This is an archive of past discussions about Netherlands. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Did the spelling of the word 'Friesland' change in English too? I know the official Dutch spelling is now Fryslân, which is quite ridiculous if you ask me, because it's a Frisian Word. Are we going to call Germany 'Deutschland' in English? And Sweden 'Sverige', and so on? This really makes no sense! I would strongly suggest to use 'Friesland' instead of 'Fryslân'!
Evil1980, the Dutch spelling for Friesland is still Friesland. The Dutch government however also uses Frisian in Friesland and therefore Friesland is called Fryslan there. More over wikipedia refers to the province as Friesland.
Note that you can sign posts by adding for tildes after your post ~~~~ which will have the following result: C mon20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that Frisian has been recognised by the European Union as an official language. Therefore, the Dutch government as well as provincial and local authorities also use Frisian in Friesland.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
However this article is about the whole of the Nehterlands; where Frisian is not in general use. Anyway, I do not see what this would change. Arnoutf20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Frisian is in used much in a part of the Netherlands (Friesland), so it should be mentioned. Ajox20:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is Frisian not mentioned as a official language while it is mentioned in this atricle as a official language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Frisian_language—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
About half of the last 50 edits are vandalism, should the article be semiprotected or not?
I am not overly fond of (semi)protection. I think the article is on sufficiently many watchpages to be 'selfcleansing'. Arnoutf11:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not fond of it either but there are almost no usefull edits made in this article, mostly they are vandalism en the reverts of vandalism. All good contributions are done by registered members. Let's have a short span of semi-protection and see if the harassing of the article stops. If it does, the semiprotect should be removed. I hope people agree with this. If there are any problems I would like to hear about it. Regards, Daimanta13:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Just placing the template on top of the page does not semiprotect it; the articles status should be change by an administrator as well.Arnoutf20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Im officially fed up with this. Vandalism is rampant and nothing is being done about it. I'm going to request semiprotection AGAIN. Daimanta21:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Several discussions (or worse: undiscussed edits) seem to reappear from time to time on issues that have been debated thoroughly and solved in relative concensus in the past. It seems fitting to compile a list of those discussions to prevent good willing (new) editors from reopening these debates. Here's a few that immediately pop in my head
Article name: Netherlands or The Netherlands?
Article name: shouldn't it be Holland?
How to deal with the issue of Holland v Netherlands in the article itself.
My idea: Officialy the name is "Koninkrijk der Nederlanden" which represents the Netherlands, Aruba and the Dutch Antilles. Without Aruba and the Antilles it's "Nederland" because it is ONE nation since the time of cooperating provincies have come to an end. Netherland has my preference but it will confuse a lot of people, so I am going with Netherlands.
Holland?
No, just no. Holland is a combination of "Zuid-Holland"(South-Holland) and "Noord-Holland"(North-Holland), which are two provinces in the Netherlands(EU). Refering to it as Holland is simply incorrect and undiserable.
Capital: Amsterdam or The Hague (or both)?
The Dutch constitution states very clearly that the capital of the Netherlands is Amsterdam. The word capital means most important city and does not have to have the government seated in it. It should be noted that The Hague houses the government.
I think most was already treated since. I agree with most of Daimanta's summary except for Netherland; that is just not an English word; it has to be Netherlands including the 's'. The 'the' issue is treated further below (wiki policy issue). Arnoutf18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Creating this paragraph at the top was my attempt to prevent 'resolved' issues from reappearing as new editors join the wiki community. --Dengo13:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Etymology of a Flemish name
I'm trying to find a good source for the etymology of the Flemish surname "Ruysbroeck." Can anyone here comment on its origination, or where to go about finding it out...? Thanks much, --AustinKnight04:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I have not found any definitive internet-sources, but I am pretty certain the name comes from the town called "Ruisbroek" in Flanders. "Broek" in placenames in the dutch language sphere always refers to a particular type of watersurface. On the meaning of "Ruis" I am less certain. In modern day dutch it litterally means "rustle" (like bushes in the wind) or "static" (on a radio). However, both the placename Ruisbroek and the surname (Van) "Ruysbroeck" have had several alternative spellings in history, such as "Roosbroeck" which could just as well refer to "Rose" (the flower). Good luck on your quest. Start here for some alternative spellings: nl:ruisbroek--Dengo16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The politics section has a photo of queen Beatrix. Which makes some sense because the king is the official head of state. But that's just in name. In relaity the king has no power at all, so that's misleading. The most representative image of Dutch politics would one of the parliament. There's one at the Dutch wikipedia, which is supposed to come from the English Wikipedia, but I can't find that. Anyone know where it is (ie, what it's called)? DirkvdM11:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The king has some official power. I don't know the details, but it has to do with the formation of the parliament, the king does this together with the "formateur". I think she has the final say in it however. And this is an encyclopedia so it keeps things official. Just my opinion(MrDeBeuker03:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
The King has some political power; according to the constitution he is head of state as well as head of government. In practice though, this role is limited to the official appointment of what turns out to be the prime minister. Apart from this, the King is also presiding the "Raad van State", the State Council, which drafts advises and recommendations regarding legislation. In practice, this council monitors legislation and checks it for feasiblity and compliance with the constitution. In practice, the council's sessions are presided by the council's Vice-President. Oh, and when the king is not able to govern for some reason, and there is no legal child or other relative to succeed him, the council will act as regent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.126.150.25 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
These political powers of the monarch are restricted by the constitution (hence constitutional monarchy). The actual power is limited. However, by being involved in government discussion, and appointing informateur, the monarch has a certain influence. Arnoutf20:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
'Holland' official name in other countries?
Unde 'naming conventions' it says In many languages it is also the official name of the country [1]. There is one link to one country's Dutch embassy to support that, but I can't see the info there and it's just one country (and the link is to the arabic text, which isn't clever). Apart from Indonesian, I can't think of any language in which 'Holland' is the official name. Any better sources for this? DirkvdM09:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
In indonesian the official name would be 'Belanda', not 'Holland'. Although etymologically related, it depends on what words are used for the region or the two provinces. In japanese, e.g, the word for "Netherlands", "Oranda", and the words for "Holland", "Hurinto", are different. Although etymologically related with "Holland", "Oranda" must therefore be equivalent with "Netherlands", not "Holland". Apart from this, feel free to remove the claim you point to, because it has bothered me for a long time. Fedor11:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The name is Holland the official name in about every language of Asia and Africa and some European langauges too. Please do not remove this point, because it is a very important one. In Arabic, which I read, the official name is "Hollanda". The link illustrates this point on a official website of the Netherlands. I can add more of such links. gidonb15:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, add them here, I'd say, to satisfy any other people whom this bothers, because the naming is a much disputed subject here. The link on the page, however (at least the English one - the link was to an Arabic page :) ) only proves the opposite, because it is titled "Royal Netherlands Embassy in Cairo". So I removed that. Anyway, it was the Dutch embassy in Egypt, not the other way around.
I knew the Indonesian name (which is why I mentioned it), but the names in Japan are really interresting.
Actually, I thought of another source, right under our noses: look at the source, at the bottom, where the links to all the other languages are. What I notice is that there are basically three sorts of names; transcriptions of 'Holland' or 'Nederland' and the literal meaning of 'low lands' in that language. A few are different, though, like cy:Yr Iseldiroedd (Welsh), ga:An Ísiltír (Erse), cs:Nizozemsko (Czech), sl:Nizozemska (Slovenian), hr:Nizozemska (Croatian), fi:Alankomaat (Finnish), nah:Ompa Atoyaapan (Nahuatl), ro:Ţările de Jos (Romanian), and zh-min-nan:Kē-tē-kok (transliterated Mandarin Chinese). The languages are educated guesses. I like the first two; sound a bit like something from Lord of the Rings. Still, these are not official sources, so not really a basis for any claims about official names. But I did use thos for a looser claim.
By the way, gidonb, you changed the comparison Holland/Netherlands with England/UK to GB/UK, saying that was POV pushing. Firstly, I don't see a POV issue here, but more to the point, I thought a comparison with England made more sense in the sense that it's a smaller part that is used for the whole. In the case of GB, the only difference is Northern Ireland. Not quite a major point, though. DirkvdM07:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Dirk, you are right! I can't believe that gidonB 'corrected' this. The England/UK case is clearly closely parallel to the Holland/NL case. Please feel free to correct this back again, as well as other POV distortions you may discover. Fedor11:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Dirk, I hope it is OK that I walsed over your recent edits. What I originally rewrote the text as, is reflecting the same points as what you were trying to put in again. It was just distorted beyond recognition by gidonB since then. Fedor12:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Restored 'naming conventions' again
I have restored the part on naming conventions again to my original edit of some weeks ago, because I find it neutral, balanced and reflecting reality. The repeated claims by gidonB of "Holland" being the official name in certain countries remain undocumented, so I suggest that he documents them here first before further messing with this text. In japanese and indonesian, at least, the names of the country is Oranda and Belanda respectively. Whereas these are clearly derivatives of Holland, that does not mean it is the same. In japanese they use a different word for Holland in the narrow sense (Horintu), thus Oranda is equivalent with Netherlands, not Holland. Fedor11:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
If you agree that Holland is in many languages the equivalent of the Netherlands, why do erase this from the article while violating our rules? gidonb07:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree that "Holland" is the equivalent, I agree that e.g. "Oranda" is equivalent, because there is another term ("Horintu") that is equivalent with "Holland" as a region. I have yet to see proof of the "many languages"-claim of (literal) "Holland" being the official name. Fedor09:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
He mentioned some languages, not many. And your claim is about the official name, for which you have still not provided a source as far as I can see. You have a habit of accusing other people of POV pushing, but isn't it really you who is doing that? DirkvdM08:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
In reaction to your comment in the thread below. In which version was it claimed that the name 'Holland' for the Netherlands is wrong? In my last version the word did not even appear in the whole article. The strongest claim that is made is that it is an ambiguous term, which is beyond dispute, I believe. Although it really is wrong of course, but the wording was already mellowed down to suit your taste. So what are you complaining about?
About the plural, here's an interresting source: [2]. Apparently, it was originally the name for a much larger area, including Belgium and a pert of Germany (see under 'middle ages'). The first name of the independent country was de Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden (see under 'independence'). Whicn seems like a good basis for the statement in the article.
