Talk:Netherlands/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

One big river delta

Recently I added a line about the North Western half of the Netherlands being one big delta of the rivers Rhine, Waal and Meuse. Someone then changed 'the North Western half' to 'the South Western part'. If you look at the Rhine per se (and possibly add the Schelde) that indeed seems to make more sense. But from the Rhine first the Nederrijn splits off and then the IJssel splits off from that and ending in the IJsselmeer.

This is typical delta-behaviour: rivers not merging but splitting, other sections merging and then splitting off again. This is caused by the flatness of the land, that causes rivers to slow down, which causes them to deposit the sediments they carry with them, thus blocking their own path and splitting up. And thus creating even more flat land. See the River delta section. And in the North East, at the german border, the Eems also flows into roughly that area. So the entire coastal area (ie the North and West) is like one big river delta, which is why I said 'the North Western half'.

And what's unique is that this North Western half of the Netherlands is actually a delta for more than one river, namely the Rhine and Meuse. The idea of this being one big delta is supported by the fact that on a map of soil types, half of the Netherlands is made of river sediments. The Schelde and Eems just add to it, or can they be said to be part of it?

Another question is if the 'Wadden' can be said to be part of this delta. And why isn't there anything on the Wadden? It's a rather unique geological phenomenon, I believe. There is an article on the Wadden (a stub, though it's not marked as such), but there's no link from the Netherlands article to there (of course, because they're not mentioned). Finally, I believe the Wadden are formed not only by the IJssel and the Eems, but also the Weser and Elbe. And all this plus the rest of the Rhine and the Meuse and Schelde (in other words a big congregation of rivers) (plus some british rivers) probably causes the shallowness of the North Sea (I don't know this, but it makes sense). Maybe this should all be presented as one big story, so in a separate article? But what should that then be called? Or should it go in the North Sea article? Oh, and there the flow of the ocean also comes into play, probably causing the 'polished' coastline of the Netherlands and the Wadden-islands. Oh dear, I'm out of my depth now!

Also, I put my original remark in the wrong place; it really should be at the beginning of the Geography section because it is the most essential thing to know to understand the geography of the greater part of the Netherlands. But maybe someone with a better understanding of this should write this bit. If no-one does in the next week or two, I will (if I remember).

DirkvdM, 09:57, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

The shallowness of the North Sea is indeed caused by the silt carried by rivers; but perhaps in a slightly different way from what you presumed. There's a sediment layer many miles thick, deposited over millions of years. When sea levels rise the edge of it is flooded. Just wait a while longer and it's dry land again. Enjoy the next ice age! :o)--MWAK 5 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

Dutch tolerance (NPOV query)

Im wondering about this entry;

The Dutch are known as a tolerant people. Their image abroad is mainly based on trade, tulips, windmills, wooden shoes, cheese and Delftware pottery. More recently the liberal Dutch policies on recreational drugs, prostitution, same-sex marriage and euthanasia have received international attention; Amsterdam is widely perceived abroad as a city where 'anything goes'. See also Drug policy of the Netherlands, Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands.

To me this is slightly absurd and doesn't present a NPOV. Is there any country in the world (particularly in europe) that would class itself as not being tolerant? There has also been a rise in the dutch right-wing and anti-immigration feeling. I don't think that an article that is meant to give an overview of the country should get involved in how 'tolerant' or 'untolerant' a nation is. The example of Amsterdam to describe the dutch as liberal hedonists is as silly as using London to say Britain is univerally cosmopolitain. Im not deleting it as it'll probably just lead to its immediate return, it was briefly addressed above but i think it needs closer attention. If there is no objection ill delete it in a week or so.

I think you missed the point. The paragraph reads: The Dutch are known as a tolerant people. Further it explains how this image evolved and that the Netherlands is perceived as liberal. This is correct and NPOV. Whether the Netherlands is indeed tolerant is POV. You may argue either way. gidonb 06:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I dispute that, the use of the word 'known' unless supported by objective reasoning is inherently supporting a POV. If the dutch came top of some international league table for tolerance then i would support an inclusion of that type of statement. But it is as nonsensical to support the present reasoning as it would be to support a statement along the lines;

'The germans are known as an intolerant people. Their image abroad is mainly based on their Nazi past, effeciency, order and discipline'

'The americans are known for their consumerist imperialism. Their image abroad is based mainly on the assorted crap their multinational companies try to sell me'

'The British are known as an uptight people, they are known for prefering tea to sex, drinking warm ale and disliking any outward signs of emotion'

As a non dutch person i can honestly say that my 'image' of the dutch is not some sort of liberal-anything-goes-chilled-out-space. Just as my image of the germans, americans and my fellow brits isn't based on stereotypes. I stand by my call for its deletion.

The way the whole paragraph is written at this moment, I feel that it is POV (not to mention badly written). First of all, the line (...) is famous for its dikes, windmills, wooden shoes, tulips, bicycles and social tolerance lumps both a socio-political characteristic (tolerance) and tourist attractions (dikes and windmills) into one category. Second, as per earlier comments, I have a problem with stereotypes being presented as facts. I therefore vote to delete this particular reference to tolerance in the intro. I would like to keep this reference in the politics-section however, where it is both relevant and placed in the wider context of the consociational state and the polder model. Comment: I would have no problem with deletion of the entire paragraph (dikes? windmills?? tulips??!! ... Come On!) and move references to drug policies and the ICC to some relevant section below.--Dengo 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've carried out the changes, references to tolerance have been deleted, the topics covering clogs, windmills and even dutch policies towards drug use etc have been moved to culture, a heading that is for more relevant for them than demographics. Drug policy and same sex marriage links specifically to the dutch are listed below (additional links etc) so i saw no point in linking to them in the article as well.

== Headline text ==the netherlands

It's "Holland" in cricket

In the sport of cricket, the Dutch team refers to itself as "Holland". Here is a picture of a Dutch player at the 2005 ICC Trophy competition, showing clearly the team name on his shirt. [1] I suppose this is similar to the fact that Welsh cricketers play for England. (Also mentioned on Talk:Holland.)

---

I wanted to add a link to the politics section to the present coalition (Second Balkenende cabinet), but then realised that that would have to be updated after each election, which, I assume, would require someone to notice this more or less by chance. Is there a solution to this? DirkvdM July 3, 2005 08:43 (UTC)

moved comment from article to talk page

80.56.161.66 placed the following in the article, but that obviously belongs here, so I've moved it and also also undid his other edit, erasing the 'gay and lesbian individuals' bit. And where's that claim that bisexuals were killed?

EDIT: The claim of large numbers of Dutch homosexuals being murdered by the Nazi's in WW2 is untrue. There cannot be any certainty how many exactly died, but by the time the SS decided it was time to move over from the Jews to other elements the Nazi's didn't tolerate in their society, the Allies already advanced too far into Europe to leave any room in the SS batallions to search out and kill homosexuals. Quoted from surviving homosexuals, they could appreciate the curfew in the early years of the Nazi occupation because that gave the men and women a good excuse to stay with each other without eyebrows being raised. When stories came along of people with that particular sexual orientation being systematically murdered, at first the people refused to believe it, and only a handful (take 'handful' with a grain of salt) of homosexuals were killed. The claim bisexuals were also killed is totally untrue.

