody would start saying that COVID-19 does not exist or that 9/11 did not happen, that would not change reality. It still happened and whatever people are saying, they cannot change the truth. Language works differently. The reason we call a chair "a chair" is because we have decided to call it that. There's nothing inherent about the chair that it must have that name. If I would refer to a chair as "table", I would certainly be making a mistake. However, if everybody would start referring to chairs as "table", then the meaning of the word table would change. Dictionaries would change their definition and calling a chair "a table" would now be correct, as the meaning of words are determined by how they are used. This is seemingly what has happened to Holland. Language is just a convention as opposed to facts about nature, and reliable sources (dictionaries and Britannica) state that using Holland for the Netherlands is now a correct usage. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
As I already noted, there are already references made in previous discussions about this topic, but I take it you really want to start the whole thing over and over again. The name of a country is decided by the country itself, nobody else, so the only legitimate source about a country's name is the country's government. As such, this website should be sufficient proof. It specifically states that Holland is only the western two provinces and the country's name is the Netherlands. And thus, for as long as this is not reflected in the article, the dispute-template is justified. PPP (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I only want to add that the assumption that a country itself is the only one who can choose its name goes against Wikipedia policy WP:COMMONNAME/WP:OFFICIALNAMES. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree Agree to keep "Holland" in. It may be technically wrong, this pars pro toto has -Unlike "England" for the UK- been commonly used, also in very formalized settings (like in sports and NL-tourism promotion). It is not up to us to remove the term from the common terminology... L.tak (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Everybody says England when they mean the UK, I've even heard English people say that. PPP (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
You keep saying I've heard that people use England for the UK. And I know it is wrong to use Holland for the Netherlands. Wikipedia is not here to reflect what you believe to be true, but to say what reliable secondary sources are saying. All major dictionaries say that Holland is a correct alternative for the Netherlands, while not a single one of the ones I checked say England is a proper alternative for the UK. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Britannica: "Outside the British Isles, England is often erroneously considered synonymous with the island of Great Britain". PPP (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond here anymore btw because it is pointless, someone else will remove the phrase again soon enough and once this talk page is archived again, someone else will again start this discussion. This will go on forever. PPP (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

PPP, you just don't get it, even if you did look at pages such as weight. For those who do not know, in Holland it is reasonably common to call the UK 'England', and the Dutch word for England is England. This may or may not have a bearing on the current debate.

Actually the Dutch for 'England' is 'Engeland', although I'm not quite sure why this is relevant.TobyJ (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A typo on my part borne of dispair. The relevance, if it applies, should be obvious. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. PPP, it is not "wrong" if a word or name is commonly used to refer to something, because in language it then simply gets that meaning. But Tristan Surtel already explained this. Yes, technically it's "wrong" and the Dutch government even doesn't advertise the country like that anymore, but fact is that the English-speaking world often still uses Holland to refer to the Netherlands and in that sense it's not wrong. I therefore think that the maintenance template is a bit out of place. Thayts ••• 19:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, my serious last comment here: WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES absolutely do not mean official information is just to be ignored. In the website I linked above, the government of the Netherlands writes that Holland is a region within the Netherlands, it is not the country itself. Also, nowhere did I suggest that we should remove the phrase altogether, only add that although people may call the Netherlands Holland, or Great-Britain England, it is in fact incorrect. Which is true. I seriously don't see what's wrong with adding information that is factually correct. Furthermore, see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6] and tell me who is trying to override existing consensus by bringing this discussion up again. PPP (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC) (seriously not responding here anymore because it is pointless for above mentioned reasons)

The Dutch government in that source and in for example this source is mostly communicating that it is often called Holland, but that the Netherlands is preferable as Holland technically refers to only two of its provinces. That seems to be in agreement with what is currently in the article, namely the lead states that it is informally called Holland and the section Holland states that Holland proper is actually just the two provinces. Explaining the entire matter between the subject and verb of the first sentence would make it unreadable (and including "incorrectly referred to as Holland" does not seem to summarize the matter properly as neither the government nor the dictionaries are calling it outright wrong to use Holland, they just communicate that the Netherlands is more desirable/better). If it is still misleading, "informally referred to as Holland" or "commonly known as Holland" is also fine by me (the latter is used in the article United States for America, a very similar example). - Tristan Surtel (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Holland is a regio in The Netherlands. Thanks to a long history it became the most important part. That's why it's sometimes used as synonym for the Netherlands. I'm Dutch and I know many Dutch people don't like the term Holland. 2A02:A453:C8B7:1:E477:6460:D403:1341 (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Article English