Dirk, I have also tried to suppress this claim of Netherlands being a remnant. There is not enough basis for such a claim, and besides it confuses the issue. Fedor09:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
OK everyone this is an old discusison but I will correct a few things above. Fedor mentioned "Hurinto" and "Horintu" as terms for "Holland". These transliterations are both wrong. "Hu" and "tu" syllables do not not exist in Japanese (they would be "fu" and "tsu" respectively). The corrent name is "Horanto" in Japanese. But Fedor's idea, that "Oranda" is equivalent to "Netherlands" and "Horanto" to "Holland", is correct, even though both of them were derived from "Holland" at different points in time ("Oranda" a long time ago),
DirkvdM mentioned "zh-min-nan:Kē-tē-kok (transliterated Mandarin Chinese)". This is wrong. zh-min-nan: is Min Nan, a language spoken in a small corner of China by a (relatively) small amount of people, and the writing in Latin script by even fewer people. The official name in mandarin Chinese for Holland and Netherlands IS "Helan", which I can confirm from a government-published dictionary. However, for some strange unknown reason the Minnan Wikipedia have decided to call every country in its own language. This is not common practice and anyway has no official status. ("Ke-te-kok" means "base-land-Country")
The only other official Chinese language, Cantonese used in Hong Kong, calls the Netherlands "Hor Lan". There is no other way to say "Netherlands" in Cantonese. 203.218.136.15518:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it irrelevent what the "official" name of the Netherlands is in other languages? There is only one "official" name and that is Nederland. Chinees or Indonesian may refer to the Netherlands as something that means Holland but that doesn't make it any more official.--Kalsermar19:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
POV
I have explained both issues several times and added references and requests for references in the text. These have been removed. The latest edits by Fedor were in violation with our WP:3RR policy. I have tagged the article POV and asked for intervention. It has never been our intention at en.wikipedia that disagreements get settled by force. The POV in the article is that the name Holland is "wrong". The other problem, the unsubstantiated claims about the origins of the name of the Netherlands that kept "reappearing", has been resolved I hope. gidonb07:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
No, you started by stepwisely reverting my edit e.g. here. I think it is highly arrogant that you climb up the ivory tower of npov and abiding by the rules, while you keep on pushing pov notions in the article. I rewrote the section (here) to be balanced and include both viewpoints, whilst removing semi-certain claims. Why don't read it first, before blindly reverting it again!? Fedor09:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The only thing this seems to be about is whether it should be mentioned in the introduction. I think we should keep these 'discussions' out of the introduction and refer to the section discussing it below. The section on 'naming conventions', as I have written it, is balanced and neutral and should satisfy both points of view. Please read it first, before drawing any conclusions and quote & discusss any claims here that are considered pov. Fedor09:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Fedor that he has done a very balanced job on an obviously sensitive issue. I think the overall arguments summarise: that we are editing the English wikipedia (never mind Japanese and Danish). That the Netherlands is the official name used in English, but that many (perhaps more then not) English speakers use Holland instead. I think the texts by Fedor reflect all this in a neutral and balanced way, and would suggest to leave that text up (uneditted) for now, unless consensus about a different point of view is achieved here (which seems unlikely at the moment). This whole strain of arguments and the POV marker only shed doubts on the quality of the hard work done by many editors on this page. --Arnoutf09:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Looking over this again, I think there simply has been a misunderstanding and a miscommunication. I removed the sentence "In many languages this is the official name of the Netherlands." from the introduction, not because I disagreed with it, but because I thought this issue should only be mentioned in a sentence or two and then refer to the section discussing down below, that I rewrote. My rewrite aimed to describe the issue in a balanced way. I have clearly explained my edits on the talk-page every time, that gidonB for some reason shuns. I would appreciate if gidonB, or someone else, would remove the pov-tag right away, because it is all just a big overreaction, and -as said- it drags the rest of the article down. Besides, if someone is not willing to discuss precisely what he believes is pov, then there is no reason to hold on to a pov tag inserted by him. Fedor19:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
My problem was not so much with your edits, as with those of Dirk that you partially contested. The personal opinions of Dirk keep on re-appearing in this article time after after time, as he is the only one who keeps on editing it. I am frustrated already more than a year about his bitching of Holland and the Netherlands in English and foreign languages. Every now and then somebody does something about, asks him to explain but he only puts his opinions back. On the other hand, I found the language and methods you used unpleasant and decided not to react. Lets put my line back and remove the POV warning, in the spirit of our excellent cooperation at nl.wikipedia. gidonb19:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine with me, but why do you want your line back in the introduction? It is already covered, more neutrally, in the "naming conventions"-section down below. Fedor20:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I have fine-tuned it a little, but in general lines it is OK. As I said before I did not think that Dirk did well to draw such an unflattering picture of the Netherlands, at least not when it is also detached from reality. gidonb12:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah well, I'll go with the flow and also continue the discussion here. How did I draw an unflattering picture of the Netherlands? As for your edits, what do you base the claim on that 'Holland' is the official name in most languages? You haven't even substantiated your one claim about Arabic, I believe. So I reverted that bit. DirkvdM07:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I substantiated my claim in Arabic and in other langauges, but you wiped out the reference. Problem is that you do not read Arabic and perhaps do not like others to read it. Please stop the POV pushing! gidonb08:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that in many languages a form derived from Holland maybe the official name, but in many it is not as well (e.g. pays bas - lit: low lands in French). So I would suggest a phrase between the 'some' posed by DirkvdM and the 'most' by Gidonb and put in 'many', which I suggest as compromise for now. I think that the word most can only be settled upon if we construct a list of all (official) languages in the world and determine whether there are more with holland derivates than others. Examples from e.g. arabic, interesting as they may be, (so I agree it should not be deleted), do not settle this case, as examples do not necessarily add up to majority. Arnoutf08:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem remains England for UK. The UK sometimes uses Great Britain officially as a name of the whole coutry, but strictly speaking Great Britain is only part of the UK. This is also the case with Holland, see my references, but NOT with England. England is used as a name for the UK, but never by the government. gidonb08:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with your arguments; and examples are not convincing, we all agree that some Dutch refer to the country as Holland. First of all there is no such thing as a perfect comparison and of course the GB-Holland situation is not identical, but in my opinion England is really closer to the mark as this refers to one of 4 main areas stemming from the middle ages (Wales, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland), which is kind of somilar to the county status of Holland (besides Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelre, Friesland...) during the middle ages. Furthermore many foreigners refer to either UK or GB with England, but I don't know of UK-GB confusion, which is similar to Netherlands - Holland issue. However I agree with your point that Netherlands sometimes officially refers to itself as Holland abroad, which the UK doesn't in relation to England. On the other hand, the English themselves refer to their people as English more often than Dutch call themselves Hollanders abroad, although this is a weaker and less relevant argument than the others. That the government argument is the only that counts seems irrelevant since many of your own argument about the Netherlands-Holland issue are about majority use by people rahter than official adoption. So if I count arguments for using the England-UK comparison I add to 2 in favour, 1 against. Arnoutf08:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
We are almost there. Dutch is restriced (or nearly restricted) to English. In other languages it is either Hollanders, such as Chinese, Arabic and Japanese and other African and Asian languages, or Netherlanders, such as in German (sometimes). The UK calls itself (including Northern Ireland that is) Great Britain on license plates and in some tournaments. The reason is historic. The Netherlands calls itself exclusively Holland in many if not most languages. My concern is that the texts on this page should be appreciative of different names and cultures, rather than bitching everyone but the people in the Netherlands that they are wrong in however they refer to that country, its people and culture. Until recently the article boosted that the Dutch are liberal but the content contradicted it. Now I know there are worse things about the Netherlands, but hey, most of these are listed. So why put us selves down as bitches while even the official and unofficial reality is very different? Regards, gidonb09:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not completely understand your comment here. What I meant is that inhabitants of the UK call themselves English when abroad, while people from the Netherlands predominantly introduce themselves as Nederlanders (and not usually as Hollander) But as I stated this is not the most relevant argument. The comparison Holland-Netherlands vs England/GB - UK is meant as a comparison to explain the difference. This has hardly anything to do with the other issue, use of Holland - Netherlands. This is a made-up comparison that has nothing to do with majority view in the world. As comparisons go they are never perfect. And I think GidonB is the only regular editor on this page who prefers the GB-UK comparison over the England-UK comparison. A~s this is an illustrative comparison, there is no factual correct or wrong opinion here. Just stubbornly reverting this back and forth will never solve this issue, and will not lead to consensus. As I see it there are two options. Delete the comparison at all (which I am not in favour of, since it is illustrative) or acknowledge that comparisons are inherently imperfect and look for consensus on the best comparison, which will be a subjective opinion (i.e. point of view). As the comparison is carefully stated as an illustration this should be acceptable. That this is subjective means that we may have to settle on a majority vote to decide this issue once and for all. Arnoutf10:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I will spell the Arabic and Farsi out again:
Arabic هولندا right to left: h oe l n d a
Farsi هلند right to left h l n d
Hebrew right to left h o l n d
With vowels that is hoelanda, haland en holand. I can also help with other Asian, East-European or African languages sometime. Most languages are not even linked to this article. gidonb09:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a major problem surrounding this whole discussion, what is reality/true'. Please realise that examples are useful to illustrate, but never to prove a point. So yes, many languages (that many of us can't read) use Holland derivates; So what? It's a bit like stating that birds can't fly as penguins, ostriches and kiwis can't. Without references we cannot begin to state what is true, so please be very careful making strong statements when referring to things like unofficial reality; there is no way we can ever achieve certainty on such ill-defined inherently non-controllable issues as unofficial reality. Therefor I would ask everyone involved to be careful in making claims referring to such realities. Arnoutf10:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I just gave you such references. I can find thousands of others, illustrating it absolutely official or customary to call Netherlands Holland, in many languages that you can read. But why bother? Do a websearch on Holland yourself ;-) gidonb15:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
No, Gidon, it is *your* claim, so *you* have the burden of proof. If all you can come up with are these, then I don't think that claiming "many" is justified. Rather I would write "a number of". Better still: Why not remove this sentence, if it is so hard to prove? I thought the way I originally wrote it was fine, because it was neutral and not expanding to much on either pov: "In a number of languages, a derived form can also be the official name of the country (like Oranda in Japanese)." I insist that this original be restored for the sake of maximum neutrality and masximum reliability. I also insist, like Arnoutf, that the comparison UK/England is most suitable to illustrate this. I really don't understand why you keep on reverting this instead of discussing it first. Fedor23:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Not really following the dispute, but if this may be of any help: in Romanian we call Netherlands "Olanda" (we ditched the starting H) & its inhabitants are called "olandez/olandeză" (singular masculin and feminin), and "olandezi/olandeze" (same thing in plural). --Vlad23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Another point in favour of the England-Holland comparison is in the example itself. Where Holland was the Economic Powerhouse for the Netherlands, for the UK, England was the powerhouse (but Scotland and Wales were not). Furthermore Great Britain is a geographical denomination, so that would be comparable to the Lowlands (i.e. the flat delta area can be considered a geographical region) which includes Flanders and parts of Northern France. So there the comparison does not fit at all. Arnoutf17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
England is never used officially for the United Kingdom. Only Great Britain is used for the UK sometimes. Same holds for Holland and Netherlands, as Vlad points out above. The question is really which concepts are comparable today. The current version is useful for the reader, who may sometimes use Holland rather than Netherlands. The powerhouse explanation comes next and is also useful. gidonb18:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes I acknowledge that on that point you are correct, England is never used officially. But on all other points, economical, historical etc. (which I mentioned before), the comparison England-Holland is the better one. Arnoutf18:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well that is really a matter of geographic definition. One may also claim that the British powerhouse stretched upto Glasgow, formerly and still a huge industrial center and port. When people think of Scotland and Wales they are apt to think about highlands, but quite some British economic activity is concentrated in the Scottish lowlands. Another point is that the combinations with Wales and Scotland are older. More precise is that England is a core of GB and GB a core region of the UK, thus when comparing the UK to the Netherlands GB-UK holds better. Netherlands is of course also a much smaller country. gidonb18:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Combinations between Holland, Friesland and Zeeland are also much older, as the ruling count of Holland has been frequently count of Zeeland and Friesland as well; so there the comparison -Holland-Friesland-Zeeland- relates better to the Great Britain, one. With regard to powerhouse. I believe you thatGlasgow (and probably Edinburgh as well) have long been important. However, Holland was never the only economic power in the Netherlands either, Utrecht city (in Utrecht) was powerful, so was the Gelre city Kampen an important member of the Hanseatic League and Zeeland had a chamber in the Dutch East India Company. So these arguments don't go. Furhtermore when you say that GB is the core of UK, I think that is not supporting your argument as your core is like 90% of the whole, the only other bit of UK being Northern Ireland. Holland is only about 20 to 30% of the Netherlands, so much more a core than GB, and in that regard not unlike England. And yes of course the Netherlands is a much smaller country, but I do not see what the relevance of the remark is. Arnoutf20:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
What I meant with the latter is that we are comparing a large country on a European scale with a small country on the same scale. With the words "also" and "of course" I tried to make clear that this is somehwat of sidetrack (yet important to keep in mind). Thank you for pointing this out once more. I think we agree that formally the comparison England-UK: Holland-Netherlands does not fly. Next we may attack the comparison Netherlands-Great Britain that does fly with all sort of small details, but these are irrelevant. Why? The comparison is only with respect to use of the language, under that very chapter, and is meant to say: yes you may use Holland for the Netherlands but it may not be very precise. It is meant to reassure the reader through more commonly used concepts and gently direct him towards an unambiguous vocabulary, rather than incorrectly telling him he is totally wrong on everything he knows on the Netherlands and yacking him off as a dumbo who cannot figure out the name of the Netherlands, its capital (cannot do anything about this point, wrong is wrong), its head of government (on this page) and much more. These are of course not your doing, on the contrary, but this is the (rotten) image of the Netherlands that some Dutchmen tried to produce in this article. Yes, they included some statement in the article that the Dutch are friendly but insisted on the opposite. gidonb21:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I think the kind of comparison between Netherlands - Holland and United Kingdom - whatever is a good one to frame the relation, on that account we seem to agree. We also seem to agree that this comparison is not perfect, as no comparison is ever perfect. However, I think that for many reasons I mentioned above that the comparison England-UK is much better than the GB-UK, advocated by you; so that is where we disagree. The bitching on our co-editors about other issues on this page is not constructive, so I will just ignore that. Arnoutf21:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well thank you for once more agreeing with me. I introduced the comparison so that English speakers can relate better to something well known to them. To get back to the other point, in this respect the comparison to a much larger country is actually a strength. I think we agreed a few postings back that the England is never formally used for the UK; this comparison is meant to illustrate the use of concepts in the chapter that deals with the concepts. Thank you also for your criticism and not ignoring what I said about my collegue. I confess that I was a bit pissed off that after a while everything reappears on this page without a discussion. I guess that by keeping an eye on this page I will better reduce my frustrations than by verbalizing them. Will try to do better. Thanks and take care, gidonb21:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
That said I believe that the principal of not depicting the Netherlands as less tolerant than it factually is, should be kept and has nothing to do with the personalities involved. If I have made that contribution to this page, than I have done my job. gidonb00:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
As the issue to use England or GB in the Holland vs Netherlands comparison is still being debated here, and no consensus is achieved, I can accept that changes in that piece of text are reverted. However, make the statement why it was reverted on the lines of: 'no consensus achieved, see discussion page' and do not annotate reverts with statements like rv incorrect edit, which does not reflect the ongoing debate. Thanks Arnoutf16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Arnout, incorrect only with respect to naming conventions (chapter) and the use of the name Holland for the Netherlands (paragraph). You seemed to agree that England is never used officially as the name of the United Kingdom. Please do not tell me you have changed your mind. Regards, gidonb01:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Two reactions on this
1) I asked to explain because the edit was made by a probably good intending editor, whom I have not seen editing this page before, so (s)he may be new. This means the editor probably has not gone into this extended debate. As it is very disappointing to see your honest effort reverted as an error, a little more explanation would be nice in such cases.