DirkvdM July 4, 2005 18:53 (UTC)

vandal 209.188.169.34

209.188.169.34 did some extensive and half-clever vandalism on 2005-07-05. That's a week ago. Have we all been sleeping? My first revert wasn't too clever, and I may have reverted serious edits, so please check. Only then did it occur to me to figure out whodunnit. There may still be a problem with the demographics table, although that doesn't seem to be visible. The comparison shows the line where the edit occurred, but the edit frame doesn't, which makes this harder to trace the error. Of course I could just replace it entirely because it's unlikely that anyone made a serious change later, but it would still be nice to know how to see the line number in the edit frame. DirkvdM 10:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Religion

Being 'not religious' vs 'not being religious'

user:Emersoni just changed About 63% of the Dutch aren't religious to About 63% of the Dutch are not religious, removing the contraction. I'm Dutch and this sounds like a delicate English linguistic matter, but if I understand correctly this suggests that being not religious is some state one can be in (or how should I put this?). In other words, I suppose Emersoni means to say that it can only be read as "[they] are ... not religious", whereas the original should be read as "[they] are not ... religious". I'd say that being religious is the state of mind. Not being religious is not; it;s not a matter of being not religious but a matter of not being religious. I am not religious (and Dutch, so I'm one of the 63% talked about there) and I resent the insinuation that that is some sort of 'belief' in itself. Not that this is a big thing, but then it is .... Does anyone follow? DirkvdM 08:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No.

I do! Would you oppose replacing the figures about (non)religiousnes (where does that 63% come from anyway?) with figures from the Statistics Agency CBS? Something like 'According to the Dutch Statistics Agency CBS about 60% of the Dutch consider themselves part of a religious denomination'? Of course it would suddenly seem that we suddenly became are a lot more pious, but to balance that one could point to the fact that 'only 20% visits a church or mosque once a month or more' ... any feelings on this idea?? --Dengo 15:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've found those CBS statistics [2], but they also make the remark that being officially religious is not the same as actually going to church and stuff. At first I was afraid those statistics would come from official registration. I, for example, am not religious, but my parents are catholic and registered me as such, and since I never changed that I'm still officially catholic even though I've never been. But if you click the link at the bottom you'll see that the figures are based on a questionlist. However, the figures are for ages from 0 up. How do you ask a toddler its religion? I assume they simply registered kids as having the same religion as their parents and that's a load of bull, as you can conclude from my story. If you substract kids under, say, 18 (voting age - you have to draw the line somewhere) you'd have to substract about 10% from the religious figures. Not from the not religious kids, though, and that follows from my point above. You can't say they're religious, but you can't say they're non-religious either. You just can't say they're religious. So should these figures be given with this explanation and calculation added? That would be too much. After all, it can never be conclusive unless a complete census is held. I also wonder where those figures come from. I've gone way back to 15 November 2001 and the figure was already there then. But the history doesn't go back any further. The guy who edited this starts his page with the remark that he's religious, so he wouldn't have lied to put this in there. But it doesn't seem to be the first edit. How does one get further back to find the culprit to ask about the source for the edit? DirkvdM 18:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I was actually referring to these figures [3] which clearly deal with persons over 18. But the core of my suggestion was that it would be wise to remove the whole idea of giving a percentage of religiousness as a fact and replacing it with figures of the official statistics agency, clearly stating how these came about ... making it as objective as possible. I will be making the edit now. If you really think it's wrong, just revert and post your objections. I did track down the source of that 63% btw: [4]. This seems to be based on an old figure on church attendance which has actually risen in the past years. This 63% needed to be replaced by something anyway. --Dengo 08:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks a lot better now. One little point is that some time ago I placed the 'not religious' bit at the front because that's the largest group. But another reasoning is that the section is about religion, so the religions should come first. Well, never mind. But is there a standard way to present such figures in country-articles? And is there a standard (type of) source? Standardisation is more important than accuracy even, I'd say. because you need to be able to compare the figures. But I doubt if there is such a source. DirkvdM 09:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I did some research on 'demographics' and 'religion' subsections of other countries, but I can't even remotely see any start of standardisation. As you feared, there is no standard international source; even The Economist en CIA World Factbook simply copy what the countries most reliable national sources say. Then again, religious feeling is a lot harder to compare internationally than, say, import/export figures. For instance, a Dutch catholic tends to feel much more 'catholic' (as a result of being a minority) than an average Italian, while he or she may have much more liberal views on life-issues ... the comparability issue will not be resolved unless some huge international study is ever done ... in which case the study itself will be the subject of enormous controversy ... etc etc etc. *sigh*--Dengo 10:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, and even such a study would suffer from the problem you mention that people differ in what they call belonging to a religion. In heavily church-going surroundings people might judge others elsewhere who call themselves religious as not religious, so the results are not comparable. Also, in such a society (as in Europe several centuries ago) people who are not religious will call themselves religious under peer pressure (or even to avoid prosecution). A partial solution would be to register church-attendance and make statistics that don't say what percentage of people belong to a religion but how many 'man-hours' are spent in church per week per religion. If that research is done in the same way in all contries, then at least you can see how pious certain countries are and how the religions compare. But then some religions will put more stress on church-going than others and some might not even have a church. Ok, so that doesn't work either. And we'll have to work with whatever figures are available. Maybe such deliberations should be included in all countries' religion-sections. But then something similar goes for politics. A party that is called right-wing in the Netherlands might be called left-wing in the USA. I wonder how would the SP be classified in the USA. Probably more Communist than Socialist. Given the rise of the SP maybe this shouldn't be made known, because they might send in the marines :) . *Sigh* indeed. DirkvdM 17:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Mennonites

I removed the paragraph on the dutch/frisian origin of the Mennonites. Although everyting in that paragraph is probably correct, I think this information is way too detailed for a general article on a whole country. I'm guessing this is all very central and important from a Mennonite POV, but not from a general Dutch POV. There is already a very extensive article on Mennonite , which includes its history

perceived social tolerance (and perceived increase in terrorism)

From the intro: [The Netherlands] is famous for its dikes, windmills, wooden shoes, tulips, bicycles and perceived social tolerance. Yes, that's true. But what a country is famous for is always a matter of perception, so to say "perceived social tolerance" is a bit strange. Also, the windmills and especially the wooden shoes are also largely 'perceived'. You'd have to penetrate deep into the countryside to see anyone on wooden shoes. The tolerance has taken a serious dip in recent years, but to express that would require a different wording. And it's just something of the last few years, so not really a reason to change it in an encyclopedia (well, not yet, anyway). DirkvdM 10:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion the mentioned tolerance isn't just towards immigrants (which indeed has taken a dip since the increased terrorism and recent murders of public figures), but also tolerance towards homosexuals, (soft-)drugs, abortion and various other topics which seem controversial in countries around the globe. Felsir 07:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I reread the article, and the text makes this clear. Felsir 07:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

'Increased terrorism'? This is a completely different topic, but has terrorism indeed increased? There's a lot of focus on it recently and the 'Big Bang' in the US in 2001 will certainly have caused a temporary skyrocketing of the total worldwide deathtoll, but if you leave that out, has terrorism really increased or are we all being fooled by governments and media? I've been trying to find overall figures on this but have failed so far. The List of terrorist incidents will probably be focused on the more recent past, so that doesn't really help. The reason I'm interested in this and that this is still relevant here is that the only recent 'terrorist act' in the Netherlands was not a bombing or such but a plain murder (of Theo van Gogh). The biggest (and almost only) terrorist acts in the Netherlands were in the 1970's, so 'statistically speaking' terrorism has actually gone down over the last decades. Although, really, you can't base statistics on such small numbers, in other words, terrorism is really a fringe phenomenon. An unheard of stance these days, but true, right? DirkvdM 09:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