Why is this country (Article) claimed for British English? US English is much more suited in most Dutch and German speaking countries. We have all this tolerance towards Britishness in American Articles, but the opposite seems not true. Also, US English is widely used in the Netherlands (Europe) and it is dominant in the Netherlands (Americas). US cultural imports (e.g., movies are not "translated" into UK English. Hence for most Dutch it is the Color of Money). In Short, I propose to delete this superfluous designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankk20168 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry, I don't think your argument is persuasive. Also, MOS:RETAIN. Overtone11 (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 14:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. By the best of my knowledge UK English is more prevalent in the Netherlands. If you want to claim it's US English, please back this up with sources! gidonb (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 November 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved by consensus; closing early per WP:SNOW. There is a case for merging the articles, but it was not extensively discussed and would be out of RM remit. No such user (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

– It is very strange not to see under the title "Netherlands" the article about the sovereign state. In French wikipedia it is done like I propose: fr:Pays-Bas and fr:Pays-Bas (pays constitutif). The real confusion here stems from the ambiguity of "the Netherlands" having dual meanings, both a shorthand for the Kingdom as a whole, and as the name of the constituent country. And I believe that in most cases when the reader is looking for the Netherlands, he is referring to a sovereign state. Another example: France is the article about the entire sovereign state, and about the metropolitan part, the article is called Metropolitan France. Finland is also about the whole Finland together with the Aland Islands. PS. Sorry if I requested the moving incorrectly, I'm not familiar with wikiburocracy. Selkerk (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Selkerk: Oppose moving Kingdom of the Netherlands, Leaning oppose on moving Netherlands. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is quite an obscure entity, and doesn't deserve primary topic status. With regards to moving this article, I'd favour keeping it here mostly on the basis that it is more significant and more likely to be what people are trying to find, although I'm happy to go with consensus either way. (P.S. You've requested the move correctly.) YttriumShrew (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some language clean-up please

As of the timestamp of this comment this article contains the text

QUOTE:
, although in most Romance languages, the term "Low Countries" is used as the name for the Netherlands specifically. It is used synonymously with the more neutral and geopolitical term Benelux.
UNQUOTE
That sentence contradicts itself. Certainly "the Low Countries" IN ENGLISH is a synonym for "Benelux". But the language above says that in Romance languages "Low Countries" is a synonym for "The Netherlands", which means that in Romance Languages "the Low Countries" is NOT a synonym for "Benelux". A phrase can't be, at the same time, a synonym for both "The Netherlands" and for "The Netherlands plus Belgium plus Luxembourg". I suspect that this is the unintended consequence of an edit, for instance if the text at one time was something like
QUOTE:
Although in most Romance languages the term "Low Countries" is used as the name for the Netherlands specifically, in English it is used synonymously with the more neutral and geopolitical term Benelux.
UNQUOTE
which would be correct, and then someone made very minuscule changes that changed it into nonsense.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Hi Anon. It's the "Netherlands". The article is usually not considered part of the name. We have had this conversation many times. gidonb (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Should we remove Holland from the lede?

Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/10/05/its-netherlands-not-holland-dutch-government-decides/

The Netherlands has officially dropped Holland as an alternate name in 2019. In our article, Holland is still being mentioned as an "informal name". I think the Dutch government's attitude is clear, they DON'T want Holland as their country name anymore, whether formally or informally.

After years of effort, I think people don't refer the Netherlands to Holland anymore. None of my friends use Holland to describe the country. In fact, I haven't heard anyone using Holland as the country name for a long time. Should we still refer Holland as an "informal name" in the lede? In my opinion, we should remove this word completely (I'm okay with mentioning Holland as an informal name in the history section though). 120.16.55.132 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I will be glad to discuss this with you, if you will confirm you have reviewed the previous discussions on this matter in the talk page archives. Le Marteau (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Netherlands and Holland

The time has come to inform people that the country called Nederland is not known as Holland even unofficially. I know it must be incredibly difficult to call this country the name the locals give it , namely “ Nederland “ and they don’t include the “ The “ at all. Have a go, NEDERLAND and if you find it difficult , ask a Nederlander ! Halvegare (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Our articles are written in the English language - we attempt to reflect what English-language sources call things. So, we go with 'France', not 'la France', and the Netherlands not Nederland. Any argument about how an article refers to its subject needs to be grounded in usage in English-language sources. Best Girth Summit (blether) 22:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The part about Holland being the "informal name" for the Netherlands needs to be removed as it is offensive and untrue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A44C:735B:1:8052:50B2:A43B:E969 (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

See [7] and [8] as cited in the article. Also see the answer immediately above. General Ization Talk 04:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The Netherlands is not any more called Holland in English than Great Britain is called England. Encyclopedias should not give false information and Holland being an informative name for the Netherlands rather than a region in the west of the country is plain false information. See also Holland 87.208.160.117 (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The article says it is an 'informal' name, not 'informative'. This is also not "false information"... if you look at the sources, one of them is a web page, https://www.holland.com/global/tourism/information/general/netherlands-vs-holland.htm, which is published by the Netherlands Board of Tourism & Conventions, which says, "Holland is often used when all of the Netherlands is meant." SaltySaltyTears (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Interesting you should use the alternative common names for the UK/Great Britain/England as an example. Elizabeth II is the queen of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth realms", but she is commonly referred to as the "Queen of England" (and English monarchs have been described this way for centuries). The Netherlands/Holland controversy is, frankly, not much different. General Ization Talk 16:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree that calling the Netherlands "Holland", even informally, is wrong. See also https://www.britannica.com/story/is-holland-the-same-place-as-the-netherlands and https://business.gov.nl/coming-to-the-netherlands/living-in-the-netherlands/dutch-life-and-personal-matters/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.137.2.203 (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

While it may be "wrong", it is common, and that is what is being reported in the article (as the comment immediately above explains). We are not advocating for the usage, we are reporting it based on reliable sources. General Ization Talk 18:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

To all the Dutchies who are confused about the "Netherlands": The idea that something is wrong with the name Holland as a synonym for the "Netherlands" is very wrong itself. Also WP:OR as the evidence proves that this use is perfectly correct. Holland is a normal and commonly used synonym of the "Netherlands". In English and Dutch informal. In most languages, Holland (in its local pronunciation) is also the formal name of the "Netherlands", i.e. Holland is THE name the country uses for itself. "Holland' has an additional meaning. A bit of ambiguity is very common for words. If you want to be extremely unambiguous, please use in your own communication Holland's formal synonym, "Netherlands". However, do not dump your patent nonsense in Wikipedia. Talk pages are not a forum for baseless theories, contradicted, among others, by the Dutch most popular dictionary. gidonb (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Not anymore though. The Netherlands has officially dropped Holland as an alternate name in 2019.
Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/10/05/its-netherlands-not-holland-dutch-government-decides/
In our article, Holland is still being mentioned as an "informal name", but I think the Dutch government's attitude is clear. They DON'T want Holland as their country name anymore, whether formally or informally.
After years of effort, I think people don't refer the Netherlands to Holland anymore. None of my friends use Holland to describe the country. In fact, I haven't heard anyone using Holland as the country name for a long time. Should we still refer Holland as an "informal name" in the lede? I don't think so. I reckon we should remove this word completely (I'm okay with mentioning Holland as an informal name in the history section though). 120.16.55.132 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
In many languages the Dutch government uses Holland as THE official name for the Netherlands. It also explains that in English Holland is an informal name for the entire country of the Netherlands. We are descriptive. We note, based on reliable sources, that Holland is the commonly used informal name of the Netherlands. We must have Holland in the lead otherwise people will be confused about the Netherlands. Some people already are. gidonb (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean when you said the Dutch government uses Holland as THE official name? The link above just states that the Dutch government has officially dropped Holland as an alternate name in 2019. 120.16.89.35 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Besides being correct encyclopedias also need to be informative. Current version leaves false impression that "Holland" is an acceptable informal version like we say "America" instead of "United States of America" or "Vatican" instead of "Holy See".
If there is any good reason to leave Holland in the fact that it is not correct needs to be sufficiently communicated. For example, instead of misleading "informally" it could be "erroneously". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.163.37.46 (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Nowadays, very few people still use America to describe the country. Most people just use the United States or U.S. or USA to describe the country. Vatican City and the Holy See are two different things though. 2001:8003:9008:1301:4431:7685:2901:DA6 (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
That's patently absurd. Sentences in politically and historically oriented articles flow differently depending on which word one uses... anyone who enjoys good sentence flow will know which one works for certain situations, but to say "very few" use the word to describe the country is ridiculous. Le Marteau (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Netherlands/Archive_10&oldid=1100465570"