2) I never agreed that the GB-UK comparison is the better, I have stated that there are several points in favour of the Eng-UK comparison (read my comments above) and that there is only one in favour of the GB-UK comparison; namely that both GB and Holland are sometimes officially mentioned. As this is (in my opinion) not the core of that specific comparison I stronlgy prefer Eng-UK (as stated above). However, for me this is a minor point so I decided not to push it too much. Arnoutf19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, as Arnoutf understood I am new on Wikipedia. And couldn't find this before. I changed the holland great britain thing (again). Reading the above I can simply say: I understand GidonB now, but totally agree with Arnoutf's arguments. I can furthermore ad that 'great-britain' doesn't have the feeling like England has, to understand why dutch don't always like to be called holland. England and Holland are both archaic official names, derived from the time they were great in the 17th century. Things have changed and grown but still people refer to them by their old names, 'England' does that better. The arguments in favor of England-Holland just ad up--Eezie22:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't speak on much of this argument, but as a Scot, living in the USA, I can confirm that it is absolutely the case that "England" is used as a synonym for "The United Kingdom". More to the point, the US government itself can fall into the error. When classifying British applicants in the permanent residence ("Green Card") process, the Department of Homeland Security has only one option for country of origin - "England". They do not even have a "United Kindom" option. My conclusion is that the England versus United Kingdom difference is a very good analogy to use when describing the Holland versus The Netherlands difference. Whatever else you guys want to argue about, I hope you reinstate that particular piece of the text. — 66.69.240.110Jun 72006 [was unsigned, undated]
I visited all regions of Great Britain, though I was not yet in Cornwall. I was never in Northern Ireland (or anywhere on that island). And I've met quite a number of Brits from just about any region at distant parts of the world. I'm not sure about US citizens, but I never heard any Welshman or Scot say "I am English" or "I'm from England", and cannot imagine this to happen anywhere in the world. They either refer to their own region, or might say "I'm British". Actually, I wouldn't know what adjective could be derived from "United Kingdom", how could one state having a "United Kingdomish passport"? It's simply a "British passport". As Northern Ireland does not strictly belong to (Great) Britain, what kind of passport would Ian Paisley or Brian Adams say they have? I really don't know that... On the other hand, Gelderland did not have a Mary, Queen of Scots and didn't suffer the Clearances, thus Dutch from any province might outside their country more easily refer to themselves as "from Holland". Being Flemish, regardless what might appear in print, a football (soccer) match is never said to be "België - Nederland" but always a match "België - Holland" and in my area people don't want the "Hollanders" (in English: the "Dutch") to win. In my opinion, a comprehensive article in an encyclopaedia should clearly state what the strictly most correct usage of terms is, as well as the more colloquial usage; and if the colloquial or official usage abroad (as 'England' according to the former contributor apparently by the US) is notably different from the usage within the proper country, it should be stated. The latter is definitely the case for how "Dutch", "Holland", "(the) Netherlands" etc are used by native speakers of the English language. Just a thought. — SomeHuman24 Feb2007 23:16 (UTC)
That said in the Netherlands itself; Holland will be used informally for the football match (hup Holland hup); but never officially. Also Frisians will never call themselves Hollanders (just as much as the Scottish editor has a problem with being forced to be called English). So I think the comparison holds. Arnoutf11:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It's also interesting to note that it's always "Het Nederlands Elftal" I have never heard "Het Hollandse Elftal" ... Rex12:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Associated articles
Many of the related main articles are not very developed, especially in comparison to the main article. Perhaps we can set up a project to do something about this? Articles from Dutch can quickly be translated with Babel and fixed to proper English. We could also ask at nl.wikipedia for help. gidonb15:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Prime-minister NOT head of government.
The Prime Minister of the Netherlands is NOT the head of the government he is only the chairman of the council of ministers. The Queen is NOT the head of the government either. The Dutch government does NOT have a head.
(AA-NL14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC))
As far as I know the King is the head of state. The King is a member of the "regering" but not the "kabinet"
"Branches: Executive--monarch (chief of state), prime minister (head of government), cabinet. Legislative--bicameral parliament (First and Second Chambers). Judicial--Supreme Court."
"De minister-president is de voorzitter van de ministerraad en minister van Algemene Zaken. Hij is ministerieel verantwoordelijk voor het optreden van de leden van het Koninklijk Huis. De minister-president is als minister gelijk aan alle andere ministers......"
Which roughly translates as: "The prime minister is chairperson of the council of ministers and minister of General Affairs. He has the ministerial responsibility for public actions of the members of the Royal Family. The prime-minister as a minister is equal to all ministers" This would go against the p-m being head of govt. Arnoutf20:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
According to the article, "the Dutch monarch has little political power, but serves mostly as a ceremonial figurehead to represent the nation". This is most definately not true: the queen does have a lot of political power, and is not just a cerimonial function (like for exmaple the monarch of Sweden). Baszoetekouw14:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You are right, the power of the Queen is highly underestimated. First off she is the only one who can view all documents of the state, she knows all state secrets since 1980, she is president of the council of state and therefor the primary advisor of the government. The prime-minister meets every week with the Queen and the Queen also has to sign all documents for them to become law, she can also refuse to do this. She can also dismiss a cabinet at her will, and she has incredible uncontroled power during the formation process of a cabinet. She is also politicaly immune, which means she does not have to explain anything to parliament. These are all legal rights that the Queen has, she rarely shows it. Also ministers are not allowed to say anything about their discussions with the Queen since its concidered state secret, this to prevent the Queen from obtaining any political color in the eyes of the dutch people. (AA-NL15:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC))
I partially agree, the power of the queen is indeed larger than not at all. I slightly adjusted the wording in the article, I hope this nuances the issue. I would not suggest to add text as there is room for more details as discussed above in the Politics of the Netherlands article. Arnoutf21:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not very much satisfied with the current text. Officially and formally (and also in practice!), the Queen holds lots of power, as AA-NL described above. Her power just isn't as visible as the (eg) prime minister's. Maybe we could change the text to something like: "The Queen is the head of state, and, unlike other European monarchs, her power is not just ceremonial. In practice, she does her work in the background, in order to not become associated with any particular political colors" Baszoetekouw21:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I would phrase it just a bit more carefully. Does this sound ok? "The Queen is the head of state, and while just as in other constitutional monarchies her power is mainly ceremonial, the Dutch queen, unlike other European monarchs, has some real political powers. In practice, she does her work in the background, in order to not become associated with any particular political colors" Arnoutf22:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I fear there are a few misunderstandings. This is the real situation:
That the Queen is immune means every political act by her has to be co-acted by the responsible minister. Together they form the Crown. This also means she cannot dismiss a government at will.
She is head of the Council of State, but is never present at its regular meetings. Being part of the Crown, she cannot be her own advisor.
What is said during meetings with the Queen is not a state secret, although it is considered not done to bring anything into the open.
She could indeed block the legislative process and the cabinet formation, but only at the cost of a constitutional crisis.
The Immunity of the Queen means that no one has power over the Queen, this how Constitutional Law proff Kortman of the Radboud University of Nijmegen discribes the immunity of the Queen. Further more all meetings beteen members of government are secret, devolving any information about it leads to prosecution infront of the 5 judges of the "supreme court" by the general procurator (if that is the accurate translation). And ofcource blocking the legislative process may cause a constitutional cirsis, but this doesnt mean she does not have the legal power to do so. In the dutch constitution there is no hierachy between, The Queen, the ministers, the prime minister, the parliament and the judicial branch whatsoever.
(AA-NL19:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC))
Still some confusion. I'll try to clarify:
The Queen is inviolate. Though this indeed means that in her quality of Queen nobody has power over her, it also means that she has no power to do anything in this quality unless cooperating with the responsible minister, who makes the final decision for both of them. This is why The Netherlands are a parliamentary democracy, not just a constitutional monarchy.
Yes, any illegitimate divulging of the proceedings of the Cabinet Meetings is a criminal act — but the Queen isn't present at them. The cabinet members themselves of course divulge with full abandon :o).
Even refusing to sign a law is a constitutional crisis. This is why Juliana warned beforehand.
In the Dutch constitution there is no strict trias politica. The executive is ultimately subordinated to the legislative: cabinets must fall if parliament so decides — but often no elections are held when cabinets are changed. The courts merely apply the laws and treaties made or sanctioned by parliament. There is no constitutional court and courts are forbidden to consider the question whether laws are constitutional. But all this is moot: Queen and the responsible minister together — i.e. indivisibly — form the Crown. At her own she is not a executive organ.
Ok, these arguments are convincing on almost all issues. The Dutch queen does however has some real and formal powers in the formation of a government, which are reaching further than in most similarly governed countries. I agree that the powers introduced by AA-Nl are generally either restrained by the parlaimentary monarchy laws, or are not formal, but informal (e.g. the weekly meeting with the PM). Arnoutf21:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The king can refuse to sign papers? Has this ever actually happened? How is this different from Belgium, where the king had to resign for a few days to get an abortion law (which he didn't want to sign) through? And the notion that he can dismiss a cabinet may stem from the upside-down way the signatures are presented. The minister's signature is called the 'countersignature' as if he comes second. But of course in reality that is the other way around.
Disclosure of talks with the king a state secret? Maybe in theory (I don't know), but Marijnissen once disclosed something said by Beatrix in such a confidence talk, and he wasn't prosecuted for this.
So, as I understand it, in practise, the king can make one decision of political importance. After that there will probably be no more king. Once again, has anything like this ever happened? So I'd say the king may have theoretical power but can in practise never execute it, so the power is not real. DirkvdM09:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, the Queen does have the right to refuse to sign a law, see eg http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/8761028967387.html (note that the title of the article is a bit misleading). Of course, that would lead to a constitutional crisis, which is exactly why it hasn't happened before. Still, that doesn't mean she doesn't have any political power; rather on the contrary, I guess, as the cabinet wouldn't want to risk a constitutional crisis by proposing law that the Queen might be very opposed to. Baszoetekouw10:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
A famous example is the warning by Juliana on being raised Queen that she would not sign any death warrants. No more war criminals were executed.--MWAK19:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Shock! In a corrupt sort of way (although we can't state it that way in the article :) ) the king does have power. And this reminds me of the Lockheed affaire, when Juliana threatened with abdication if her husband were to be prosecuted and Beatrix threatened not to follow her up. I never understood these threats, though. The socialist PvdA was 'at power' and I'd always thought socialists wanted to get rid of royalty. I suppose their voters had a different view on this. Oddly, the Bernhard article doesn't say. Do you know?