While it might be true that on a rational base, terrorism isn't increased. Keep in mind that terrorism by definition is an act to strike terror in the hearts of people, therefore it is not really nessecary to have a bomb to explode in the Netherlands to feed the general 'feeling' of increased terrorism. The recent bombs in Spain and Great Brittain, murder of Theo van Gogh based on a the views of few religious fanatics made a lot of people frightened and less tolerant to (for example) muslims in general. Wether is is justified or not (I personally think not), it caused the feeling that terrorism is increased which might, arguably, not the case if you just look at raw numbers (total death toll or last act of terrism in the Netherlands in -train hijacks ca. 1976). Felsir 12:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is moving away from the title (so I've changed it), but I'll borrow a word from it here; it's really about a perceived increase in terrorism. The terror lies in the heads of people, as you indicate. So if you take the term this way, terrorism has indeed increased, but in this sense the terrorists are politicians and media, who plant the fear in people's heads. But of course that is not what is meant by terrorism. What is meant are actual terrorist acts and you claiming (or rather 'assuming') that terrorism has increased only helps in creating the fear. Let's stop scaring the shit out of each other, ignore the terrorists and they'll stop because the terrorising does not work. Here, the adagio that 'All we have to fear is fear itself' holds very true. DirkvdM 14:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed the increased terrorism is a percieved increase. I agree that the fear itself should be feared. Once we start to fear, that is when the terrorists win. I'm sorry if my first mention of increased terrorism wasn't clear, I think our little discussion here cleared things up.

The point I was trying to make is that the dip in tolerance is currently only in the immigration policy partially because the fear for terrorism. The laidback attitude to same-sex marriages, softdrugs etc. is still intact. Felsir 17:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your point was taken, it was just the wording that I reacted to. Notice that you agree with me, but still spoke of an increase in terrorism as if it were real. That's how much we are indoctrinated. Imagine the mindset of people who don't think and just soak up whatever they're told. DirkvdM 06:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

languages

I have a little trouble with the whole subsection 'languages' in 'demographics' Although the information is very interesting, I feel that this part is a tad bit too extensive for a general article, given the fact that language (to my knowledge) is not really an issue in the Netherlands, at least not to the extent it is in Belgium or Spain. Let's face it: the Netherlands have one language (dutch) that is well spoken and understood by close to 100% of the population. An unsuspecting international reader might get the wrong impression that people in Netherlands speak some 5 different languages. I don't propose skipping the whole section, but I feel that it would be sufficient to point out the official languages Dutch and Frisian and briefly mentioning the other languages and dialects (of course with wiki-links for anyone interested in their history and relation to other languages etc). Any comments? --Dengo 12:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed confusing. I'll add that Dutch is the official language. It is also rather long. Indeed the links should be there but not so much explanation. I'll leave the fixing of that to you :) . DirkvdM 19:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Fortuyn's murder

82.73.16.178 wrote in the article that a possible reason for Fortuyn's murder was that Volkert van der Graaf was a defender of animal rights. Now that's rather far fetched. Apart from that hardly being a reason, certainly for an educated person like van der Graaf, gave as the reason that 'he saw Fortuyn as a steadily increasing danger for vulnerable groups in society, namely Muslims' (from the van der Graaf article). You also cahnged 'this' to suggest that the two murders were linked, but it was a reference to xenofobia. Maybe that should be put more clearly. DirkvdM 18:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

he came up with the 'I was protecting vulnerable groups in society' defense AFTER he did what he did and then only at the instigation of his lawyer, Britta Böhler, a notorious lawyer who defends radical left wing criminals.--Marcel1975 20:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

In the last few days one or several anonymous contributors have been adding extensive and slightly biassed information on the Fortuyn murder and immigration policies. Since this is controversial material, I propose no changes are made without prior discussion. I personally prefer the short and factual way the matter is handled now, but anything is open to discussion. --Dengo 06:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, well, I made a change before I read this :) . I made it shorter still. What I removed was rather obvious or unintelligible due to poor English. DirkvdM 08:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

no problem, this only makes it better. If you look at some of the changes that have been reverted in the last days, you will see what I am concerned about ...--Dengo 09:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Embassies of the Netherlands using the name Holland

I have a problem with the following sentence in the section "Naming Conventions":

In some countries, however, embassies of The Netherlands use Holland as the name of the country they represent.

I think it is highly unlikely that embassies of the Netherlands use the term Holland when they formally represent their country and government. On the other hand, the statement is so vague (some countries ..) that it is hard to come up with concrete arguments why this is incorrect. I do realize that the embassies use "Holland" when marketing tourism to the Netherlands in their guest countries, but that is for marketing purposes only, not as formal representation.

Comments? /Dutch-Bostonian

Yes, very unlikely. And indeed the burden of proof lies with whoever put that there, so I'd say if there is no affirmative reaction after a week of so, remove it. DirkvdM 08:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

One example is the Embassy of the Netherlands in Israel. It always uses "Holland" in Hebrew. This is also the case in all Arabic speaking countries, read for example the Arabic text on: http://www.holland.com.ye/ (if you do not read Arabic the domain name may be good indicator) Using "Holland" in native langauges is a common practice for Dutch Embassies throughout Asia and Africa. gidonb 09:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, but I think this apparent practice seems to be language-related, and not embassy-related (on the web site of the embassy in Yemen, in the English text, the ambassador does not talk about the "Holland Embassy", but about the "Netherlands Embassy". I do not read Arabic.

I checked the web site of the Netherlands Embassy in Tokyo: I know enough Japanese to determine that the embassy uses the Japanese word for "Holland" when they translate the name of the embassy into Japanese.

Based on these observations, I propose to make the paragraph more specific and factual:

"Embassies of the Netherlands are however known to use the equivalent of the name "Holland" in the language of their host countries, e.g. the Netherlands Embassy in Tokyo calls itself オランダ王国大使館 (Oranda Okoku Taishikan, with Oranda being the Japanese name for Holland)."

You can add the other examples you mention; I am just not qualified to quote texts in Hebrew or Arabic.

/Dutch-Bostonian 03:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course, that makes sense for countries that do not have an equivalent of 'Netherlands'. No choice there. (This, however, leads to the question what the provinces North and South Holland are called in such languages?) Anyone know any cases of languages in which there is such an equivalent but 'Holland' is used nevertheless? If not, that could be given as an explanation. DirkvdM 07:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The Japanese version of Wikipedia uses 北ホラント (kita horanto) and 南ホラント (minami horanto) for the names of the provinces of North and South Holland, i.e. the Japanese words for north and south followed by a phonetic conversion of the Dutch word Holland. Apparently they make a distinction (possibly unintentionally) between the name of the provinces (ホラント, horanto) and the name of the country (オランダ, oranda).

Dutch-Bostonian 16:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Almost two weeks have passed since the last comment on this matter. I will now proceed to (provisonally) change the sentence under discussion. I did, however, put the question to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague, which promises to answer me within 48 hours. --Dengo 07:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

So what happened? Quote: "'Likewise, even embassies of the Netherlands are known to use the equivalent of the name "Holland" in the language of their host countries, e.g. the Netherlands Embassy in Tokyo calls itself オランダ王国大使館 (Oranda Okoku Taishikan - with Oranda being the Japanese name for Holland).'"