I suppose the death warrant thing wasn't a real 'threat' because no such executions were ever going to take place again anyway. But are there more examples? If these are the only examples, they should be mentioned. If not, I might have to reconsider my citizenship (kidding). If there are no more examples, I suggest something along the lines of:
The king of the Netherlands has a ceremonial and advisory function and can in theory exert real power, although this would lead to a constitutional crisis (see main article).
Where it coud then read:
The king of the Netherlands is the constitutional head of state. In day to day reality the power is restricted to an advisory function. The king is supposed to sign all laws put before him. If he refuses to do so this would lead to a constitutional crisis. In theory the king could use this as a threat to exert a non-cooperative power, but considering the severity of the method, it has only been used once, by queen Beatrix, when she declared she would never sign any death warrants. Related to this is the Lockheed bribe affaire, when both Juliana and her daughter Beatrix threatened to end the monarchy if Juliana's husband Bernhard were to be prosecuted.
I suggest using 'king' (or maybe 'monarch') in stead of 'queen' since it's supposed to be generic. This is also done in other articles. DirkvdM09:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I really like the opening of the suggested phrase, as it gives the correct nuance (day to day vs special occasions). I agree that gender neutrality should be a goal whenever possible, therefore I strongly prefer monarch over king, as monarch is gender neutral while king is (in principal) masculin. When referring to the monarch we can (arbitrarily) use 'he' or 'she' (or, but that is just too ugly, the gender neutral '(s)he' ). At this time I would prefer to use 'she' as the current monarch is a woman. So you show gender neutrality where reasonable and reflect current situation when gender neutrality is a problem. I have a few problems with the two examples on constitutional crises in the suggested text. Although they sound plausible, I do not know of official documents confirming these fairly strong statements, so I would like to see a reference for each. Then the phrase would read like:
The monarch of the Netherlands has a ceremonial and advisory function and can in theory exert real power, although this would lead to a constitutional crisis (see main article).
The monarch of the Netherlands is the constitutional head of state. In day to day reality the power is restricted to an advisory function. The monarch is supposed to sign all laws put before her. If she refuses to do so this would lead to a constitutional crisis. In theory the monarch could use this as a threat to exert a non-cooperative power, but considering the severity of the method, it has only occurred once, by queen Juliana, when she declared she would never sign any death warrants[citation needed]. Related to this is the Lockheed bribe affaire, when both Juliana and her daughter Beatrix threatened to end the monarchy if Juliana's husband Bernhard were to be prosecuted[citation needed].
In 1948 many were already condemned to death and waiting for their execution. Indeed there was pressure to bring back the death penalty as a normal penal instrument. Juliana probably saved quite a few lives.
If you are shocked by something "trivial" like that, you really should read into the Dutch constitutional history. Many shocks are ahead. Willem III and Wilhelmina were very autocratic personalities, not gentle and meek like Juliana. Crises were not anomalies but formed the very base on which the present unwritten rules were founded.
The Queen does not have an "advisory function" in relation to the Crown as she is part of it. She discloses her desires to the responsible minister who then decides at her pleasure or displeasure. If the ministers are weak, the Queen rules, like it often happened during the exile in London.
The word "supposed" is better replaced by "expected". She has every legal right not to sign and might have a legal duty to do so as she has sworn to uphold the Constitution. If the Queen signs an evidently unconstitutional law she commits as a person high treason to herself in the quality of Queen. This is fully in line with the original intent of the Constitution, so there is little "corrupt" about it.
The outcome of a crisis is always incertain. When the populace proves to itself it is unfit to rule it will yield to more autocracy. The present situation is an excellent example of this phenomenon. Of course the system allows for a gentle shift of balance without the need for crisis. This is why making the King purely ceremonial is such a very bad idea. The next autocrat might not be the King.
Apropos the influence of the queen (king), I read many years ago that the current queen lobbied for establishing a Dutch embassy in Jordan. I did a websearch and found the story back at nl.wikipedia. gidonb19:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the entire chapter of controversies in the functioning of the Queen is not included in the English version. gidonb20:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
My assumption that there would not have been any executions was based on misreading which queen it was about. But that was a long time ago. Of course, constitutionally, the monarch may have the right to refuse signing and in those days that may have been at most frowned upon (yes?), but nowadays something like that would not be accepted (as the Volkskrant article illustrates - maybe Kok could be cited here; "If [the monarch] would make use of the right not to sign, that would constitute a crisis"). :The monarch may be part of the Crown, but only in an advisory function. The ministers ultimately decide. The war was a special case, I'd say.
How can the monarch commit treason when, according to the constitution, "the ministers are responsible"?
Your point five is not clear to me. Are you suggesting that without a monarch there would be a risk of some dictator taking power in case of a crisis?
As to the gender-thing. I don't particularly like it, but a neutral term is 'they', which is rather accepted in English and avoids the issue completely. In this case it happens to coincide nicely with the monarch using the plural 'We, the queen of the Netherlands'). :) Although I'm still mildly in favour of 'king' and 'he' because that ony emphasizes the fact that it is not about a specific monarch. DirkvdM09:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
No more reactions after a few days. I'll try to do an edit (here and in the politics article) in keeping with the above. I made sure not to re-use the figurehead link because that must have been meant as a joke. :) DirkvdM06:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort — but it still shows some confusion. Especially the use of the word "advisory" in respect to the Queen couldn't be more infelicitous. I have tried to give a more correct description. While doing so I noticed many a silly error in the entire section, including the infamous and totally discredited "Hansje Brinker" hypothesis, so I cleaned it up a bit.--MWAK11:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read all the text above (I'd be mental) and maybe this isn't asked or already said. The Dutch queen hasn't got any political power, she only has to read new laws and put her signature under laws if the 'regering' has accepted the law. Ajox20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read text above anyway (or do not comment); there it is explained the Queen has more powers. Arnoutf05:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Capital again
Having read the discussion above I will not change anything to the article concerning the capital question. I personally still think the English definition of the word capital should be followed. Okay, the Dutch can choose what to call their hoofdstad, but the English can choose the meaning of the word capital city, right? It is an English Encyclopedia. Btw, in Belgium we speak Dutch too (without being bound by the Dutch constitution :-) ) and we are taught that the hoofdstad of the Netherlands is The Hague! But anyway, enough has been said already. What I do have a problem with is that the discussion is only on the Talk page. If you claim that Amsterdam is the capital without being the seat of government, then this has to be explained. There is a contradiction in the article now, and an explanation in the Talk page is not enough. Why not something like "Amsterdam is defined by the constitution to be the capital city, but the seat of government....". At least this provides some explanation. Or call it "constitutional capital" like in the info box. Piet14:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
What the meaning of the word is, isn't important. Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, and The Hague is the seat of the government, that's it. If we (the Dutch) want to make Rotterdam the capital, than Rotterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, and The Hague will still be the seat of the government (and not the capital). You are in contradict with our constitution, by saying The Hague is our capital – (empoor) 17:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not bound by your constitution. But the English Wikipedia is bound by the English language. Sure you can choose your capital and your seat of government but you cannot change the meaning of an English word. A minor correction would eliminate the contradiction. This article is not written for people who know the whole story of this peculiarity, the article is supposed to explain it. Remember: I am not asking that The Hague is called capital of the Netherlands, only that an explanation is given. Piet08:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well... to add some more discussion here I quote the (admittedly old) 1976 The Concise Oxford Dictionary..... 'capital town or city - head town of country, county etc.'. Nothing about seets of government in there. So a major UK English dictionary seems to be in line with the Dutch use of the word. Hope this does not start a whole new discussion as I thought the solution 'constitutional capital' is quit elegant. Arnoutf19:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I also looked up capital [[3]] in the (2006 bit more modern) online version of the Oxford dictionary and it still does not contradict the dutch use of the word as it lists: "Capital • noun 1 the most important city or town of a country or region, usually its seat of government and administrative centre.". And of course usually is not always, leaving room for the Dutch situation :-) I hope this gives enough reason not to rehash the many debates on this, and accept the current listing. Arnoutf21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The Dutch constitution sais in Article 32 that the capital of the Netherlands is Amsterdam.
the Hague is just well known because the government is seated there.
End of story.
Je maintiendrai
I think "I will maintain" is a terrible translation of the motto. Coat of Arms of the Netherlands uses the same, Order of Orange Nassau uses "I shall persevere" which sounds better but I think is incorrect. I think "I will preserve" would be better but I am not sure, we would need a native English speaker with some knowledge of French. One thing we should definitely do is use the same translation in the three articles. Piet08:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This is treated somewhere under older comments above. It appears to be a remnant of the motto of William I of Orange (Je Maintiendrai Nassau) - I will maintain Nassau, does not sound so strange. Arnoutf21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As a native English speaker and teacher, fluent in both French and Dutch, I am certain that "je maintiendrai" is most properly translated as I shallpersist. The French suffix -ai more properly reflects the mood of the English shall rather than will. Of course the problem of translating maintenir remains. It could be persist or persevere or continue or uphold or hold on to etc. However, one could not translate maintenir as maintain without specifying the subject, which was never just Nassau. Rather, an attitude or stance, of persistence or perseverance - which is to be maintained, is strongly implied here. The really lovely thing about this motto is how much it reflects the national character as well as the royal position. I think persist is probably better than perservere, but -ai should definitely be shall, and preserve would only be suitable as a loose translation under certain circumstances (Interestingly enough, this motto could also be loosely translated as "We shall overcome")Grammarqueen14:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I have always learned (as a Dutchman) that it means I shall overcome, but it seems to me to I shall persist seems much more appropriate for a nation's motto. --Soetermans21:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I think maintain is nicely seems etymologically similar to maintenir. We also have the famous Zeeland motto (Luctor et Emergo - I struggle and will emerge (or overcome)) which may subconsciously colour this topic. Arnoutf22:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Grammarqueen's I shall persevere or I shall uphold are the most correct interpretations/translations. Also considering the Dutch translations Ik zal handhaven or often simply Ik handhaaf: handhaven is the term most commonly used in Dutch language in the phrase de orde handhaven, which indeed is to be translated as 'to maintain order', but in the more likely sense of a royal authority 'to uphold Justice, the Law, the Dynasty'. The second part of the word, 'haven', is most likely an older word for 'houden' (to hold) [in some Dutch-language dialect pronounced as 'haoven'], 'hand' then refers to 'by using a hand or the hands (fight)', hence 'je maintiendrai' appears to have a clear connotation of 'I shall stand firm to uphold (values)', or 'I will persevere in upholding (values)'.
An interesting comparison might be found in the United Irishmen's oath designed in 1791: "In the awful presence of God, I do voluntarily declare thatI will persevere in endeavoringto form a Brotherhood of affection among Irishmen of every religious persuasion. And thatI will also persevere in my endeavorsto obtain an equal, full and adequate representation of all the people of Ireland." — 'I will persevere in my endeavors', or, 'Je maintiendrai'.
I know I am a little late with my reaction, but I have a little problem with this merge: as a result I feel that Judaism as religion gets too much attention in relation to it's relative size in the Netherlands. Of course it's only a few lines, but it's more than the Muslims with almost a million followers. In addition the Jews in the Netherlands article now redirects to the entire Netherlands article, which doesn't seem very correct. I am going to shorten the part about dutch jewry a little and keep the reference to History of the Jews in the Netherlands which contains all the info. I will also make Jews in the Netherlands redirect to History of the Jews in the Netherlands. Lemme know what you think. --Dengo07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Did the Holy See really condemn an entire pop?
history section
In 1568 the Eighty Years' War started after the entire population had been condemned to death by the Holy See and confirmed by the king
No, of course this isn't true. What happened was that after a bout of iconoclasmPhillip II of Spain sent Alva to reorder the country in a short time. Alva didn't want to be hampered by legal niceties, so he demanded the entire population was put under suspicion of heresy so he could arrest and question anyone at will. About 8950 persons were arrested by the Council of Troubles and over a thousand executed, most for high treason. Any religious misunderstandings could normally easily be solved by openly stating you were a faithful catholic, or, in case you hadn't been, reconverting to the true faith.--MWAK20:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed 'Constitutional Monarchy' to 'Parliamentary Democracy' in the infobox, which User:Empoor then changed back. Now the Netherlands is officially a "Parliamentary Democracy and a Constitutional Monarchy". This is too long for the infobox, I'd say, so it makes sense to choose between the two. The 'Constitutional Monarchy' bit is just confusing because it has no effect on politics and doesn't say much about the Netherlands. But, more importantly, it obscures the fact that the Netherlands is a Parliamentary Democracy, which is rather useful information, I'd say. See also the 'Political power of the Queen' thread above. DirkvdM07:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Changed it. Check it out. NielsFTalk to me.. 04:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Title of Lemma
The title of this lemma is "Netherlands". I would propose to make it "The Netherlands", like it is also "The Gambia". The term "Netherlands" without the word the word "The" is technically incorrect.
Thanks.
Michael
Fundamental changes like that have probably been discussed a long time ago. If the article is still under this name it is probably because a consensus was reached. See above or maybe in the archives. Piet09:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Geology of the Netherlands
Could anyone take a look at Geology of the Netherlands and make it into at least a good stub? There's link that will give a few hints but watch out as I don't think it's in the public domain. Piet09:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Who else in here is with me in wanting to change all mention of wooden shoes in this article into clogs. To me it seems much more appropriate seeing as they are clogs and not wooden shoes (obviously).
hahahaha
True, I'm with you.
Apparent inconsistency
This article begins:
The Netherlands is the European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is formed by the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.
But then the factbox seems to be about the "Kingdom of the Netherlands". Surely if it is the "Kingdom of the Netherlands" that is the overall sovereign state and this article is just about one component of a federation then that infobox should go in the Kingdom of the Netherlands article. I assume the Netherlands (component part) uses the same flag and symbols as the Netherlands (federal kingdom)? Iota16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Lower Saxon German Speaking countries
Recently Lower Saxon was added as official language in the Netherlands. Can someone confirm these eastern dialects are actually part of the official language lower saxon; and whether the Dutch versions are recognised as official regional language. Thanks Arnoutf15:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Now Netherlands is listed as German speaking country (together with Denmark). Except Denmark all other countries have High German as an official (regional) language. Denmark and the Netherlands a low german dialect. Do we want this category on (if so, shouldn't it be so for Canada, Uruguay and th US as well??). Arnoutf16:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Netherlands (as the European part of Kingdom of the Netherlands) and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are mixed up in this article. Shouldn't this one be entirely about the Netherlands? (see the infobox) Can they be seperated in the first place? - Ilse@09:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
motto
why is the motto in french?
Because it is. The Netherlands have a French motto, strange as it may seem. It is in fact the motto of the House Orange-Nassau, adapted from the motto of the house of Orange by Willem van Oranje-Nassau (William of Orange-Nassau). (Data taken from Dutch Wikipedia, Je Maintiendrai) --82.195.46.2411:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not as strange as it seems, the US's motte E Pluribus Unum is Latin after all and isn't the motto of the British Royals in German?Kalsermar15:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
One can note that the highest Prussian medal for valour - the Blue Max - in the First World War was called Pour le Mérite (a French name). French was the language of court in Prussia. It would appear the same applied to the Dutch at soem point.Michael Dorosh15:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Not that strange if you consider that William of Orange was prince of Orange (provence, France), raised in Brussels at the court of the Burgundy emperor Charles V, where indeed court language was French. His personal control of French was probably better than his Dutch. Arnoutf19:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Discussed at length: yes. Unanimous decision reached over what the title should be: no. In fact, in that discussion a few trustworthy sources are given that spell "The Netherlands": Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encarta. MrTroy19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There is also The Hague. So, we have The Gambia, The Bahamas and The Hague. It seems like The Netherlands is the exception to using "The" in the article name when a place is always referred to as "The something". -- Kjkolb17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
"On February 7, 2006, the Second Chamber introduced the citizens' initiative right at the national level."
What exactly is this sentence supposed to mean, could somebody either clear it up, or delete it as it doesn't make much sense on its own.
The Second Chamber passed the bill of citizen's intiative which allowed citizens to put a subject or matter on the political agenda on the national level, so that the Dutch people will have more effect on politics. --Soetermans21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Population Density
"The Netherlands is the 21th most densely populated country in the world..."
Normally it should 21st not 21th, but according to another wikipedia article: List of countries by population density AND the side bar on the left side under population it should be 23rd.
So I assume 23rd is correct?
Culture and Changes
I've replaced "21th" with "23rd" but I'd like someone to confirm it. I've also replaced the heading "art" with "Art".
I wonder about the section "Culture". Should it be there? It seems more opinion than fact. Can there be such a thing as national traits?
I agree that the "culture" section seems to have been written out of opinion instead of 'fact'. I propose the culture section to be rewritten. Rick8615:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. I think the section about bluntness should stay. You wonder if there is such a thing as 'national traits', which is a good point. However, the opposite, which would be the absence of any defining characteristic of a nation, is also equally unrealistic. I lived in the Netherlands for 14 years and can only agree with the view of bluntless. However, I believe it wasn't always so and is more a chracteristic of the babyboomer-offsping, ie people born in the 60s and 70s. Does anyone agree? Vince02:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there is bluntness (offensively meant) and directness (non-offensively meant). A nice example (from the undutchables book I think) is that when a friend turns up when you are about to serve diner asking whether it is ok for him to visit, any Duthc person may state that it is not the best time as (family) diner is being served. In any other country you would be invited for diner; this is however not meant to be offensive although it may come across as blunt. In the same vain a Dutch person probably says 'No' when he means 'no' going around social conventions in many other countries. This is no meant offensive, but is blunt to many foreigners. On the other hand 'Yes' in Dutch almost implies you have entered a binding agreement. So after you were turned down for diner by your Dutch friend, he may want to show he likes you (since his earlier utrning you down was not meant to be offensive) and may invite you to coffee next afternoon at say about three o'clock. If you agree (out of politenss and thinking to acknowledge that the Dutch man tries to solvage some of the relationship), you'd better turn up at about three because you WILL be expected (some effort is probably invested in buying biscuitts to go with the coffee). So yes a certain level of directness is part of Dutch culture, and yes it may acome across as bluntness in many cultures. But anyway I am not sure it should be treated without good references, and whether it should be under culture... Arnoutf08:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried to re-write the Culture section. It's harder than it first seems! Mine is still definitely POV, and I dunno where to put references (one is on the page). Others were my language textbook, Of Dutch Ways by Helen Conijn, Murder In Amersterdam by Ian Buruma, and parts of Postwar: a History of Europe Since 1945 by Tony Judt, and some was my experience living in a small (partially farming community) Dutch town (the plants, oh god the plants! Every single window in town is covered with plants!). The Money part needs better wording-- how much "cheapness" is actual culture and how much is stereotype needs to be weeded. The UnDutchables book is too satirical and exaggerating to really use as a reference, even though your own memories are jogged when you real an example in there.Gaviidae14:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In brief: Keep it short, there is a dedicated culture of the Netherlands article so this one should be no more than a summary. Of course language textbooks use culture as illustration, so your sources may not be the best. I agree the Unduchtables (although nice and not far off in many cases is a bit over the top). I will have a look, but please accept if I trim it substantially (because of the larger article already in place).Arnoutf14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
None taken at all, this is wikipedia; btw hope you don't think I'm being gross with the toilet section but it's damn strange to hav a shelf in the thing-- haven't seen that ANYwhere else. The verjaardagkalendar is also hilarious and seems only Dutch Gaviidae14:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, I had been looking at the culture of the Netherlands and there's no mention there at all of sambal, pinda saus, Thai vissoep... I can't eat anything here (near Gorinchem) without someone wanting to cover it in pinda saus. Gaviidae14:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I left some of it in, but you might want to have a look at Dutch cuisine although we decided not to put on too much reference to the peanut sauce issue. (French fries with peanut sauce and mayonaisse is also interesting Dutch thing I guess)Arnoutf15:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
For references use the <ref>Insert the exact reference text or hyperlink between these tags ie here </ref> tags. The correct reference will automatically appear in the references section at the end of the article.Arnoutf14:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thx,should I do that with the bicycle statistic? It's actually rather old, dunno if the cbs does bike statistics (mine were from a list of all european countries, bike usage vs inwoners) Gaviidae14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
For consistency please use the ref tags. I think CBS will have some numbers (but in Dutch); I do not think much has changed recently so older numbers should be reasonably ok. Arnoutf14:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Borders
"The current borders were formed in 1839."
I wonder if this refers to the sea border, in which case "formed" might be correct, or to land borders, in which case "set" or "established" would be better. Biruitorul06:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It refers to the land border with Belgium; the independence of Belgium was recognized by the Netherlands in that year. This ignores the fact that a part of the border was only defined in the Treaty of Maastricht in 1843, the border dispute around Baarle that ended in 1995 with the transferral of one meadow to Belgium ([5]), the situation around Elten and the Selfkant, and the (ongoing?) border dispute around the sea border in the Dollard. But those are just details. Eugène van der Pijll16:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"The reasons for the increase in height are uncertain" - surely this is merely an example of natural selection? After all, if you have a country that floods every so often, there is going to be selection pressure towards those who can keep their head above water. GreenReaper23:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Please, tell me you're joking right. Natural selection can't exert itself over such a short period of time! FD.
I swore I read an article a year or two ago about how the Dutch now have the tallest average heigth in the world (as well as highest average IQ) due to good eating habits and a good health-care system? I'm 99% sure that research has shown this, but I am honestly too lazy to go find the research right now. --Sometimes22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously good eatin' isn't the only cause of height increase. As the original AP article states, Pygmies fed the best food and given best healthcare for generations still will be Pygmies.Gaviidae10:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Pygmies have a genetic DISORDER. That is why they tend toward being small (in comparison with much of the rest of the human race). For ordinary humans without such a disorder, diet has a huge influence on height, though genetics also play a very large part. Chiss Boy13:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I want to add the part about new construction standards, but stupid newspapers don't list their sources: "Many Dutch are much taller than average. So many, in fact, that four years ago the government adjusted building codes to raise the standards for door frames and ceilings. Doors must now be 7-feet, 6 1/2-inches high." This is from the original AP article (9/16/2006, author Arthur Max) (pieces of which I've seen in a few of my Michigan AP-carriers). I added the sentence but I think technically it's unsourced (wiki-wise). Gaviidae10:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Dutch building codes require doors to be at least 2.30 meters (app 7'6.5") high and 0.85 meters wide - Dutch govt department of housing website in Dutch [6]]. This regulation was put into place from January 1st 2003 (again in Dutch) [[7]]. So here are your sources albeit in Dutch. Questions is however what this remark adds beside a trivial interest story (ps also please use metric as that is the official measuurement system in Netherlands) Arnoutf11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
One of my professors at Groningen University has studied the increasing height of the population of the province of Drenthe. I believe that he came to the conclusion that improvements in nutrition and in the health care system were the main factors in the increasing average height of the people. I'll see if I can find his study, and if it contains some valuable information for this article. AecisBrievenbus13:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That has indeed long been the most adhered to theory. What is strange though is that people still tend to grow taller; while the actual improvement in both health care and nutrition over the last 30 years or so (since 1977!) is not that big. You should be abel to find some on this theory, e.g.g by using keywords like "increase human height twentieth century" in googe scholar Arnoutf13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That might, but this is speculation and original research, be due to demographic convergence: migrant communities adapting to the national standard/average. We see for instance that Indonesian-Dutch and Chinese-Dutch youth are taller than their parents and grandparents, and are of roughly the same height as Dutch-Dutch youth. There is a marked difference between first generation immigrants and their second generation and third generation offspring. AecisBrievenbus14:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I mistyped my above entry. I only meant with the first half that we should be careful because recently there are some people doubting the mechanism (I picked some of those things up, but don't recall where).
The second part was actually a hint where you might find support for your original idea in the scientific literature; you'll get a number of articles (if your institution has access) with these keywords that link length to economic well-being. E.g. TP Schultz in: The American Economic Review, 2002 Wage Gains Associated with Height as a Form of Health Human Capital; and Shrinking in a Growing Economy? The Mystery of PhysicalStature during the Industrial Revolution by JOHN KOMLOS The Journal of Economic History. Vol. 58, No. 3 (Sept. 1998)..I have no time for reading them; that's why I only can give the titles and not make the edit. Arnoutf14:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This statement "The population of the Netherlands is physically the tallest in the world...which scientists have attributed primarily to the fact of the Netherlands having one of the best healthcare systems in the world, combined with its universal availability to its citizens" is highly dubious. The article that it links to is pseudo-journalistic and quotes "scientists" as it's main source. If health-care has an impact on height the article fails to prove it. Furthermore if health-care and height were directly related then we would simply be able to chart world health-care by height and vice versa, and this is not true. More factors are involved. I will remove this statement until further evidence can be provided. theradical 7 May 2007.