1. I find this a very strange section, and I can not any solid evidence being put forward (a domain name is not significant). As pointed out, Japanese 'Oranda' (used for the country) is not the same as 'Horanto' (used for the region within the country. Thus, there can be no confusion and 'Oranda' is simply Japanese for "Netherlands" and not "Holland", no matter what the etymological origin of the lexeme may be. What in English is called "Japan" is semantically the same as what the japanese themselves call 'Nippon'. In the same way, "Oranda" is the same as "Netherlands" as evidenced by the different word for "Holland" (Horanto). Could this sentence please simply be removed, because it only introduces a lot of clutter and isn't really informative... Fedor 21:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

oblig(at)ed

In the phrase ...rules coming from the EU such as the obligated privatising of the energy market... Rich Farmbrough changed 'obligated' to 'obliged'. But if I'm not mistaken (which I very well may be because I am Dutch :) ) 'obliged' is more moral and 'obligated' is about following some rule or law. And this is about following rules laid down by the EU, so it should be 'obligated', right? DirkvdM 18:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I would say obligated is a bit more correct. You could change it to forced or compeled, both of which carry a bit more weight. --Hagie 08:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion regarding usage of "Netherlands"

(relevant discussion from VP archived here Hiding talk 07:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC))

It is a well known wikipedia principle that the most commonly used name for a certain topic should be preferred for the placement of an article. In one case, "Holland" is in English the most commonly used term to denote the nation of the Netherlands. In fact, most native english speakers are not even aware of "the Netherlands" being the more formal name for the nation. I was wondering if people could explain to me what the rationale is for deviating from the "most common name" principle as laid down in the wikipedia style guidelines. Fedor 18:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Presumably because "most commonly used" does not take precedence over "is factually wrong", at a guess. Shimgray 18:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not true. The rule is "most commonly used," plain and simple. I believe that's because it is easier to reach consensus on what is "most commonly used" than on what is "correct." See Naples, Moscow, etc. Of course when things change we get to argue about just when the new usage predominates—and what community of English-speakers is used as a reference; currently we use Mumbai rather than Bombay, but Calcutta rather than Kolkata.

The rule is not "most commonly used," plain and simple, as you'd see if you read the Naming Conventions. In this case, there are two reasons why Netherlands is not at Holland: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things and In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative. Proteus (Talk) 10:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

"correct" is a misnomer for places like Naples and Moscow, because there are long established English names for these. The same applies conversely; fr.wiki has articles on Londres and Édimbourg rather than London and Edinburgh, because in French these are the correct names. (I note that we have redirects at Napoli, Londres and Moskva... and I've just added one at Москва for the sake of completeness) Shimgray 12:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where you are from, but in my US-centric experience, Netherlands is more commonly used these days than Holland. Dragons flight 19:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Holland is a region, the Netherlands are a country, and the disambiguation notice at the top of the Holland page does a good job of educating those who did not know the difference. Jonathunder 19:03, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

I agree, Netherlands is more common in my experience (USA). — Dan | Talk 19:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I am a U.S. speaker. When I mail letters to Amsterdam I need to address them to "The Netherlands," when I worked for a year in Curaçao in the 1970s, I was aware of it as "the Netherlands Antilles," and I am familiar with websites using the .nl domain. Personally, when I think of the modern country I think and say "the Netherlands." (On the other hand, when I think of wooden shoes, windmills, tulips, and Hans Brinker putting his thumb in the dike, I think and say "Holland.") Dpbsmith (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

What they said. Also, I would be most surprised if the claim you make regarding "most native English speakers" could be proved true. –Hajor 19:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've ever heard someone in person call NL "Holland". ~~ N (t/c) 19:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Whereas all the Dutch I've met say they come from Holland... Dunc|☺

I know and I actually agree. I am a Dutchman spending a lot of time at the Danish wikipedia. Earlier, the article on the country in question was placed under the Danish equivalent of "the Netherlands". Yet, some angry users have moved it back to "Holland" with reference to this rule in the guidelines. Now it is true that Danish media massively (and to my opinion incorrectly) use "Holland" instead of "Nederlandene", and so do a lot of encyclopedias, yet there are also encyclopedias that do it "right" and a lot of the gouvernmental institution also. I was just wondering how I could justify to them not using the pars pro toto of Holland... Fedor 20:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The MOS is a guideline. If we started using the most used version of place names then we would probably have to move the United States article to America. Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

We have to realize that the terms most commonly used in the popular media are often misleading, biased, inaccurate, or otherwise unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Frequency of usage should only be a tie breaker when there are several alternatives that are equally suitable for purposes of Wikipedia. And who's to say that we always have to assess common usage in terms of usage in the popular media? --MarkSweep✍ 11:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

No, no, no. The naming convention is clear. It is "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize."

If a misleading, biassed, or inaccurate term happens to be what "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize," that is what we use. It's a longstanding convention and if you don't agree with it, you should discuss your proposed changes in WIkipedia_talk:Naming conventions. Now, the criterion is not "the terms most commonly used in the popular media," but the popular media obviously provide evidence as to what is the term that "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." (Actually, if anything, the popular media are faster to adopt new "official" usages than the lay public). There are certainly issues about how to apply the policy in particular cases. For example, in the case under discussion, how do we factor in the many Danes who speak excellent English? What about the citizens of the-country-whose-biggest-city-is-Amsterdam (I was almost going to reference it by its capital, until I noticed a huge pitfall looming ahead...)? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, it's just not the seat of government, if that is what you were thinking of. DirkvdM 12:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The naming conventions do not exist in isolation. There is also WP:NPOV, WIkipedia:naming conventions (common names)#Don't overdo it, and Wikipedia:naming conflict. We should not be using a biased or highly inaccurate name as an article title. By all means, create as many redirects as necessary using inaccurate, biased, etc. variants, so that the article is easy to find. But why would we want to sacrifice accuracy (which applies here) and/or NPOV (which doesn't apply here)? --MarkSweep✍ 09:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Your points are good and nothing is simple and everything must be balanced. I overstated things. However, the gist of the policy is that we use the most common name. It can be argued that almost every case of a variant place name is the expression of a point of view. At present, an article has one "real" name and the user experience of a redirect is that it is a second-class citizen; type in "Napoli" and the big boldface name "Naples" hits you in the eye (like a bigga' piz-za pie)... So I don't see how it is possible to be perfectly neutral in the case of a disputed title. One must be chosen and the redirects look different. "The most common" usage is somewhat easier to determine than "the most accurate."

The most accurate name is the official name. How can it be simpler? DirkvdM 12:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Gross bias in a title is one thing. However, in the case of a sloppy, imprecise, familiar, common "lay" usage that is widely prevalent, but seen as incorrect by experts, academics, or pedants... who wish to promote the use of the more correct term... we go with the familiar term. There's no question in my mind that "The Netherlands" is more correct. Fortunately in this case I think it is also more common. If "Holland" were the predominant term for the entire country then the article should be moved to "Holland." We have the (correct) 's-Gravenhage under the (traditional, popular, inaccurate) The Hague, and properly so.