Sadly this sometimes happens; part of Wikiediting is reverting vandalism. If the vandal was the last editor, just open the entry before the vandalism in the history tab (otherwise you may want to consider other edits after the vandalism occurrence). Click on Edit for the older page, and save it; in the edit summary, just add something like: Rev vandalism by USER. You can indicate to other editors a user is a vandal by pasting a vandalism warning into the users talk page [8]. Arnoutf07:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the hints Arnout, I was a bit reluctant to revert immediately (so I reported the vandalism here first), but will do next time the way you describe it. Do you know if there's an easy way to report abuse? This particular IP address belongs to a school and has been involved in previous vandalism. I'd reckon they never read their User talk page... (I did read mine, thanks for posting your welcome template ;-)) --Brinkie09:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The warnings are as much to other editors, and to administrators so theyo know how bad the vandal is. The log of warnings is also important for admins to decide if and if so how heavily an account should be blocked. The link to the vandalism templates also tells how to report a vandal to admins with blocking privileges. Arnoutf11:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Dubious passport claim
the Dutch have a 'friendly' reputation in other countries, to the point that bearers of a Dutch passport often have relatively little difficulty getting into other countries, for visits or even for emigration purposes
This seems unlikely to be universally true, especially in Islamic countries after the recent controversy. Is there a source for this? -- Beland00:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this is unlikely, and even if it is true, then this is more due to the good standing of (reasonable neutrality) of the government, and its good contacts all over the world, leading to treaties with many governments about allowing Dutch citizens access, then the friednliness of individual Dutch citizens. Arnoutf07:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Not only the dubious claim. I don't think the extended section about religious freedom and catholic churches belongs in the Polder model.~The whole section is a candidate for a re-write. Bikerams06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Nothing special. I imagine most citizens of the West and other stable nations can travel abroad quite easily as well. I have therefore removed the unsourced statement. Have also changed the sentence structure in the passport section a bit per Bikerams - hope it makes more sense now. Feel free to change though Dennnnis12:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Frisian is NOT an official language
Frisian is not an official language of the Netherlands. I agree it is a language, and it is used officially in the Fryslan region; but on a national level it does not conform to official level standards from wiki: An official language is a language that is designated as "official" by a state, or other legally-defined territory, usually by legislation, and required in all official government communications - spoken and written. Its required uses can extend to national traffic signs, product labels, storefront signage, voting materials, driving license exams, and other official and legal forms. Many nations have more than one official language, such as Canada, where both English and French are "official"., in that legistlation and all (i.e. also outside Frisia) government communications in the Netherlands are not required to be multilingual. Arnoutf18:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
In response to the above
Frisian is actually an official language of the Netherlands
You say An official language is a language that is designated as "official" by a state,
Frisian is designated as official by the Dutch state.
Frisian is used in traffic signs in Fryslan itself.
There are products from Fryslan that have Dutch and Frisian on the labels. (buy a Frisian sausage or suikerbrood)
Here in leeuwarden there are numerous stores that use Frisian storefront signage.
There are voting bills in Frisian for those that desire them.
And yes, you can take your drivers exams in Frisian.
(personal note: Ive lived all my live In The Hagua and since a month or 2 in Leeuwarden, Friesland)
Now please for the love of all that is good and kind. Stop saying Frisian is not an official language, it is! Even though it is only used in Fryslan. unsigned by anon IP 80.57.106.58
Please do not get me wrong. If a langauge is not an official language, that does not mean it is no language. I do not say a language has to designated as official by the state, I say that Frisian is not a national official language of the Nehterlands. I agree Frisian is a language, I agree it is an official langauge in Friesland (i.e. it is a regional official language). BUT I do not agree it is an official language of the Netherlands (i.e. it is not a national official language). You will see that it does not list on the wiki page under countries with more than 1 official language. If it where a 'national' official language all national laws should be issued both in Dutch and in Frisian. Frisian is an official language IN the Netherlands, but it is not an official language OF the Netherlands. I have no objections to the current solution (I think that is a fair solution), listing Dutch as the official language and adding a footnote that Frisian is also an official language in the Netherlands. My objection was to the addition of both in the infoboxArnoutf07:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to say you'r right on this one Arnout.
I spoke about this with a teacher of Frisian (hoogleraar Fries) at my university and he said somewhat the same as what you just said. I now understand that Frisian is an official language IN the Netherlands, but it is not an official language OF the Netherlands.
To add to the above: Frisian is indeed an official language in the Netherlands, but it's only an official language of Friesland/Fryslân. The Dutch government has, along with the EU, recognized Frisian as a language instead of a dialect, but that has no effect on this particular matter. AecisFind the fish17:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yawn. Frisian is officially the second language of the Netherlands, we Dutch learn that at school. Don't ask me why, because I have the feeling that Frisian isn't more or less a language than another dialect in the Netherlands - but that's just my opinion. Ajox20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah Frisian is officially the second language but it is not the second official language. And yes it is a separate language. Please try to find arguments before commenting as that is not productive. Arnoutf05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, well at the moment the situation in the article is very unclear, since Dutch is listed under "official language", Frisian is listed in the footnotes as "also an official language in the Netherlands", while Low Saxon and Limburgish are listed as recognised *regional* languages. From what I understand of the situation, Low Saxon and Limburgish are official under a different category to Dutch and Frisian: they are recognised as regional languages nationwide, in the same way that Meankieli and Finnish are recognised in Swedish. Regarding Frisian, there seems to be ambiguity as to whether it is either:
1) An official language of the Netherlands as a whole (by implication, of equal status with Dutch) - this is confirmed by the Frisian language article ("West Frisian is one of the two official languages in the Netherlands, together with Dutch.")
2) An official language in the Province of Fryslân only.
I'll look into the matter more deeply, even though I find it hard to believe that Frisian is a nationwide official language in the Netherlands (though it could be for rather ceremonial reasons, in the same way that Irish is the first language of Ireland even though most government work is carried out in English). Ronline✉11:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Your explanation number 2) Comes close to a prior consensus (see above) where we distinguished between Frisian being an official language in (as in within the boundaries of the state) but not of the Netherlands was (as in being used for general, nationwide governmental use / being an official language of the state and government of Nl) (see above). This also fits with the Frisian Language article (that only talks about in). I agree the 3 different levels of language are confusing (official language (2x); regional language). But that is probably as close as we can get. Arnoutf11:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if option 2 is technically correct, though. The decision making Frisian official (in Fryslân, if you like) is not one taken by the provincial government of Fryslân, but rather by the Netherlands government. I think what the article is implying by saying "in" is actually that it is official nationwide. Many other sources also state that it is "official alongside Dutch", again implying that it is an official language "of" NL. Britannica states that "it is considered an official language by the Dutch government", CIA World Factbook puts it on par with Dutch without mentioning that it is only official in a part of the Netherlands (it does however mention this in the case of Basque and Catalan, whose official status is regulated at regional level). BBC calls it "the other official language" of the Netherlands. Does the Netherlands have some sort of Regional Languages or Minorities Authority that we could contact to get a precise official breakdown of the situation? Because I don't think Wikipedia is consistent at the moment (terms like "official in the Netherlands" are really ambiguous). As to the infobox: I think that the regional languages (Limburgish and Low Saxon) insertion should be removed, since they're already mentioned in the footnote alongside Frisian. At the moment, they seem to be given higher priority than Frisian. Ronline✉11:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, here are a few sources, but it seems this is a very ambiguous (but interesting) issue :S This source states that "National recognition [of Frisian] is not expressed in a special law" but that "Nowadays, Frisian has an official status in the Netherlands." The source states that the Friesland Province is officially-bilingual but that the Van Ommen Report of 1970 did not imply that this makes the Netherlands as a whole bilingual. Despite this, the issue of the Frisian language is a responsibility of the national government. This source gives Frisian as "one of the two official languages of NL", while the CIA World Factbook also lists both Dutch and Frisian as official (presumably on an equal level). So, I'm not really sure what to think. On one hand, it is evident that de facto, Dutch and Frisian are not equal, and also that, juridically, Frisian's status as an official nationwide language is not codified. On the other hand, it seems that multiple sources list Frisian as official nationwide, perhaps by virtue of the fact that its promotion is a responsibility of the central government and there is no specific law which confines its official recognition to Fryslân only. Ronline✉11:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to summarise the point as far as I know:
# Frisian is a separate (Germanic) language; with separate roots from Dutch. Hence it is officially its own language (not similar to regional languages which have traceable roots to connect them with the larger language area). Hence Frisian is a language on its own
# The Dutch central government agreed that Frisian can be used as an official language for provincial and municipal causes with the province of Frisia, alongside Dutch (note that Dutch provinces have only very little power compared to central governemnt). Hence, (1) Acceptance of the use of Frisian language remains the responsibilty of central government. (2) Frisian can be used as an official language but only within the province of Frisia.
Together this indicates that Frisian is an official language in parts of the Netherlands (but not the whole); and that it is not on equal footing with Dutch in any other province but Frisia. I am not sure about legislation, this may well be some kind of practical agreement of the Dutch govt. without legislation. Arnoutf12:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Capital section
Here then...
"(revert. Link to benin is not relevant for this section)" The contents of the removed part was about Benin being the only other country having a total split of seat of government and capital.
It is sugested that this would have to be in "capital of the netherlands" which is not the place for it, because it is about the capital, seat of government and country as a comination, and not just the capital.
It is a trival bit of information, of only one sentence, so what would be against it to add it?
Specially because 50% of the capital section in about the split... I would say information about a dual uniqe situation in the world would be very in place there...
To contextualise: I removed a reference to the situation in Benin where there is a similar division between capital and seat of government as in the Netherlands.
My reason for this removal is that the situation on Benin has no relation with that in the Netherlands, so it is a trivial fact. Because of the short length of the section, adding such a trivial fact would imply some conceptual connection between the states of the Netherlands and Benin; for example some shared legal/political history; while the occurence of these two instances is stricty coincidental. The separation between capital and seat of government has lead to extensive discussion on this page, so the general consensus is that the issues needs to be mentioned. If there is any place in an article that would be the Capital of the Netherlands article; although I agree that that article is currenlty not sufficiently developed to give the remark a ready made place.
In short, I cannot see the added value (above simple trivia, which IMHO does not warrant the inclusion) of the mentioning the Benin case. That is my reason for deletion. Arnoutf21:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC) PS Please sign your remarks using the four tildes: ~~~~
The reason for me adding it was that, as you say it, trival information was no where to be found (which countries in the world have a complete split situation), after looking it up in the CIA Factbook, I decided that it was an uniqe enough part of information to add it.
Problem here is that this would seem the most logical place to add it, but to address your concern, I could emphiaze that the situation is both uniqe and coincidential.
if that's not even enough, then there should be another section where this information can be added, where it is both findable, logic and in place.
As this small bit of information does not warrant it's own category, or even it's own page, nor does it fit in either the capital sections of both articles (benin and holland), I would see no other place to put it.
Besides this all, why would anyone thing there is any link other then coincidance? in the past west germany also was in this situation (IIRC, capital, Berlin, seat of government, Bonn, but I could be mistaking here, been 15 years)
Well I am still in favour of not adding it to the general Netherlands article. I still think a new section in the capital of the Netherlands article on "the typical division between Capital and seat of government" (or somehting similar), may be more relevant and more in place. Arnoutf07:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, in my oppinion, it would be more out of place in the capital article, then here, but to get the information atleast somewhere, I'll add it there then (reluctantly) 82.217.136.9116:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
So, what about South Africa (Pretoria/Johannesburg), Bolivia (Sucre/La Paz), Chile (Santiago/Valparaíso) and Côte d'Ivoire (Yamoussoukro/Abidjan)? Sixtus19:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't see the relevance for an article about The Netherlands, and, as you say, the line is thin. The 'split' doesn't strike me as very special either, it's just the way things have turned out in the NL historically, but there's no rationale behind it. But maybe it's that I (as a Dutchman) am used to the 'split' and quite surprised about the amount of attention this particular situation in our country has received here (especially in the past: the question whether The Hague is "also" the capital etc.). Sixtus14:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The whole thing is that I am dutch too, and I was totally surprised that it is such an unique situation when I found out, even when taking into account the very few other countries which have a "lesser" split.
I trimmed substantially in teh recent edits in the culutre section by User:Gaviidae.
I removed the whole paragraph about colourblindness as this is both unreferenced and irrelevant. Any conclusions about racial make-up are not culture but (at best) politics
At biking I removed the reference to the school bus as this is an americanocentered view. Scholbuses are not common in Europe
At the flowers section removed obsession as POV. Rephrase the section to remove POVs, and remove the Gardeing as national pastime (that is more UK than NL)
Remove ambivalent plant-flower reference. It is quit common to bring a plant for housewarming- for normal visits flowers are the thing to bring along.
Trimmed the food section as it was now confused about general influence of colonies (no example) and specific food.
Removed reference to clothing etc. That is really tourist trap stuff and was not coherently written. What there is of value to that was already in the culture of Netherlands main article
also clothing wasn't mine nor was Sri Lanka. Also, are you saying bringing flowers when visiting is a normal European thing? It's very different from Finland or the US or Mexico. Gaviidae14:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I will look back in later. I think it is pretty Dutch to bring flowers when you visit. Two different customs got mixed up though; that was my main problem - Bringing a houseplant for housewarming (or first visit to new house) is pretty customary. Bringing flowers on any occasion is too (but houseplants are far less customary on normal visits). Arnoutf14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Not so much about the recent edits but regarding the entire Culture section. Some of these edits about 'quirky' habits are dubious, nonessential and not to mention unsourced. Looks to me we're reaching the level of the Undutchables with the Culture paragraph, which may be a funny view but a satirical one and therefore not relevant to an encyclopedic article. Other satirical books like The hidden rules of English Behaviour isn't used to explain all the weird foibles the English have on their page either. I think it's therefore better to keep this paragraph to actual encyclopedic cultural subjects like art, literature, cinema, sport and media, as is the case with the other articles concerning countries.
I agree with you; on that. The culture section has been a problem for a while; my recent edits were mainly to control the overly wild speculations (so I am not necessarily in favour of the current content).Arnoutf07:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Reading it agains I even more agree, it seems more a section on National Identity or something similar than on Culture (perhaps rename the current section and start from scratch??). Dutch culture should (IMHO) list painters: Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Appel, music: Concertgebouworkest, (modern as well?? Golden Earring; triesto; 2 unlimited?); architecture and design (we are pretty big in that worldwide) Rietveld, Koolhaas, etc. literature: Vondel, cinema: (Oscarwinners) Aanslag, Karakter (ao); Sports Hockey, Soccer, Speedskating; Media: BigBrother?? Hope you can do anything with my suggestions, but I think this project will take a while anyway so I may discuss and co-edit later on Arnoutf12:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
But how will a National Identity be different from the Dutch culture page? It's hard to see what's major and minor in culture when it's something recent, but certainly "culture" is more than ancient paintings, classical music and centuries-old buildings, yes? Gaviidae08:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted
The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.
Please support me in maitaining the Netherland's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. The Netherlands deserve no less! JamesAVD15:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This user has decided to remove references to the EU from the page of every member state. See his talk page for more details. yandman15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The users above are misrepresnting my actions. Certain non-standard items have been included in the infoboxes of the pages of some European states. I have removed the undiscussed and unsupported changes and started a discussion here on the best way forward. I have in no way 'removed references to the EU'! The EU is an important part of the activities of the governmenance of many European states, to the benefit of all. That does not mean that an encyclopedia should go around presenting potentially POV information of the constitutional status of the EU in the infoboxes of states which are supposed to be standardised across Wikipedia. I'm interested in what users here feel? Please feel free to comment at any of the various pages which Kusma allocates. JamesAVD15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: even there there is no consensus. I think we should redo our province maps to fit the old greyscale maps as they now also deviate. See examples current province mapsMpas consistent with grey municipalities and netherlands mapsArnoutf14:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Just curious, where does the 2.4% Germans come from? Anyone that has a link? It's not that I doubt it, the number would seem correct according to my experience, it's more that I've never have heard this percentage mentioned before. Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 02:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Navigation templates
Am I the only one bothered? Why is it needed to post six navigational templates at the bottom of the article? It takes up more than a screen here and it, in my opinion, is useless junk. In the event someone is interested in the EU-countries or current monarchies, why whould'nt he/she visit the category associated with that? I think it's ugly and absolutely unnecessary (especially the countries on the Atlantic template, that's way too big and isn't a commonly used way of grouping countries together). Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 02:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the templates about countries bordering the Atlantic Ocean and the one about Current Monarchies, too far-fetched for me. What's the bleeding point of adding them anyway? Aren't categories better for this sort of use? Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 02:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Great; Very good idea, I saw the navigation thingies at the bottom and looked around on other pages (I found it e.g. it on the Croatia (where it even more of a mess and not at all informative). Actually the Netherlands article lists a template countries on the north sea as well as a category. Again over the top... In my opinion the recent option to have hidden templates did not imporve the article as all restraint about adding a ridiculous number of templates seems to have disappeared. The list of templates now takes up the same amount of space the older ones (unhidden). I think we could do with countries in Europe alone for this page. I agree the rest should be in categories. Arnoutf14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Polder model
I think the sections on religion, "pilarisation"(I assume, verzuiling) and the Polder Model have little to do with eachother and propose separating them.
I also propose that the section about protestantism, catholicism and Jewery be moved to history or have their own section "religion" where the development of religious tolerance and freedom can be documented better. Think it is an idea to discuss it first though... Bikerams11:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
When I made the edits to that section this morning I was thinking along similar lines (but had no clear idea how to). There is some similar ground (not pushing an issues but smoothing it by discussion (and denial)). As I am not a huge fan of short sections, I would prefer to come up with another name for the section. But I agree that polder model does not cover the content. Arnoutf11:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the section dealing with the Polder Model itself can be brought under the section dealing with coalition governments. The part about pillarisation would probably fit here too. This would leave the rest of the section dealing with religion which is more at home further in the article where all the religions in NL are dealt with. Bikerams17:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I would not separate pillarisation from religion as they are fairly closely linked (ie politics: KVP, ARP etc. /media: KRO, EO, NCRV, VPRO) Arnoutf18:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, status quo till we can think of something else then. Though if read carefully, a lot of the information in this section can also be found other parts of the article. Bikerams19:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Politics: present
The present part about politics states that the economic reforms of Balkenende II/III have been very unpopular with the voters, and that they are now leaning towards the more left-wing parties. This might have been true a year ago, but all recent polls have been showing the left wing to be losing the elections again and the CDA is gaining in popularity.
Feel free to edit this and other articles accordingly! I'd advise you to wait until the election results, there'll probably by an overhaul of this and many other Dutch politics articles after the election. C mon11:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The recently added sections Conservatism and Racism are no Demographics. If we decide to keep those they need to be encapsulated under a new header (e.g. Outlook on societal issues or similar) Arnoutf22:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
imho they can go. They offer no new information - some of it is repetition of points already mentioned. For example. How many times do we need to read in an article how tolerant the Netherlands is and how many times do soft drugs have to be raked up as an example of this tolerance? The section about racism is also imho largely pov. Bikerams06:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Weird
Shouldn't it be noted that non-Dutch people commonly belive the Dutch to be the weirdest people on earth? You could start by citing Austin Powers in Goldmember.--68.149.181.14523:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
No, a single movy (especially a comedy) is not a source to defend the phrase 'commonly'; if you think can make that claim please provide scholarly articles (antropology or sociology peer-reviewed published). Arnoutf00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Goldmember didn't even mock the Dutch appropriately. Besides, everyone knows the Icelanders are considered the weirdest, followed by Americans. Dutch is only #13. Gaviidae08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Racism
There are several issues about the section dealing with racism that I'd like to address before we go any further. It is claimed that the moslim community is complaining about racism. What is the moslim community exactly? who are they?... is this every moslim that lives in NL or just moslims from the Middle East and North Africa? Do moslims from Surinam have problems with the rest of Dutch society, do those from Indonesia? I think the section is one big sweeping generalisation that is offensive to most thinking people in the Netherlands regardless of their origins or beliefs.
The reluctance to assimilate .... does that (yes, here we go again) refer to ALL moslims (no matter where they are from) or just those from the Middle East and North Africa?
The next point that I have a problem with in this section is the so-called shaking of Dutch tolerance since the murder of Theo van Gogh. I asked for a citation to prove this claim and an editorial (therefore, somebody's opinion) from a Los Angeles paper is provided. Hardly concrete proof I would say. Are there any Dutch surveys we could quote which make these claims?
Secondly I would question how "tolerant" we as a society really were before the murder of Theo .. What was the whole Pim Fortuyn thing a few years earlier about if we were so tolerant.
I agree - delete-most is unsourced; and highly Turk-Marocan muslim POV. Furthermore most of the content of the section is about religion not race. (e.g. the burqa issue). Arnoutf09:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I also agree.
In regards to the use of the word 'tolerance'. Maybe it's also an improvement to replace the characterization 'tolerance' with 'social libertarianism' or 'libertarianism' or similar. libertarianism is the political and I think the more objective term to describe the policies regarding individual rights like gay-marriage, euthanasia. Whaddaya say? Dennnnis14:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I would find it acceptable to have myself described as a liberal (also in a political sense). I would be offended if some one described me as a libertarian as this would mean that I advocate unbridled freedom(s). Libertarian(ism) has negative connotations to me. Bikerams16:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I have the feeling I should say that not all Dutch are racists - though many of them are. Some of them hate Germans, some of the all black people, some of them all people from Turkey and Morocco. But there's a big part who isn't racist at all. Ajox20:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This section was removed from the article based on above comments. Please read the article, not only the comments. Arnoutf05:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Neighbouring countries template
Recently at the bottom of the page the neighbouring countries template was added. I think it should be removed for several reasons. First of all, it looks very amateuristic; why would we want 2 figures of Armillary spheres on this page? Furhtermore it oversimplifies the situation With the relatively simple geogprahic location of the Nl it is not that bad, but look at what happens in a more complex case such as croatia. Finally the whole template is not more informative than "The Netherlands neighbour Belgium in the south, Germany in the east, and the Northsee north and west" If nobody objects I will remove it in a few days. Arnoutf10:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It does make navigating from country to country much more simple. The situation for Croatia or even Germany isn't that messy (imho). If it is deleted, then that would make NL an exception. Bikerams11:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes Nl would be an exception, but that is because the creator of the template has been putting them up all over the world in the last two weeks Swiss is discussing it since. The cross navigation is a fair point though (although I would not use it it may be useful for some). Still looks ugly though. Arnoutf11:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi all I removed the Developed Countries template. This template is not informative; all the objective information (HDI GNP etc) is already in the CountryInfobox on the top of the page. This group of countries has only limited coherence, so adding this template is in my opinion a waste of space, and confusing rather then informative. Arnoutf18:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Although we must beware of overtemplating I think the history template should be returned: it is as logical as the politics template. This article has a long section on it, and there is a good template for it. C mon23:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Arnoutf has a point. I'm not that familiar with en.wp's policies on this issue, but I think in general templates, especially ones this size, should be used only in the beginning and end of the article to improve readability and accessibility for text-only browsers and such. This sort of templates should imho be used on main articles for the subject, so History of the Netherlands and Politics of the Netherlands in this case. By having multiple templates aligned on the right, first the infobox, then the History template and the Politics template, the text occupies even more screens. Furthermore it reduces the ability to differentiate with the layout, especially the placement of pictures, in the article, making it look messy to me. My two cents Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 01:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
My main problem was that when I opened it in a brwoser set at smaller than full screen the templates started to appear in columns making up about half of the available space. Is there a possibility to make 'folding' versions of the templates such as the navigation one at the bottom and the hidden version of the table of contents. In that case I would change my opinion and be actually in favour of adding templates to all relevant subsections. I am not sure whether this is possible though? Arnoutf08:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposed WikiProject
In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on the Netherlands at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Netherlands. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker16:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Slochteren
The following is false:
"Slochteren has the largest natural gas field in the world"
I know it has been discussed, but that's been over 1,5 years ago and one of the things I noticed is the lack of Dutch people in the discussion. Some Dutch feedback would be appreciated this time. On top of that, it seems it wasn't really an unanimous discussion.