(side issue) "The Hague" is traditional and popular but not inaccurate. "Den Haag" is so widely used in the Dutch language that it can be regarded as a synonym; "The Hague" is the English translation of "Den Haag"; "'s Gravenhage", the more formal Dutch name, may be literally translated into English as meaning "the Count's Hague" (or maybe "the Count's Hedge") but it has no entrenched translation — other than "The Hague". -- Tonymec 19:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Quite seriously, I wonder whether we should request a mechanism from developers that would completely hide the existence of a redirect from casual inspection and allow the same article to be presented under multiple names with no obvious assymmetry? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but the details will be quite tricky. We obviously have many redirects that cannot be considered alternative names, because they contain misspellings etc. As the whole redirect mechanism could be improved (e.g. to make redirects to subsections work), as well as the display of titles (e.g. the mandatory capitalization of the first letter), this could be one of the aspects of a larger effort to improve the display of title information. --MarkSweep✍ 13:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

That would certainly solve a lot of misery, in any case for this case at the Danish wikipedia. But there is still the problem of the usage of the term within the article. Perhaps, the terms used in the article could be marked and then automatically replaced with whatever name is used to access the article? Fedor 13:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but the use of "Holland" in Danish society is so massively dominant, being used by all media, and even most encyclopedias (but not all), that most da.wikipedians object to having this article placed anywhere else but under "Holland". What is your opinion on that? (and please indicate if you are a moderator) Fedor 09:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I can say that Holland is not by any means "massively dominant" in U.S. usage. (Actually, the usage that really is "massively dominant" is not to name the country at all, but but use the adjective "Dutch" or the phrase "the Dutch." But I don't think there's any way to use it as an article title). As for "The Netherlands" vs. "Holland" I'm now going to make an informal test to which I don't yet know the answer. When I think of travel guides, the ones that first come to my mind are Frommer, Fodor, Michelin, Lonely Planet, and Rough Guides. Now I'm going to look them up (trying both "Holland" and "Netherlands" in my search: "Frommer's Belgium, Holland & Luxembourg;" "Fodor's "Fodor's Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg;" "Michelin the Green Guide Netherlands;" "Lonely Planet: The Netherlands;" "Rough Guide to the Netherlands;" (Michelin and Frommer also have separate "Holland" titles which I think just cover, well, Holland proper).

(I'm a admin/sysop, I'm assuming that's what you mean by "moderator.") Dpbsmith (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

No worries mate! The nl.wikipedia should just move Denmark to Copenhagen County in reply. No problem! Cheers! Kim Bruning 11:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is a non-issue in English. Google gives five time as many English language hits for Netherlands as for Holland. - SimonP 15:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

To my surprise googling in Danish yields the following results:

Holland: 912.000

Nederland: 813.000

Nederlandene: 89.900

However, the reason that there is more of an equilibrium here, is that Google combines the Danish and Norwegian languages in searches, and Norwegians do consistently use "Nederland" instead of "Holland", as opposed to Danes.

A search on these terms as used in news paper articles in Denmark, shows that the terms "Nederland" or "Nederlandene" are used barely compared to "Holland", which is used hundreds or thousands times more often. Would this then, combined with the guideline of most commonly used name not justify the placement under "Holland"? Fedor 09:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What's the fascination with Denmark and the Danish? It's been mentioned several times. Aren't we talking about English? Holland/Netherlands is a totally separate country from Denmark, and speaks a different language. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I am a Dutch user who knows Danish and edits at the Danish wikipedia a lot. I would personally prefer that at da.wikipedia the article is placed under da:Nederland and not da:Holland, because the latter is less precise, and in my humble opinion incorrect. However, I got the "most commonly used name" principle thrown at me, so I was wondering how this was reconciled at the english wikipedia. Fedor 06:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

o During casual conversation, the term 'Netherlands' can [and has been, within elicited responses during telephone call-demand strategies] be used to refer to any region which is polar or near-polar. Thus, the 'netherlands' in North America are found near the Arctic Circle. >beadtot@aol.com

Huh? I have never ever ever heard "The Netherlands" used in this way. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Me neither. Besides, "nether" doesn't mean "northerly," it means "low," so "Nether lands" = "Low countries," an older term for the same place.—Wahoofive (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Bogus in the style of User:Kenneth Alan Fedor 06:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Rationale for deviating from "most commonly used name"

It is a well known wikipedia principle that the most commonly used name for a certain topic should be preferred for the placement of an article. In this case, "Holland" is in English the most commonly used term to denote the nation in question. In fact, most native english speakers are not even aware of "the Netherlands" being the more formal name for the nation. I was wondering if people could explain to ne what the rationale is for deviating from the "most common name" principle as laid down in the wikipedia style guidelines. Fedor 18:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because Holland only refers to two provinces of the Netherlands? Isn't it explained in the article? Noisy | Talk 19:09, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why ... yes it is. In the second paragraph. Noisy | Talk 19:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Yet this pars pro toto is the most commonly used name. How does that harmonize with the guidelines? Fedor 20:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't the article on the United States under 'America'?? Worldwide it is the most commonly used name for the country, isn;t it? But seriously, of course using the most commonly used name is a good Wiki principle, but an encyclopedia (put together by whatever method) should also be a place where one can look up 'how it really is', as opposed to perpetuating common misconceptions. In other words, If I were an American wanting to know more about a country I only know as 'Holland', I search 'Holland' and soon find out it is actually only a small of the country I was looking for. BOOM: learned something already... --Dengo 08:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree. However, the use of "Holland" in Danmark is so dominant, even being used by all media and most encyclopedias, that most da.wikipedians want nothing of this article being placed anywhere else but under "Holland". What is your opinion on that? Fedor 09:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Compare this rationale with "Pays-Bas" (the french name for the Netherlands). Perhaps the article could mention that a lot of people use "Holland" as a name for the country, the article should, in my opinion, keep the name. I agree with Dengo on this point ("America" is a good example). Felsir 12:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Checked the Holland entry:

"Holland" is often used in English and other Germanic languages to mean the whole of the Netherlands, but this is wrong from a Dutch perspective.

Anyone looking for the Netherlands by entering "Holland" will eventually find the correct article. Felsir 12:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The most commonly used name priciple DOES NOT trump the correct name principle. As an encyclopedia, we are first concerned with facts, then about reader convenience. And if a country names itself, it is the encyclopedia's job to convey that fact to the reader, not confuse them with slang or local word usage, or anything of that nature. In short, accurate facts always trump convenience. – Fudoreaper 23:20:20, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

I myself also hold that contention. However, most encyclopedias use "Holland" and so do all news media (news papers, TV and radio news). The argument is, that "Holland" is in Danish the name for, what in Dutch is called "Nederland". On the other hand, Danish equivalents of "Nederland" do exist but are mainly used by some governmental institutions, in diplomatic language and a few, but mainly older encyclopedias. Does the massive use of "Holland" not warrent its placement there as far as the Danish wikipedia is concerned. How do any moderators feel? Fedor 08:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"All" news media? I doubt that. And i cannot understand your argument that the country is called "holland" in Danish. You are aware that this is the english wikipedia, right?

The biggest issue here, Fedor, is that you think that the country is called Holland, but you're wrong. Instead of basing this just on whatever i feel, or whatver i've heard (as you seem to be) i will back this with evidence from a few sources that i think you will have trouble arguing with.

• UN list of member states - Look for "Netherlands"
• BBC News - "The Netherlands"
• CIA World Factbook - "Netherlands"

– Fudoreaper 07:24:10, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

OK, I get that, for english at least, the term "Netherlands" is used by most, if not all news-media, for the nation (that most anglophones in everyday speech normally refer to as "Holland"). That alone warrants its placement here under "Netherlands". The situation is different for Denmark, though, where the news-media exclusively use "Holland" instead of the Danish equivalent of "Netherlands" (i.e.: Nederlandene). A test of the use of the different terms in Danish news paper articles yields something like 10.000 for "Holland" and 100 for "Nederlandene". Similar figures with Google. So, as far as the Danish language area is concerned, it could be argued, that "Holland" is what we call "Netherlands" in Danish. Henceforth, the most commonly used term guideline would prescribe a placement under "Holland" at the Danish wikipedia. Or would you disagree? Fedor 14:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

In the danish wikipedia, they should do what makes the most sense to a danish speaking person. If it is, as you say, called "Holland" almost overwhelmingly in danish, then that should be the name of the article. But doesn't this already happen? See da:Holland. There is some type of warning at the top of that page that i cannot read.

Fedor, are you asking why the english wikipedia deviated from "most commonly used name", and wondering if the same reasoning applies to the danish wikipedia? If so, that would make your comments MUCH more understandable. You're not suggesting that the english wikipedia change the name to "Holland", right? – Fudoreaper 17:42:26, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

That is right. The article used to be placed under da:Nederland. Recently it was moved to da:Holland resulting in an edit-war after which the page was locked (hence the warning). The reason for moving was by reference to the guideline of the "most commonly used name". However, I felt that in other languages, including english, "Holland" also is the most commonly used name, so I was curious to hear the rationale, as far as en.wikipedia is concerned, for placing the article under a less commonly used name after all. I cannot overview all anglophone media, but I am pretty sure that most anglophones know what "Holland" is, but would frown at the name of "the Netherlands". I even heard the name "Holland" be used at CNN once, to my surprise... Fedor 20:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well i finally understand you, Fedor. I thought you were some kind of hard head before. So to answer your question: The Netherlands is real name for the country, and using "holland" is a mistake. The name "holland" may be in somewhat widespread usage, but it's usually used in error. (I hope i showed this with the links i provided). Additionally, who are anglophones to frown on the name of a country? It seems in modern times that we are letting the country chose their own english name, instead of assigning one for them. That was done back in the bad old colonialism days. Anglophones are somewhat sensitive to that history of misnaming countries by ignoring the people, the culture, and just deciding, as outsiders, what to call them.

To summarize, i do not belive that the common anglophone name for the country is "Holland", and i cannot find any evidence that deviates from that belief. It is the same way with "America" and "United States". One is the real name, one is slang. While both are used, "United States" is clearly the correct name, and the one that should be used in an encyclopedia. For example it says "Netherlands" and "United States" on the english map on my wall. And BTW, CNN is no longer reputable news, they are attempting to mimic Fox news, because Fox is beating them. And Fox is the worst news station that exists, as far as i can tell. The point is that this article will never be "Holland" on en.wikipedia, because that's an incorrect name.

Unfortunately, i cannot advise you on the da.wikipedia problems, as i know nothing of danish. But in english, i believe the issue is clear, settled, and there is no dispute. The country is "Netherlands". – Fudoreaper 10:38:42, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

Isn't the name "the Netherlands"? --MarSch 14:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The jury is still out, but probably not. Neither the UN, nor the EU, nor the CIA says "The Netherlands" they just say "Netherlands". Plus, "The Netherlands" redirects here. I'm personally not inclined to change the current setup. – Fudoreaper 03:03:20, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

didn't we have that discussion before? Why yes we did! Please turn to chapter 14 of this talk page. I think pretty much everything has already been said on this particular matter.--Dengo 07:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

haha very funny NOT!!!

Who f#cked up this page! does not show much respect for this country nor the fact that there are people that want to find correct information

See my comment in next thread. DirkvdM 08:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Urban warriors??

Hey, I saw today a few times "Kingdom of Urban Warriors" on this page and I cannot indetify that with The Netherlands.. There were a lot of things who seemed to be quite odd to me. I really need some information about The Netherlands but I start to doubt this encyclopedia for its credibility!!

Well, you just happened to be faster than the serious editors, who this time took 46 minutes to revert that vandalism. One suggestion if this irritates you. Become a serious editor yourself and don't wait for someone else to revert vandalism. Remember that this encyclopedia is still a work in progress for most articles. Every now and then an article is considered 'finished' and receives a featured article status. Eventually this should happen to all articles, which might then be 'locked in principle' so they can no longer be vandalised. Give Wikipedia a break. It's been around for four years now. How long does it normally take to compile an encyclopedia? However, in the meantime most articles are largely correct (more correct and complete than most other webpages on a subject) because any vandalism is quickly reverted, as you could see here. DirkvdM 08:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Also if you doubt the correctness of an article, click the "History" tab

and check older versions. It is fairly easy to spot vandalism and filter it out to get real information. Felsir 17:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys, but I have to admit that I'm not very familiar with all those options you both are talking about. But at least I can understand by now why there was such big nonsense written on this page.

New Amsterdam

The article states: "The Netherlands possessed several colonies, most notably the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) and Suriname (the latter was traded with the British for New Amsterdam, now known as New York)".

I'm starting to believe that the story about Suriname being traded is only a myth. Because i can't find any sources to support that story. Trustworthy sources tell a different story. This is a quote from the site of the "U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs" [5]:

"The Dutch settlements had, as a general matter, been ruled by autocratic governors appointed in Europe. Over the years, the local population had become estranged from them. As a result, when the British colonists began encroaching on Dutch lands in Long Island and Manhattan, the unpopular governor was unable to rally the population to their defense. New Netherland fell in 1664. The terms of the capitulation, however, were mild: the Dutch settlers were able to retain their property and worship as they pleased."

I know about the claim that it was traded under the treaty of Breda as it is stated in wikipedia: "...the Treaty of Breda in which the Dutch gave up their claim to New Netherland in exchange for Suriname". [6]

But also stated in wikipedia is: "During the negotiations, the English commissioners offered to return the New Netherlands in exchange for their sugar factories on the coast of Surinam. The Dutch side declined". [7]

And so it seems to be the case to me; that nothing was traded at all. New Netherland stayed British, and Suriname stayed Dutch. There wasn't any trade involved.

Also, the article mentions "New Amsterdam" only. While that was merely part of the Dutch settlement called "New Netherland". Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware became part of New Netherland at some time too [8].

Could some serious editor please look into this.

Perhaps the point is that in the same conflict during which the English took New Netherlands, the Dutch took Surinam. What was traded were the mutual claims for retribution. Each party kept its gains and the territories in the end changed side. The latter happened only in 1674 though, after the next war. --MWAK 13:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I always thought they were "just" traded, Till I did some investigation. There seems to be some misunderstanding with the general public about this if you ask me. And I really think this is one of the things were an encyclopedia comes in to help the truth from fading away. Can't the part were it says that they were traded be expanded by -lets say- 2 lines so the real way things went on becomes clear?(83.118.38.37 11:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC))

Left wing vs Right Wing and 'political' murders

I am quite uncomfortable with the generous sprinkling of terms like 'left wing', 'right wing' or 'most right wing' (on what scale? how does it compare to other countries?) without applying proper definitions. As it stands they are meaningless labels that are bound to be interpreted in various ways in different countries. I would suggest a more meaningful distinction using terms such as 'economically liberal', 'social conservative', 'social progressive', 'social democrat' and suchlike. Right now the description of current political status is totally meaningless.

As to calling the murder of Louis Seveke a political murder.... as of NOW this is totally unfounded and incorrect. The family, police and majority of the press have not made public their speculations on this matter. Only a small minority of the press published such far-reaching speculations. As the facts stand now....it was just another murder/robbery and not a political murder. If and when the facts change, it will be appropriate to call the issue a political murder.Chelman 15:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. And I do think these elaborations are a bit extensive and (with respect to the Sévèke / Schiphol fire part) too topical for this general article on the country. Sixtus 21:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the bit about Sévèke and I must say that when I wrote it I was also in doubt if that wasn't a bit too quick. We don't want another Verdonk-window thing. And if it's not a political murder it shouldn't be here. And although the murder of van Gogh received loads of attention it isn't quite as important as the murder of a politician. And it isn't really a political thing either, which makes it unfit for the politics section. So I'll remove those myself. About the Schiphol fire. 11 people were burned alive. Something of that scale certainly deserves a mention. As does the Bijlmer disaster, by the way. But I'm not sure where that should go. The history section is an obvious choice, but for that it does indeed seem a bit too topical.

As for the left/right wing thing. These terms are used only four times in the whole article (two each - nice balance :) ). And all in the section I put back (was removed a short while ago - why?). When it comes to parties, terms like the ones you mention would make more sense. But this is about a coalition, and that makes such a classification very difficult to put it mildly. Here we have three parties; one centre-left liberal, one rightwing conservative christian and one rightwing liberal. There isn't a single term that applies to all. But considering the sizes of the respective parties, right-wing is the biggest common denominator (or what do you call that?). Also, the cabinet is perceived mostly as right-wing. Maybe mentioning the polls sounds a bit premature, but it reflects the current political environment quite well. Whether an encyclopedia should get into such current affairs - a paper encyclopedia shouldn't, but Wikipedia gets constantly updated, so the major current affairs, or at least the political climate, do deserve a mention I'd say. DirkvdM 07:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree about the Bijlmer disaster and the Schiphol fire. In order to be consequent you should then also include the Enschede disaster, the fire in Volendam, the collapsed scaffolding in a factory in Breda etc. etc. etc. etc. I think that you would agree that that is simply impossible. Furthermore I do not exactly see how that information tell you something about The Netherlands as a country....it doesn't. These are simply isolated incidents that happend in each and every country. I do concede that the Bijlmer disaster might have a place in the article. That was a disaster on a truly global scale, with possible major political and environmental repercussions (the men in white suits, radioactivity etc.). The others (Schiphol fire included) are simply very minor incidents on a global scale and shouldn't be in this article. Not to say that you can't make a separate article on them. As to the political parties, you have to understand that a disproportionately large part of the readers of the English Wikipedia are from Anglo-Saxon countries where the terms you use imply something different than probably intended. For example calling the CDA as you do 'rightwing conservative christian' would place the CDA in the Pat Robertson, Christian Coalition corner. This is most definately NOT the case. Furthermore the CDA would likely not be considered a right wing party based on their economics in most of the world. Callig the VVD 'rightwing liberal' is also incorrect. Firstly the VVD would be sooner be considered a centrist neoliberal see: Neoliberalism party rather than a liberal party. In the English speaking part of the world the word liberal is different from the Dutch 'liberaal'. This is only based on their economics. Based on their social policies they would be placed in the 'American' liberal spectrum. Therefore I disagree with simply using: 'left wing', 'right wing' without any further qualification. Plus I think that if you held worldwide poll most people would call the Dutch political spectrum Centrist. That is not to say that it is indeed more 'right wing' than let's say the Den Uyl cabinet, that was, however a comparatively red cabinet. Chelman 13:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

A problem is indeed that the Netherlands is a rather leftist country in international perspective. That might be added, as well as the different use of terms like 'liberal'. Make no mistake, though, the VVD (people's party for freedom and democracy) is not purely an economically liberal party. They may have moved in that direction recently, but it has always been a 'broadspectrum' liberal party to at least some extent. For example, they only claim to be against liberalisation of Marijuana because that's what their electorate want to hear - mostly they prefer not to speak out on the subject, though, to avoid losing votes. Calling CDA rightwing would indeed be wrong. Even by Dutch standards they're traditionally centre-rightwing. But the present cabinet is most certainly rightwing, even by international standards, I believe. And that's all the article says. Being more specific (christian, liberal, and such) would actually cause more confusion. And the article is speific in an unambiguous way: The critique of the cabinet is mostly about economic reforms and the immigration policies. Whether Verdonk should be mentioned is another matter.

But the present use of the terms is strictly in Dutch perspective, such as the most right-wing cabinet in the Netherlands since the second world war. This circumvents that problem.

Writing a separate article on the 'illegal immigrant detention centre fire' (or what should that be called then - 'Schiphol fire' is too vague) would only make sense if it were linked to and the most logical article to link from is this one, so it would then need to be mentioned anyway. I really only left it in the article because of its link to Verdonk, who represents a major reason for opposition to the cabinet. This may be too topical, but it's a nice 'excuse' to find a place to mention it. A fire killing 11 may not be much on a global scale, but when it happens in a detention centre it becomes political and when those politics are so disputed, that's enough to mention it, I'd say. To use your criterium, it says something about the Netherlands, at least about the present political situation. When that changes, it might be removed. DirkvdM 09:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

As to the left-wing/right-wing issue I would like to hear other's opinion on that matter. I believe that our views on the matter are clear. As to the fire and the opposition to minister Verdonk and her policies, I believe that this is is out of place here. Local news has no place in a general encyclopedic article. First off the opposition to her policies is nothing unusual. It is normal for a government to expect opposition from the opposition. This is even more so hwen the sitting coalition has only approx. 80 out of 150 seats in the parliament. Focussing on the opposition to Verdonk's policies blows them out of proportion; the opposition is not particularly noteworthy, at least not enough to merit being mentioned in the general article about The Netherlands. You could mention it, however in an article about the cabinet Balkenende and their policies. That would be the correct encyclopedic procedure. You could then refer to that new article from the main Netherlands article. By choosing to highlight a particular political issue you do two things that are incorrect IMHO: 1. you highlight that particular issue much more than the situation merits. 2. you overlook other significant political issues playing out currently. Returning to the core issue i.e. the Schiphol fire...the fire says nothing about the current situation in The Netharlands other than the fact that accidents happen here as well as they do in other countries. It was a freak accident and despite what the 'krakers' etc. want us to believe has nothing to do with the cabinet's policies. It might be just noteworthy enough to merit a separate article but shouldn't be in the general article for the same reasons 1. and 2. that I mentioned previously. The Enschede and Volendam accidents had political repercussions as well..... Chelman 10:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Opposition doesn't just come from squatters and 'the opposition'. That's why I included the polls (tentative as they may be). Opposition is normal, but it is rather fierce in this case. (The same might happen when we get an all-leftwing cabinet, because that would also be too non-representative, but that hasn't happenend yet). DirkvdM 10:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I must say I have my doubts to call the present cabinet Balkenende II, the most right-wing cabinet in the Netherlands since the second world war.

In my opinion, a cabinet with D'66 (left-wing liberals) is always more progressive than a cabinet without them (like, say, Van Agt I, or Lubbers I and Lubbers II, or Balkenende I). I believe the remark most right-wing cabinet in the Netherlands since the second world war has more to do with a bad memory from the editor, than proper historical knowledge.

See also Politics_of_the_Netherlands#Dutch_cabinets_since_World_War_II. Jeff5102 07:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Calling the Balkenende II government ''the most right-wing cabinet in the Netherlands since the second world war is POV. It is a valid opinion, to be sure, but others may claim that Balkenende I or one of the KVP-led governments was more to the right. It is hard to say, since the circumstances change and the measuring is fuzzy. So, why should we get into this? gidonb 08:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I added more precise tables to the article Jeff links to. I made those myself half a year ago, so I didn't 'forget'. What I meant was that the policy is the most right-wing the Netherlands has had since WWII. Balkenende I certainly looks more right-wig on paper, but they never got around to anything. Admittedly, this is pov, but it's the pov of the people in the Netherlands I wanted to point out. I should have been clearer about that. Whether there are more 'anti-right' protests now and whether that should be mentioned is debatable. But I'd like to point out once more that this is not a paper encyclopedia that runs the risk of becoming out-of-date. Wikipedia can be updated on a daily basis (by the minute even). So when we get a different cabinet, this info can be deleted. But presenting the current state of affairs would certainly be useful (especially when there's some turmoil). That is a potential strength of Wikipedia we should certainly exploit. DirkvdM 09:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There you point out the problem of Wikipedia as well: in this way the encyclopedia stresses a lot at what is happening in the present day, while interesting events in the past are left out. The politics section suggests that hardly anything happened between, say, 1945 and 2002. And that is a pity.Jeff5102 07:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That should go in the history section. And that section could indeed be expanded a bit. The politics section should be about the present politics and the ideological background to that DirkvdM 09:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That is true. However, the text in the article tells more about the ideological background of the writer, than about the Dutch politics. I will see if I have time to rewrite it.Jeff5102 11:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Political section - EU constitution

I find it weird that there is a whole paragraph on the Netherlands voting against the constitution in this article. I really don't think it's that it was such an important event, and not something that should be told in such a short description of Dutch politics. Maybe change it into the Dutch history within and sentiments about the EU in general?

Dutch politics have experienced some upheaval in recent years, mostly to do with the relation between politics and citizens. Pim Fortuyn represented this and the no-vote was another expression of it, so it certainly deserves a mention. How much attention it should get is another matter. And it's sort of an intro to mentioning that referenda are a new fenomenon in Dutch politics, which also worth mentioning. DirkvdM 11:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It has already been changed and it looks much better now. I wasn't talking about Fortuyn, but now we're on it anyway... He's said to be right-wing in the article, while he himself always said he was neither left nor right. But I'm going to look that up.

Politicians admitting to being either left or right wing are rare. He probably never called himself that, but he is precisely what in an international perspective is generally called a right-wing populist: he had an anti-establishment and anti-immigration political agenda. He is not THE SAME as Haarder in DEnmark, Haider in Austria or Le Pen in France, but he does belong in that category --Dengo 15:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

He was not anti-immigration. He was anti-immigration before the problems with the existing groups of immigrants were solved. This is something distinctly different. He never professed 'eigen volk eerst' or other similar sentiments. He was PRO strong government involvement in education. If I remember correctly he was against the privatisation of the public transport companies and he was against the liberalisation of the energy market. Those are certainly NOT considered right-wing views. It is a fact that the Dutch media which is prominently liberal (in the American sense of the word) has pushed Fortuyn in the right-wing nationalist-populist corner, which he did not belong in. Furthermore (as I pointed out before) the terms right-wing and left-wing are very inaccurate and rarely if ever correctly describe a politician. But that's another matter.Chelman 17:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Unclear texts

In the Netherlands, "Netherlands" is sometimes used as an adjective.

What is meant by this phrase?

The origin of this local usage

What local usage? gidonb 22:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That is indeed odd. Of course in the Netherlands we don't use an English term. It is however occasionally used as an adjective in English. The name-thing is spread over three sections, the first just above it in the intro. Let me do something about this. See what you think. DirkvdM 09:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I will read your new texts. Until recently I was very unhappy with the texts in this article, as Dutch users would every now and then stop by and increase the bitching of those peoples who use terms like Dutch, Holland and THE NetherlandS in their languages. These terms are officially used by the Netherlands just as well. Evidence to that account from Asian countries was thrown out of the window. What do these persons assume, that the whole world uses or should use the same phrases as they hear in their direct environment? As a Dutchman living most of his life abroad, I felt emberassed. gidonb 12:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Dirk, since you make many wrong assumptions on the naming conventions of the Netherlands outside the Netherlands, try not to use such strong bitching terms as you do time and again. This is an international encyclopedia and you are writing in the English version of it, NOT a place where we belittle the population of the world for not speaking Dutch. Thank you. gidonb 13:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As these were factually wrong and used a totally inappropriate tone, I have rewritten all the sections on naming conventions, loading the important facts - the naming conventions in English - upfront. gidonb 23:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, that was uncalled for. When have you seen me using 'bitching terms'? Time and again, no less. But about your edits. 'Holland' is the name of a region and has never been the name of the country (or did I blink somewhere in history?). I've done another rewrite, trying to avoid the issue. Some other things. "When a local variation of "Nederland", such as the Netherlands in English,...". Huh? Is English a local variation of Dutch, or how am I to interpret this? "The plural form of the "Netherlands"..." 'The Netherlands' is a plural form. Ok, in both cases I know what you mean, but it looks confusing this way. I also removed two double statements, leaving the bit in the intro shorter. I moved the comparison with the UK down too (somewhat altered). This was once in here, bot was apparently removed. DirkvdM 06:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvements are never an issue and minor errors are bound to happen when one overhauls substantial parts of an article. Yet you are implying again (not saying out loud this time) that the use of Holland for the Netherlands is wrong. While the tone has improved, this is still imprecise. I will fix these. gidonb 14:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, gentlemen. I am not sure at what stage this was written or changed. But "Dutch" is derived from "Dietsch", which (like "Deutsch") is derived from "Theodisca", (language) of the people. "Nederdietsch" was a term used later on history to specifically describe the "Dietsch" spoken in the low countries. I will see what I can do to fix this. Fedor 16:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed two sentences. "The plural form 'the Netherlands' is a remnant from times when the country was not yet united." Untrue. The plural form is not a 'remnant' but an accurate depicted of the name of the country, even though in Dutch people are used to using the singular form. I removed the entire sentence about "Dutch". This section should not fill too much in an introduction. Fedor 16:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

All these are improvements to the text. I am not certain on the source for these bad assumptions about the names of the Netherlands and all this yucking off foreigners for their use of language. Language is an integral part of culture and both are very place-specific. gidonb 14:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Dirk, this cannot go on like this. You just wiped out all the improvements to the text by Fedor and me and re-entered your private POV that the use of "Holland" for the Netherlands is wrong, as if nothing has happened. The whole text was yucking again of foreigners for using the word Holland. You even re-introduced your inconsistent use of quotation marks!!! Dirk, Please cite your sources. Just assuming something is not enough. gidonb 11:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Dutch women are beautiful :-)

I know this can't be quantified or qualified in any regard. But I just speak from experience and having a couple of Dutch girlfriends over the years. Ciao! --Bourbon King 02:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I moved from Holland to Denmark and I must say, the women are (even) more beautiful here! ;-) Fedor 08:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have to disagree on this. I find The Netherlands to be the home of some of the most plain and plain old ugly, specimens of the female sex. The four most common faults are: many women with no chins (those who know dutch women know what I'm talking about), buck or rabbit-teeth, manly manners and no sense of clothing (yes they follow youth trends quite well but elegant clothing let alone women actually wearing dresses or skirts are a rarity). :-P The above is bound to be used against me in some future Wikiepdia debate to call me a racist bigot. ;-) Ik zal me er niet druk om maken. ;-) Chelman 11:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL Chelman. That's fine if you disagree with me, but I certainly disagree with you about "no chins" and "rabbit teeth". I think you can find those attributes in any country or region of the world. I can also tell you that "manly manners" is something I observed more in Germany. Also, I don't know how you could be considered "racist" considering that Dutch people are merely a cultural ethnic group and are just as white as their neighbors.--Bourbon King 17:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It pains my heart to find out that Wikepedia evidently is mainly a male community with the usual sexism that comes with the territory. I'd say chins, teeth and clothing are questions of taste. And as for any future Wikipedia debates: I might bring up the argument that you're all male-chauvinist, sexist biggots ;)--Dengo 17:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! Just how can you qualify my original statement as being "sexist" when I was merely making a comment on the beauty of Dutch women. Although it is an subjective observation it was never meant to degrade or objectify women from Holland as much as user:Chelman has done. I know I relayed a comment about "manly" looking women being more apparent in Germany where I've traveled, but I wouldn't say that German women on a whole are "manly-looking" at all.--Bourbon King 18:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nah, you shouldn't take my remarks too seriously. I just find it very peculiar that this debate actually takes place here AND that there seem to be no female Wikipedians who feel they have to comment. --Dengo 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How much of a male-chauvinist, sexist biggot am I, considering that from your first remark I concluded that you must be female? :) DirkvdM 12:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

erm ... the biggotst of them all? :P --Dengo 14:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)