Ask any dutch person about their country and it is "the Netherlands". Not because of how it is said in a sentence, like the United States, but simply because that's what the name of the country is. You only see the use of Netherlands in lists where it is easier to have it in order under the N.
I think it is very similar to the United States of America (after all it is the evolved form of - the seven Netherlands - just as the United States also is a group of states). The problem is the English language here; in Dutch the term is Nederland (single) while the English form is Netherlands (plural). In Dutch you will never talk about het Nederland or de Nederland but just Nederland. So I would say the Dutch would not be the best to judge this as it is an English language issue. Arnoutf18:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
1) As a fellow dutchman, I have to agree with Arnoutf that the Dutch are not better equipped to judge this matter.
2) JackSparrow Ninja wrote: "You only see the use of Netherlands in lists where it is easier to have it in order under the N" - This is exactly the problem solved by keeping it under "Netherlands". Wikipedia is after all an encyclopedia of sorts. I am guessing, but I'm pretty sure one would find "Netherlands, the" under N in any English language encyclopedia.
3) What's the problem anyway?? Anyone looking for the article who types "the Netherlands" in the search is correctly redirected as is anyone clicking a wikilink that is named the Netherlands
Please be aware that in the Dutch language, the name of the country is simply 'Nederland'. in English 'the Netherlands' with definite article and plural is normal. Also in French it's 'les Pays-Bas' but also e.g. 'aux Pays-Bas' (thus usage as in English but the language's grammar demands variation: correct 'aux' = faulty French 'en les', English in the). But for alphabetical ordering, N resp. P are far more common. Since Wikipedia has a general rule on not putting a definite article at front of a title even when such is common for that title, we should not confound users and leave the title 'Netherlands' (of course the opening sentence of the article states the name with the definite article). On the French Wikipedia it has the title 'Pays-Bas'. — SomeHuman19 Jan2007 23:24 (UTC)
User:MarkThomas recently switched maps, arguing the new one was in line with other EU-countries. User:NielsF reverted this edit. It seems to me MarkThomas' argument is valid. I invite both of you to discuss the issue here.--Dengo20:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, changing all the countrymaps with the argument this is consistent (which it is because you just changed all the others) is a circular argument. The question should be whether the European maps should be changed; not whether someone already did. And as NielsF correcly mentions above, the discussion has not ended and it is therefore not more than polite and good manners NOT to change the debated issue untill it has Arnoutf09:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think some perception of gentlemanly behaviour should be our guide always - the needs of the Wikipedia user come first. At the moment Netherlands is virtually the only EU country not to be displaying the new base map. I agree this is being discussed at Wikipedia Project Countries, but the discussion there is going in the direction of world base maps, which amounts to the same thing extended. Let's harmonise it just to make the infoboxes of all EU countries smart and informative and not be Nederlande-Centric! MarkThomas10:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree the needs of the Wiki users come first; however arguments about EU needing a separate colour, whether the new maps are an improvement, etc etc. ALL doubt whether the new maps are for the best interest of the Wiki-users. So there is no consensus whatsoever that the new maps are an improvement for the user. Hence I think the only way to prevent edit warring is indeed Gentlemanly behaviour.
Again about the display; if I take 15 minutes all EU countries would again be displaying the old maps. That is really not an argument.
My criterium would be; that on the vast majority of talk pages (in lcuidng the wiki-countries project) a consensus has been reached that the new maps are an improvement (I know that has not been the case on Luxembourg), nor on the country project.
Finally I would like to be world centric, rather than EU centric or Nl centric. The old grey-green maps truly distort the shape of the Netherlands in a terrible way; so YES to higher resolution map, but than I prefer a version of the User:Rei-artur[9] .SVG maps over these. Note on the Country project page the argument that the SVG (vector) format is vastly superior for these kind of maps over bitmap (PNG) formats for technical reasons. Arnoutf12:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
having read the arguments, I tend to agree with Arnoutf and Niels. Particularly the fact that the issue of using the EU-map is still being debated is very strong. Without wanting to open that whole discussion here, it is my view that an EU-map suggests (incorrectly) to overseas readers that the EU is a federal state like the US or Germany. In addition I find the 'new' map plain ugly - it is not usual for Europe to be represented on a Mercator projection. Anyhow, I propose we keep the 'old' map, unless someone, besides MarkThomas, delivers a very convincing plea for changing it. --Dengo16:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The EU's political importance and influence on member states is ever growing. Most laws that go to member states parliaments are based on EU directives nowadays. Most of its members have abolished borders for most purposes and have a single currency. For overseas readers, a title or legend could be added, explaining that the light shaded surface represents the EU. In any case, the old map is so ugly that almost all European pages have stopped using it. The fact that the pages on non-European countries still use the old maps is because no-one has yet designed similar or better maps for other continents. Adopting this map for all European pages could at last push the contributors to non-European country pages to also design such maps for their continents. As such, Europe would have a pioneering role. If we stick to the old map and wait for the discussion to end, we might still have the old map in 2008. Luis rib23:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The abolishment of the old map is more due to proponents of the new maps inserting them then as the consequence of a discussion.
One of the arguments not to use the EU maps is indeed that that would create inconsistency. I think your argument that it could push others to design new maps is an interesting argument that has some value (as far as I can see it has not been presented in this way on the discussion so far). One problem here is the Copyright that David Liuzzo reserves for his maps. Another alternative, (that is (IMHO) better because simpler are the maps by Rei-artur) has been released into the public domain.
This leads to the next point. Many editors agree that the old maps are ugly (but not all do!). However also many editors agree that the colour scheme, the detail level of rivers and mountains on the new maps is even worse. Thus there is not even consensus the old maps are actually uglier than the new ones.
In that debate I think it may well take a long time to come up with consensus; and yes that may mean the old maps stay up for a while. However, as there is no consensus the new maps are an improvement that is just bad luck for those wanting to place them. Arnoutf09:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries
On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps. As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:
whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option. There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman19 Feb2007 00:46 (UTC)
As wiki is not a democracy and the vote 18(old)-25(new) is a clear sign of a divided opinion; the only conclusion from all exercises above is that there is no consensus on the map issue. Arnoutf17:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What map to use
There are now four locator maps available for the Netherlands:
Classic map series
Rei Artur map series
Europe location series
EU location series:
In spite of heavy (and heavily debated) polling in the wikiproject countries talk pages; there is no clear consensus which map to use.
There are some reasons to use the Europe location series: It is much more detailed than older maps. It is put up on most EU pages
There are some reasons NOT to use the Europe location series for the Netherlands: It is overly detailed, Scandinavian countries are distorted due to used Mercator projection, the Meuse river is not on the map, while that one is much, much, much more important compared to many rivers that are shown (e.g. all of the Swedish rivers), it is built in server heavy PNG format; it is being pushed by fanatic supporters who put it up everywhere without edit summary or arguments on the talk pages (I know this is the same argument as the argument in favor...)
The alternative Rei-Artur series has some advantages and disadvantages: Pro: It is not overly detailed, but much more so compared to the old maps. It used .SVG image format. Con: Detail levels are not always precise (e.g. IJsselmeer).
As there is no consensus in the project, I think we will have to decide here what to do for the Netherlands. I would like a consistent outcome over all countries, but the discussion at countries has ground to a stalemate. Arnoutf17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Map legend in German
I can accept many things but have very very major problems with a linked in map legend that is primarily in German, with English translation; at least I cannot accept that on English wiki. For the Dutch locator map I would accept legends with only English; or multilanguage legends that have English and Dutch, or even Turkish, or Arab. Any reference to such a legend is clearly POV pushing and should be reverted. Arnoutf21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Minor suggestions
I am of Dutch origin, and I think the text under the map showing different cities is wrong. It sais the black spots show larger Dutch cities, but I believe it to be culturally or economically relevant cities. (Delfzijl for example has less than 30.000 inhabitants).
Second, the text mentions the saying: "God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands". This however is not a Dutch saying for the only people to use it are not Dutch.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.242.186 (talk • contribs)
Please add new talk subjects at the bottom of the page (which I did in this case).
I half agree with you; Delfzijl. Isn't Delfzijl the second largest city in the province Groningen though? Because if you look at it, every province shows at least two cities.
I also half agree with you comment on the proverb; I have heard it in Dutch once or twice along the lines of "God creeerde de aarde, behalve Nederland, dat deden de Nederlanders zelf", however I would hardly call it a proverb. How to call it? I am not sure. Oneliner / statement / joke? Arnoutf11:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry!
It is plaudible a logical reasoning like was used in the selection of the towns to be displayed, good point.
That's enough for me, I was under the impression this remark was only used by Anglophones. I think the name remark would be the most appropiate name.
These were only minor points only to be processed when a better alternative was to arise.
I was wondering why this article doesn't stand on "The Netherlands" with a redirect from "Netherlands". "The Netherlands" is the proper name of the country as far as I know. Atilim Gunes Baydin01:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Important membership and alliances is standard mentioning in almost every country article. EU has highest priority among these. Lear 2112:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I added some of those to the last section on international bodies; as I tend to agree they should be mentioned.
Note however that while your request has value, your reasoning why it should be included is seriously flawed - Either it is standard (ie on all, or by an explicit standard - which there is not), or it is not standard; in this case it is therefore not standard. - EU has highest priority - again, who says, seems a point of view and should be phrased as an opinion not a fact. Arnoutf13:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
There is probably no doubt that the national involvement in EU and vice versa is more complex and deep than in
any other organization. Considering this it leads to the highest priority among others. Lear 2115:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Now that IS a good argument; and I agree EU is important enough for intro (was just asking you to be slightly more careful and specific as the kind of this is so talk page arguments may spark an unwanted and unnecessary edit war ;-) Arnoutf18:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Reworking current map legend
Since this seems to be a point of some dispute I am willing to rework the German-English legend to either a Dutch-English or English-Dutch legend for use in this article. Please state which you would prefer, I prefer English-Dutch as this is still the English wikipedia, but either works for me.
Before reworking the image I will post the suggested translations I come up with so any language changes can be made before I upload. --Noira22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks I do not have the graphic skills. I would suggest an English only version as that can be universally used for all European countries on English wiki. Arnoutf00:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a fair point and it would require no additional translation work. I'll try to get an English-only version of the legend done ASAP (possibly this night). If after that there is high demand for a bilingual version one can be made aswell. --Noira00:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
English-only version of the legend is now up and linked to from the main article. Hope this finally settles the legend 'battle' that has been going on for a while :) --Noira01:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add citation needed tags inside the infobox, it is full enough as it is.
Is the lion the national animal of the Netherlands. This is slightly complex. Here are some of its meanings Leo Belgicus, the Lion of the 17 Netherlands became the symbol of the revolution during and after the Dutch revolt. The Dutch coat of arms depict the lion of the house of Nassau. The highest civilian (medal) order is the order of the Dutch lion. For all of these refernces can easily be found. Is ti essential to add them in the infobox? I think not. Arnoutf14:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't have a national animal. The fact that it's often depicted on coats of arms is does not make it a national animal. If we were asked at gunpoint, we might come up with a lion, but it could as well be a Frisian cow. I say delete.--Dengo21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer the Lakenvelder but we might also consider the Korenwolf or the Oostvaarder plassen Zeearend. But skipping the kidding, I think when forced to give a national animal most people would indeed give lion. But if asked the question 'what is our national animal' it would most probably evoke more of an '.....euhm......., well if any.... tis probably the ......euh.... lets say lion'. In other words I agree, and as most other countries don't have it in their infobox. Lets delete. Arnoutf22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Infobox length
I think the infobox is getting seriously overfilled. This to a level that it is no longer informative. Right now this box (on my screen/browser) spans about one and a half to twice the height of full screen. I am pretty sure that has never been the intention of the box.
I think we need to bring the length of the box back to about one screen height maximum. Do you people agree??
If we agree on this, that will imply some content has to be removed. Personally I think the box could do without: ethnic groups, regional languages one of the two GDP numbers (that are basically highly correlated duplicates). Of course these information should not disappear altogether from the page, it can be taken up in the relevant sections of the main article. Arnoutf08:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Chiss Boy 13:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Classic map series
Rei Artur map series
Europe location series
EU location series:
