Talk:Netherlands/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Largest cities

I have created a template for the Demographics section: Template:Largest cities of the Netherlands. – Rubenescio (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice initiative, few comments though. Data are outdated (Utrecht has welcomed its 300,000 inhabitant late 2008).

The template is too big to take up in the running text; so I would not be happy if it was added to the Demographics section (it may go to the footer).

Do we really need to give a top-20? Zwolle only has slightly more than 100,000 inhabitants (which is tiny in international context). In the Netherlands we are always discussing the big 4; or occasionally the top 10.

How does this relate to other countries (e.g. the US artice limits its list at 10 (iwht #10 much bigger than Dutch #1); UK has 20; EU has only 5). How many do we want/need. Arnoutf (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Arnout. I used the values from List of cities in the Netherlands with over 100,000 people and the structure of Template:Largest cities of India. Would it be a good idea to use India#Demographics (from featured article) as an example for this article? It is more compact and easier to read. Rubenescio (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Some additional data from Statistics Netherlands on User:Rubenescio/notepad. Rubenescio (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Few remarks again. The 20th city of India has about 2 Million inhabitants. Also, this template was not present at the time India became a featured article, in fact during the last review of featured status of India it was not there; so I think we should be a bit careful about that quality level in regard to this specific template.

In any case this template requires substantial rewriting/integration of the sections Urbanisation, Randstad and 10 largest cities. Arnoutf (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have used the data currently available in the Statistics Netherlands database and restricted the list to cities with a population over 150,000: Template:Largest cities of the Netherlands. Rubenescio (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

States-General

The article refers to 'House of Representatives' and 'Senate'. Are these terms actually used in Holland, or is it just an American inability to comprehend the wider world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam1930 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"House of representatives" is never used, but I wouldn't mind the translation. It's called "Tweede Kamer", "Second Room" in Dutch and because it's where "the action" is, just "de kamer" (The Room") is used as well. "Senate" is used ("Senaat"), but it's more commonly referred to as "Eerste Kamer" ("First Room"). Joepnl (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the translation, they are not verbatim translation but capture the idea best for people not intimately familiar with the Dutch situation. Arnoutf (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Official Languages

In the list at the right side it says Dutch is the official language with a footnote saying "West Frisian is also an official language in the Netherlands, although only spoken in Friesland". How about we simply add Frisian to the official list and eliminate the footnote. There's enough info in the actual article to clarify the situation. Guus Hoekman (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed in some detail before. The problem is that Frisian is a language "in" but not "of" the Netherlands. Including it higher up would erroneously imply the latter. I.e. laws and official government communication are always in Dutch; local use in Frisian is another thing. For example Belgium has French, German and Dutch as official languages meaning that all laws have to be given in all three languages. Frisian does not have this status.

In my opinion the only other option is to remove the footnote altogether and let the article speak; placing it high in the infobox is no option. In that light I prefer the current situation. Arnoutf (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the footnote to reflect that Frisian is official in Friesland only, but not on the national level. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

This section contradicts Delta Works, which says the project ended around 1997. This section says 2002.) TheUnixGeek (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article (section Delta Works) contradicts Delta Works, which says the project ended around 1997. This section says 2002.) TheUnixGeek (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The slapping of a tag on this article was in my vies a gross overrepresentation of a very minor issue. Slapping tags on articles should be a last resource to warn readers for major problems; not something to do for fun. A tag in itself is in my opinion almost always seriously damaging an article, so the problem should be rather big to warrant such harsh measures.

First of all, I challenge there is a "contradiction" at all. This article states "largely completed in 2002". The Delta works article lists the project as a series of major constructions, the last of which was in 1997. If we consider maintenance, modernisation and wrap up that would fit the story of this article (as that may easily run for a number of years after the last completion).

Secondly. In the Netherlands we do indeed distinguish between the "Delta works" (physical objects, the last/latest of which completed in 1997) and the Delta project, which includes ongoing maintenance, operation and improvement of this infrastructure. This article carefully acknowledges that investments in the sea protection - i.e. the project - are "largely completed". Hence the both articles are talking about different issues: The physical construction (Delta Works) vs the coastal protection project (Delta project).

In other words, there has not been, nor has ever been a clear contradiction.

Nevertheless I would advocate to take a clearer date in this article; an completion of the Maeslandt kering in 1997 seems relevant. Therefore I adapted the text. Arnoutf (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Native name infobox

The native name of the Netherlands is called "Koninkrijk der Nederlanden" in the infobox. That's a bit confusing, if you consider that the Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. The subject of this article however is the country Netherlands and not the Kingdom. Wouldn't it be better to change it into "Nederland" / "Netherlands"? See also nl:Nederland and nl:Koninkrijk der Nederlanden.--Totie (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Netherlands is the name used by the Netherlands proper on that level as well. The Charter of the Kingdom says that the Netherlands (as one of the three countries) is ruled by the provisions of the Constitution. That document also uses the name "Kingdom of the Netherlands", as do the authorities of the Netherlands in it's communications. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

recent edits by anon 41. ip's

The recent "edits" by several 41... IP's are reinstatements of text removed/edited in collaboration long ago. Notable is the orange map, long replaced with the current green one. If the anon wants to make contributions, this is the place to discuss. If not; revert edits as vandalism. (telling detail making it likely the anon ipdoes not aim for improvement but merely likes to be a vandal: the anon inserts a semiprotection template, which, if active, would ban anon ip's from editting this site) Arnoutf (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Dutch Renaissance"

This link is false and misleading. There is no such article. The word Dutch is separately linked to Netherlands, and the word Renaissance gets the reader to a picture of Michelangelo's David. The reason is of course that no such style as "Dutch Renaissance" exists in Sweden.--dunnhaupt (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Languages

Under the section Language there is a reference to the spoken languages in the Netherlands. The source relating to this is very outdated and not even available anymore, and is incorrect. There is alternative information available in the Dutch Wiki page nl:Talen in Nederland. This information states that 87% of the Dutch population speaks English. Burpeey (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to update. Arnoutf (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In the netherlands we only speak dutch dumb ass - Greets a guy from the netherlands--87.209.18.147 (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a (n implicit) contradictio in terminis such a statement in English ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Population

{{editsemiprotected}}

Incorrect population.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Countrymaster (talk • contribs) 12:04, 28 October 2009

 Not done Please provide a source , and explain what you think it should be changed to. AJCham 12:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect population

{{editsemiprotected}} Countrymaster (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done See above what AJCham said. Please provide source if you want changes to be done.  Ilyushka88  talk  09:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect population

{{editsemiprotected}} Countrymaster (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Still  Not done See above what AJCham said. Please provide source if you want changes to be done.  Ilyushka88  talk  09:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect population

{{editsemiprotected}} Countrymaster (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The current population is 16,715,999.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nl.html.

This is the only correct population.

CIA World Factbook information is July 2009 est. while the information we have on this article is from October.  Ilyushka88  talk  09:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the most recent numbers.  Not done  Ilyushka88  talk  09:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox numbering

Hi, the little numbers in the infobox don't correspond with the numbers at the bottom of the infobox, because the [1] refers to the bottom of the page and not the [1] in the infobox.

Also the translated motto is "I shall stand fast"[2], but at [1] (which is supposed to be [2]) it says: "...,the latter word meaning "to stand firm."" 82.169.112.106 (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The word "Dutch"

The following text is in the lead section:

The word Dutch is used to refer to the people, the language, and anything pertaining to the Netherlands. The difference between the noun and the adjective is a peculiarity of the English language and does not exist in the Dutch language. Dutch is derived from the language that was spoken in the area, called 'Diets', from which the German as well as the Dutch language comes.

In that last sentence, does the first word "Dutch" refer to the language or to the word itself? In the former case, we should probably change the last part of the sentence into "[...] from which the German language developed as well.", and if it's the latter case, it would be better to explicitly mention "The word Dutch is derived from [...]" 195.241.69.171 (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Good observation. there is indeed a subtle ambiguity. My understanding was always the latter one you presented. However, they are not mutually exclusive. Now, that you pointed my nose on it, I think both interpretations are valid and true. So perhaps we can come up with a formulation the unambiguously makes both statement. But first we should establish consensus about what is true and needs to be said. Any more opinions? Tomeasy _{T C} 09:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be the latter, i.e. "The word Dutch..." User:Krator (t c) 12:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And why do you think the former is wrong? Tomeasy _{T C} 10:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right that both are true, but it's the latter thing the paragraph wants to express, i.e. clarify the language of "Dutch/Netherlands," it's not a paragraph on linguistics. User:Krator (t c) 22:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If both are true, the best wording would be one that states both facts clearly. Tomeasy _{T C} 06:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Je maintiendrai

I see some changes to je maintiendrai in the recent edithistory. I note that Merriam-Webster defines a translation of this term. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

maintenir could be translated in a lot of ways: carry, persevere, stand, bear, endure, persist, tolerate, sustain, reserve, support, maintain, provide for, preserve, conserve, guard, shield, protect, keep up, hold up, continue. Cheers--Antiphus (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

first sentence

The very first sentence of the article:

The Netherlands (pronounced ...) is a constituent country in Northwestern Europe of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, comprising the majority of its territory.

just doesn't make sense. Would someone who does understand it, please translate it into English. Repagers (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In which way doesn't it make sense?

The Kingdom of The Netherlands consists of The Netherlands and some islands located in the Caribean. Jarkeld (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've simplified the wording to: 'The Netherlands is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, located in Northwestern Europe.'

Does that read any better? -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience.

1) The uninformed reader (unaware of the technical meaning of "Kingdom of the Netherlands"--that it includes Aruba & Netherlands Antilles) thinks he is being told that the Netherlands has a monarch, and that the Netherlands is part of the Netherlands!

2) His puzzlement is then attracted to the unfamiliar use of "constituent", leading him to wonder if that has a technical meaning.

I suggest

The Netherlands (pronounced...) is a country in Northwest Europe. The Netherlands, together with Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles in the Caribbean, constitute the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

This usage of "Kingdom" is unfamiliar to British readers. The "United Kingdom" does not include the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands, or Gibraltar, or the Falklands, &C.

Repagers (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I can live with your proposal. You are probably right that it is easier to understand. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox: Kingdom of...

Am I missing something (some archaic consensus?), or shouldn't the "Kingdom of..." be removed from the infobox of this article so that it just says "Netherlands"? The Kingdom of the Netherlands is surely the right place for that appellation, not this page? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that you mentioned this; I was actually planning to ask the very same question a few hours ago, but you beat me to the punch. This article—and the infobox's data (e.g. the population only covers the European country)—is only about one constituent country of the Kingdom, so it seems reasonable to just have 'Netherlands' or 'The Netherlands' in the infobox. Hayden120 (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange to have such a bigger on a country article. Thanks for pointing it out. I change immediately, because I do not expect a dispute on this. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Who's the head of government

Lately, I talked to a Dutch person, who is quite knowledgeable in general. I was explained that the monarch (i.e., the Queen) is the de jure head of the government, while the Prime Minister takes this role only de facto. I was very surprised to hear this and could not believe it. Of course, I was not provide proper references as you would expect on Wikipedia ;-) Curiously, I was told the same about the UK by an Englishmen.

Now, I see that this article clearly supports my initial understanding: "The head of government is the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, [...]". However, I have problems to believe that it was all utter nonsense what I was told.

To the people editing this article, I guess (and hope) this question is a piece of cake. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sure the Queen is the head of state. Not so sure about head of government; or whether we even have one. The prime minister of the Netherlands chairs the meeting of ministers, but as a primus inter pares. Arnoutf (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps it is indeed not formally defined, which is probably close to the answer to this question in the UK context. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What we learn in school is that the government consists of the Cabinet and the Monarch. We call the Prime Minister the "regeringsleider", which means "leader of the government". A leader does not necessarily have to be the formal head of the government, and I'd say the Queen is indeed the head of government if you understand "head" in this way (the Dutch translation of this word, which would be "regeringshoofd", is not used very often). All acts of parliament and royal decrees are signed by the Queen, and all formal authority of the government to govern derives from her. In this day and age, ministers are responsible for all things done by the Queen or in name of the government, though. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Addition: after doing a Google search I discovered that "regeringshoofd" (head of government) is only used in relation to the Monarch. This function is in several articles distinguished from "regeringsleider" (leader of the government). Some interesting quotes:

Een inburgerende medelander die zich onze grondwet wil eigen maken, moet wel denken dat in ons land de koning de baas is. In 55 van de 142 grondwetsartikelen komt hij ’Koning’, ’koninklijk gezag’ of ’Koninklijk Besluit’ tegen. Dit is gevolg van het feit dat Thorbecke de Koning niet alleen representatief staatshoofd maar ook regeringshoofd heeft gemaakt – naast de premier als regeringleider. De grondwet zegt: ’De regering wordt gevormd door de Koning en de ministers’ ? de Koning staat voorop. Het Statuut van het Koninkrijk is nog explicieter. Daar heet het: ’De Koning voert de regering van het Koninkrijk.’ Ons staatsbestel loopt dus over twee sporen, dat van de parlementaire monarchie en dat van de constitutionele monarchie. Om de voorkomen dat de staatstrein zou ontsporen heeft Thorbecke een wissel ingebouwd: ’De Koning is onschendbaar; de ministers zijn verantwoordelijk.’

— Source

Daarvoor is nodig dat de koningin uit de regering wordt gehaald, die ‘de motor van het staatsbestel’ is. Regering komt dan samen te vallen met de ministerraad, zoals dat in de meeste landen het geval is. Er is dan niet meer naast een regeringsleider een regeringshoofd. Wanneer de koningin uit de regering wordt gehaald, wordt deze ontdaan van een niet democratisch te legitimeren component.

— Source

I have no time to translate it now, but both say the Queen is indeed the head of government. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems convincing to me. But confusing too. We have a head of state (staatshoofd): the monarch. Besides that we have a Head of Government (Monarch), and a Leader of Government (Prime Minister). The latter as primus inter paris.

In the Dutch discourse Head of State and Leader of Government are frequently used, Head of Government hardly ever. So I am not sure we should emphasise this position. Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers.

Do you think we should make something about the current statement "The head of government is the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, [...]"?

Dit is gevolg van het feit dat Thorbecke de Koning niet alleen representatief staatshoofd maar ook regeringshoofd heeft gemaakt. I do not know what or who Thorbecke is; is this a blunder? If we can find evidence for this statement in the Dutch constitution, then I think we should use it. Furthermore, it would be nice to find such evidence for regieringsleider. Then, we could enhance our article with precise statements and sources. Tomeasy _{T C} 06:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Thorbecke. Glatisant (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thorbecke is important in Dutch parliamentary history, but internationally not very well known.

I am not sure we should expand on this. My feeling would be to remove the statement altogether (as the terms are hardly ever used in practice). The alternative would be, of course, to get it right. So either remove, or explain correctly. Arnoutf (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the Dutch constitution. Unfortunately, it does not even contain words such as regieringsleider or regieringshoofd. So, the statement for which I wanted to find evidence (Dit is gevolg van het feit dat Thorbecke de Koning niet alleen representatief staatshoofd maar ook regeringshoofd heeft gemaakt) seems nothing more than an opinion/interpretation. Thorebeck did not explicitly introduce these terms in the constitution. The opinion of a journalist, IMO, is not enough to justify statements that will be understood as constitutional.

The constitution says the following about the prime minister: "De minister-president is voorzitter van de ministerraad." This might be used as a reference for a statement such as "The Prime Minister is the chairman of the cabinet". In the case here, we must not use government instead of cabinet for ministerraad, because in the Netherlands the monarch is part of the government, too, but not part of the ministerraad, which is the body the prime minister is chairing (i.e., vorzitten). Tomeasy _{T C} 08:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion, which is logical because of the transition to a constitutional monarchy has lead to some peculiar things. It is true that the Queen is head of state and also the head of the Dutch Government, but is stricly a formal role. The Government consists of the Queen and all the senior ministers. And then you have the Cabinet, which consists of *all* the ministers, also the junior ones, but not the Queen. And last but not least you have the Council of Ministers, which only consists of the (senior) ministers. This council is the true executive of the Netherlands. The Prime Minister is the primus inter pares and is actually acting as Head of Government. He is the leader, the chairman and figurehead of all the ministers. That we Dutch officially call the Queen the Head of the Government (but not Council of Ministers!) is misleading. But the Prime Minister is still acting as a 'Head of Government' as it is used by global consensus, so he should also be referred to as such. Just because the Dutch make a peculiar distinction between Government and Cabinet should not change this. Another example is Spain: the Prime Minister of Spain is called the Presidente del Gobierno, literally President/Chairman of the Government. But we never say President Zapatero or Chairman Zapatero: it's always Prime Minister.Thorin (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I follow you almost all the way. To the point where you introduce the term "Head of Government" and state that the Dutch PM should be referred to as such "by international consensus".

First of all, while "government head" is internationally often used for a PM in a monarchy, the situation that the Netherlands has named the Queen "Head of Goverment" makes in the Regeringhoofd (lit Head of Government) is defined in the Dutch system and is the same as the Monarch. Using this phrase for the PM would be confusing (at least) and untrue. Of course if you provide a higly reliable tertiary source that explicitly argues that the English term "head of government" can be used in the Dutch context that would overrule my opinion (per WP:truth). Such source should not be the colloquial use of the term in e.g. a newspaper article, but should explicitly address the topic of naming the Dutch PM the head of government in English, in spite of the Dutch use of that term for the Monarch. I.e. you have to provide an source that explicitly extends international consensus to the specific Dutch case.

Secondly "should be referred to". I think the whole issue is easily solved by dropping the specific term "head of goverment". We can simple say that the Dutch PM is the leader of the Goverment, chair of the cabinet etc. All these terms are legally true, while it conveys the same meaning to the reader. Why would we go into the complexities of ill-defined terms, if we have perfectly usable alternatives. In other words, we should not refer to the Dutch PM to an unclearly defined term (in the Dutch context) such as Head of Government. Arnoutf (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that you are a fellow Dutchman :) I tried to look for a source, but I could not get one quick. But, our constitution defines our Prime Minister as chairman of the Ministerraad (Council of Ministers), and states that the Council is responsible for Government policy. Our wikipedia page about Head of Government defines this position as "chief officer of the executive branch of a government, often presiding over a cabinet." We both know that our Prime Minister is fulfilling that role, as he is the leader of the Cabinet and the Council (see above post of mine for the 'subtle differences' :P). We in the Netherlands (almost) never use the phrase 'Head of Government'. We could of course change all references on wikipedia from 'Head of Government' to 'Chairman of the Government', but I am afraid that is just a silly semantic issue. Just because our word 'hoofd' is translated into English as 'head', doesn't mean that 'Head of Government' translates back into 'Regeringshoofd': of course the latter is the literal translation, but a translation that stays true to its original English meaning would be 'Regeringsleider', which is one of the titles of our Prime Minister.Thorin (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason this may all become very confusing is that our word "staatshoofd" does translate one to one to "head of state", but our word "regeringshoofd" (ie the role of the monarch in the government) is a non-existing function in most other countries where our word "regeringsleider" closely resembles "head of government". All very confusing; so I would try not to use the term unless absolutely essential to prevent confusion. Arnoutf (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion: so in articles that are specifically refering to the Dutch prime minister, we should perhaps call him the Leader of the Government: everyone knows what that job means. In articles that list the people in the European Council, we place him with the Head of Governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorin (talk • contribs) 14:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In Amsterdam weed was legal and they would let you smoke and they would have a lot of freedom for you to have and isn't that a great thing for u guys? Am i right or not? Because i know you guys out there that like to smoke weed want to go over there and have a great time out there and have fun with your friends and much more!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.123.213 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm from the Netherland, Holland, The land of the Dutches, Nederland, Pays Bas, Low Lands, The (United) Kingdom of the Netherlands (prefer this one), or how you would call it.

Her majesty the Queen, Beatrix Orange, has just a few roles, she doesn't rule the Netherlands by herself directly, or this country will be a autocraty of a aristocraty or something else with one leaders. The Netherlands is the opposite in fact, it is a democraty with a parlement. We have a prime minister who controls our parlement and government and who represents them. Together as one the people chooses her candidates of the parlement, they make the laws (the Queen will place her signature on the proposition when she is ok with it). We have a Trias Politica, this system is originally from France, where they got a republic after revolution and kicking their Louis the 14 from the throne.

The Queen has some roles in our parlement, but doesn't control it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.87.203.48 (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Religion

The figures on religion don't add up, or are unclearly explained. 39% of the population has 'some' religious affiliation, comprising 26.3% Catholic, 11% Protestant Church of the Netherlands, 6% 'other' Christian, 5% Muslim, as well as some Jews and Buddhists? This cannot be explained by overlap, or a difference of a couple of years. These all clearly come from different sources, and even use different significant error standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.167.223 (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Kingdom of ... or simply the Netherlands

"Among other affiliations the country is a founding member of the European Union (EU), NATO, OECD and WTO."

I was reading the article about the Kingdom of the Netherlands and if the unreferenced claims in that article are true, it is the kingdom which is member of the EU and UNO, and therefore probably of the other international institutions as well. Obviously, the Netherlands is the overwhelming part of that Kingdom, but yet they are not identical.

Now, I know for sure that within the 27 member states of the EU just one Dutch state is contained. Hence, we cannot write on both articles that their subject is a member state. My feeling is that the present article errs. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I think it is the Kingdom article, not this one that is wrong. The Kingdom consists of The Netherlands (country) Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles.

Aruba and the Antilles have their own parliament, their own goverment and their own currency (not Euro), and are (as far as I know) not part of the Schengen area. This means that at least in some part they are different from European Netherlands in relation to the EU. But I think their citizens were allowed to vote for the EU parliament.

There is only a limited set of affairs that are dealt with at kingdom level Charter_for_the_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands#Affairs_of_the_Kingdom.

Of course we need to figure this out in some detail. Arnoutf (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's all true. You can see in detail the EU regulations that apply and do not apply for Aurba and the Antilles here. This article tell us -- as does the Kingdom article -- that these two countries are OCTs in EU lingo. The situation is comparable (while having in mind that all these cases differ somewhere) to the Faeroe Islands and Greenland, which was part of the EU before they decided to leave the union. This step, however, did not change the fact that (The kingdom of) Denmark is a member state.

The Kingdom article sounds quite reliable to me with respect to the UN issue. On the EU issue, however, I'd like to place a fact template. I will try to find a EU treaty and see which one is the member state. I guess this would be authoritative. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I cite from the Treat of Rome:

"Article 227 1. This Treaty shall apply to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands."

Also the article Member_State_of_the_European_Union#List recognizes correctly (?) that the Kingdom is the member state. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok sounds convincing, although it all still feels a bit a shade of gray.

Anyway, how to take it from here. I think this (Netherlands) is much more frequently visited then the Kingdom page, so I would (in this special case) suggest the relevant information to be duplicate on both.

I think the most problematic line would be "Among other affiliations the country is a founding member of the European Union (EU), NATO, OECD and WTO. With Belgium and Luxembourg it forms the Benelux economic union." this one from the lede (and some similar lines from recent history).

How about rephrasing the line above as:

The Kingdom of the Netherlands representing its constituent countries is a founding member of the European Union (EU), NATO, OECD and WTO. With Belgium and Luxembourg it forms the Benelux economic union.

Would the work? Arnoutf (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that eventually we would have to mitigate the issue along the lines you describe. The Kingdom article is much less frequented and does not appear as the article concerning a sovereign state as the present one does. Obviously, I would not want to change all this, even though I currently have the feeling that most of the time The Kingdom of the Netherlands is meant when Wikipedia articles link to The Netherlands.

However, I am myself not yet 100% sure that my working hypothesis is true. So, before we go and make a lot of changes, we might want to see what others think and collect more facts. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure the articles intend to link to the Kingdom, I think most people think about the European part when linking to the Netherlands, quite similar to United Kingdom cf Falklands and British Virgin Isles; and to some extend like France (although France is much clearer about its overseas territories).

But indeed, let's wait and see what the exact status is. Arnoutf (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Treaty of Lisbon equally states "The Treaties shall apply to the Kingdom of Belgium, [...], the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, [...]"

One more thing. Even if we figured out that wrt the EU, it is the Kingdom, that does not apply that the situation is the same wrt the other organizations.

With most of the links, actually, I just meant those links wrt to memberships in international organizations. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that we have this discussion over and over again. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is the sovereign country and is a Member State of the United Nations and the European Union. If a Prime Minister or Foreign Minister of the Netherlands signs an international treaty, he does that in his capacity as Kingdom Minister, and not as Minister of the Netherlands proper. International treaties are ratified by Kingdom Act (Rijkswet), and the rules regarding such ratifications is laid down in a Kingdom Act as well (Rijkswet goedkeuring en bekendmaking verdragen).

Article 14 of the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands specifies that the Netherlands proper can conduct Foreign Affairs for the whole Kingdom if these affairs do not affect Aruba or the Netherlands Antilles. Only when joining an international organization does affect the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba are these constituent countries involved in the drafting of a treaty (see Article 27 Charter) and in its ratification process (Rijkswet goedkeuring en bekendmaking verdragen specifies this in more detail).

What affecting means is specified in Article 11 of the Charter:

Article 11

1. Proposals for the amendment of the Constitution containing provisions relating to Kingdom affairs shall affect the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.

2. The defence of Netherlands Antillean or Aruban territory, and agreements or arrangements relating to any territory within their sphere of interest, shall be deemed to affect the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba respectively.

3. Foreign relations shall be deemed to affect the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba whenever the particular interests of the Netherlands Antilles or of Aruba are involved, or whenever arrangements are contemplated which may have significant consequences for such interests.

4. The determination of the contribution to the expenses referred to in Article 35 shall be deemed to affect the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba respectively.

5. Proposals for naturalization shall be deemed to affect the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba only if they relate to persons resident in the Country concerned.

6. The Government of the Netherlands Antilles or of Aruba may indicate Kingdom affairs which affect their respective Countries other than those mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4.

If Aruba or the Netherlands Antilles do not want to be part of an international agreement that affects them, they can opt-out (Article 25 Charter). Articles 26 and 28 of the Charter specify that Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles can accede to international organizations. The government of the Kingdom is obliged to help them with this:

Article 26

If the Government of the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba communicates its wish for the conclusion of an international economic or financial agreement that applies solely to the Country concerned, the Government of the Kingdom shall assist in the conclusion of such an agreement, unless this would be inconsistent with the Country's ties with the Kingdom.

Article 28

In accordance with international agreements entered into by the Kingdom, the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba may, if they so desire, accede to membership of international organizations.

Summarizing, this means that legally speaking only the Kingdom as a whole can enter into international agreements, but that in everyday practice it is the Netherlands proper that negotiates and ratifies treaties in name of the Kingdom. Only if an international agreement affects Aruba or the Netherlands Antilles they can either join the agreement or opt-out (they cannot stop the Netherlands from negotiating such an agreement for the Kingdom). The Kingdom can on the request of Aruba or the Netherlands Antilles negotiate treaties for them (for example CARICOM membership or the Franco-Dutch treaty on Saint Martin border controls). Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mandatory languages in secondary school

Ok, apart from the very low level secondary schools, here's a source for French and here's one for German. For English you'll just have to believe me :) Joepnl (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source in itself. So your sources do not count.

This [1] however, is the official site of the Dutch government which states that:

At HAVO VWO (higher level secondary eduction) during the first 3 years (onderbouw) English is mandatory as well as 2 additional modern languages; which includes French and/or German; one of which maybe replaced with Spanish, Russian, Italian, Arabic, or Turkish

At VMBO (lower level secondary eduction) during the first 2 years (onderbouw) English is mandatory as well as 1 additional modern languages; which usaully is French or German; but maybe replaced with Spanish, Arabic, or Turkish. In special programs the second modern language is not mandatory.

This only partially supports your claim. Arnoutf (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Arnout, for your quick and reliable action. I think this should be added. Even though, the story becomes a little bit more modest, it is nevertheless remarkable: At least two foreign languages for almost all (I guess) pupils, and even three for a good fraction of all pupils. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that VMBO accounts for about 60% of all secondary school students (no good source, should look for it)of which about 1/3 is in a program that has only English mandatory. So basically the split would be something like 40% 3 modern languages 40% 2 modern languages and 20% 1 modern language. Need to find a source for VMBO numbers though. Arnoutf (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Made an attempt, please have a look. Arnoutf (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, both you and Arnout are right and the article should be changed. BTW, let's leave it up to the reader to guess why Arabic and Turkish are allowed replacement languages and for example Chinese is not :) Joepnl (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Arnout, from your original post I understood that 0% of the secondary school students will have had less than two foreign languages. In your second post, however, you estimate that about 20% have just 1 foreign language. What am I misunderstanding? Is it the temporal perspective, i.e., at least 2 foreign languages during some--but not all--VMBO years? Or is it something else? Tomeasy _{T C} 21:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we know how long the onderbow takes? Tomeasy _{T C} 21:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph ended with a reference. You added a sentence just before this reference. Should the reference not be moved ahead of your sentence? Actually, I am not quite sure what this reference serves for anyway. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence after the reference that you introduced is now ineligible. This part had been two sentences before. I guess, something went wrong there unintentionally. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tried to fix language issues.

Bovenbouw (upper part) is last 2 years, allowing for specialisation in fewer topics. Onderbouw (lower part or junior years) depends on school type. For VMBO this is 4-2=2years. For HAVO it is 5-2=3 yrs, and for VWO it is 6-2=4 yrs.

Difference in posts: I thought it was two languages besides some exceptions; the catch being in the line "[for VMBO] In special programs the second modern language is not mandatory." which I copied from the government site in my first post. However after some more background reading it loks like about 1/3 of VMBO education is such a "special program"; which makes it a sizable group (i.e. 1/3 of 60% is about 20% of all). Hope this clarifies, both article and discussion Arnoutf (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. Tomeasy _{T C} 23:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Frigate

There is a discussion on the Frigate article which editors here may be interested in. 88.106.74.35 (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Area below sea level

At the bottom of this article it notes that 26% of the area is below sea level, not 20% as stated on Wikipedia. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/14/benny-peiser-houghton-ipcc-apology 69.108.2.230 (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Borders

Just a comment. When linking to the "Germany" reference in this article, the map that is represented does not show the outline of the Netherlands. Moreover, it seems to include the Netherlands in Germany. ref: "File:EU-Germany.svg" Just searching about the Netherlands during the World Cup. May it be an exciting game! July 9th, 2010. Chauncey02 (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC) USA

Sorry, I did not get it. Is there anything wrong with the article, are you proposing a change? 08:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess what he/she tried to say was that the Netherlands as shown on the file doesn't represent the country as nice as it could be. Furthermore, as the Netherlands have previously been defeated by Germany in a soccer game, he/shy was probably hinting it would happen again. As we all know the Netherlands made it into the finals, whereas Germany stayed behind, but that is besides the point of the article. 93.125.198.182 (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The same map is used on Germany and Netherlands, just that different entities are dark green. Indeed, I see a problem with these maps, i.e., Flevoland is missing or indicated as sea. Is this what this section is about? Where is the border problem? Tomeasy _{T C} 07:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed a problem as Flevoland is about 3-4% of the Dutch landmass. Relatively that is about twice as large as each of Florida (compared to the USA) or Cornwall (compared to the UK) or (Corsica compared to France). Can you imagine what would happen if these countries were depicted without these territories, although in proportion only half as bad as what these cartographers did to the Netherlands. On top of that, the Wadden Islands are missing altogether and a large area east of Zeeland is also pictured as flooded (about up to the line Dordrecht-Breda). The problem appears to have started when someone changed this File:Blank map europe.png rather acceptable .png map into this File:Blank map europe.svg .svg trace. The damage to our country is worse than that of the North Sea flood of 1953 (which a.o. did not influence the Wadden Islands) Arnoutf (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you know if we can solve this problem by editing just one map? Or would we have to touch all maps that are derived from the base map? I guess the base map is used at least about 30 times on the different country articles ...

I still believe the initial poster meant something else, but as long as they don't call again, I wouldn't know what to do. Anyway, the problem about the "major flood event" is an issue, too. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Header "Dutch Republic 1581–1795"

This is a level 4 header (====), it should be a level 3 one like the other segments of history. 195.241.69.171 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and it should be made consistent with 1.2 French domination (1795–1814)—either both of them have no brackets or both of them do. 195.241.69.171 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox: Constitutional Monarchy

At present, the infobox lists governmental type as "Constitutional Monarchy". Other European democracies that have constitutional monarchs list their system as "Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy". These include the UK, Spain and Denmark. I propose it be changed here as well - I did make this change, but it was incorrectly rolled back as vandalism. Any comments would be welcome. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was not a WP:Rollback, I simply reverted you. Whether or not this was incorrect might be subject to whom you are asking ;-)

For several days, a long discussion is ongoing here (Talk:United_Kingdom#Parliamentary_System), and you are part of this discussion. As long as consensus has not been reached there, I simply urge you not to align with your position all other country articles applicable to the issue. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken. This edit wasn't a result of that discussion and I think you need to re-read the rules about assuming good faith in other editors. It just happened that I was browsing all of the constitutional monarchy-democracies to see what it said on other states. The infobox here is clearly incorrect as it says that Netherlands government type is a constitutional monarchy - this gives a misleading impression - most of the other cm/pd countries state that they are Parliamentary democracies and Constitional monarchies. I just noticed that this was incorrect in passing and fixed it. It still needs fixing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is constitutional monarchy "clearly wrong" as you say on my talk page while, at the same time, you are running through the articles to impose everywhere the version Parliamentary democracies and Constitional monarchies [sic], so apparently declaring this as "clearly correct". If the latter is so perfect, the former can hardly be clearly wrong.

I also disagree that all countries whose political systems are similar enough so that you observe them as identical must have the same declaration in the infobox. I see little use in this "consistency".

Once there is a conclusion on besaid talk page, I would be fine to implement any of the two versions here, but to me your action appears like edit warring just on another article. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? Where exactly have I been "edit-warring"??? Please indicate to points in my editing history where I have been edit-warring, or blocks in my block log. When you find some, come back and confirm. You won't, because there isn't any. I haven't been edit-warring. I have been involved in a discussion. Your other argument is confused. I haven't "run through articles imposing" anything. There is one article (Netherlands) that is totally different to all similar countries. You need to explain why you think that's right, not come up with vague statements about consistency. Looking at your other edits and comments here, I think the problem is that you think you own this article. You don't. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, on Norway you re-reverted me. But I did not mean it in the sense you understood. I meant that you are aware that the UK article should not be edited with respect to this topic. While knowing this you did edit on another article. I agree, this is not edit warring in the sense of 3RR. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring is not just about 3rr and you also were not referring just to these edits - you have implied that the edits here were part of some edit-war by me at the UK article - this is absolute nonsense. You also keep shifting the basis of your arguments. I suggest you re-read the policy I've shown you on your talk page, get some sleep and come back here tomorrow a bit more clear-headed. This is nothing to do with United Kingdom. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you that this here is the talk page about the Netherlands. If you want to continue raging about my nonsense, do it at my talk page (but it will not be appreciated).

You could reply here to the questions I asked two post above. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason I am referencing your behaviour is that above you said "you are running through the articles to impose everywhere the version Parliamentary democracies and Constitional monarchies [sic]" - this is absolute nonsense. I am not "running through articles". I alsotried to raise it on your talk page and you said to bring it here. You need to stop playing games. I made an edit to two articles. I edited a mistake in Norway, which is explained by me in the talk page of that article and which you are edit-warring over. Your explanation of why is that "you prefer" it the other way. I made an edit here in Netherlands which you don't like but don't bring forward any justification to challenge. At the moment, the article claims that the government of the Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy. All other articles for European countries that have CMs also say they are Parliamentary Democracies. I ask again - what is the reason why Netherlands is different? If you can't say, then it should be changed. This article is not run by you alone. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes require justification agaist challenges raised. Your justification "everyone else does it" is very weak. A reliable source for the Dutch situation of course would be a justification. Arnoutf (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, use my talk page to complain about me, use the Norway talk page for your arguments regarding that article.

Since you (James) know about the deep discussion involving may editors at the UK article on whether the UK may be described as a "parliamentary democracy" or simply as a "parliamentary system", I find it very insensitive to add exactly this declaration at this very moment to the Netherlands article, especially while you are thinking that all EU constitutional monarchies are using the same government type, so while you are thinking the issue here is the same.

Why don't we wait until one dispute is solved, and then we see whether we want to give a dual declaration to the "government type" label. When we will be at this, then I would like to discuss what is actually meant by government type, does I mean the same as "political system", or is it talking about government in a more specific sense, neither legislative nor judicature. Then I would like to discuss whether we want to provide two possible answers because they complement each other or not do so for different reasons. But wouldn't it be better to wait for one battle come to a conclusion before fighting the same thing through on other articles. Just for the record, I believe that the Netherlands is a parliamentary democracy. However, I hope I made clear the procedural and content-wise reasons for which I contest this addition here and now. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nederland in nl.wikipedia.org - government type query

I don't speak Dutch, so I need to ask people to check this. Re: the discussion above. Please see the Dutch Wikipedia version of this article [2] and look at the infobox. The government type (NL: Regeringsvorm) there is given as "constitutionele monarchie - parlementaire democratie". I assume this means, in English, "Constitutional Monarchy - Parliamentary Democracy". Please correct me if I am mistaken. I assume the Dutch editors of Wikipedia know more than anyone about this subject. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your translation is correct. Jarkeld (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jarkeld. Do you concur with me that this article should contain the same basic descriptions (translated into English) in the infobox for government type? It can't be right that they are so fundamentally different - clearly the Dutch editors have it right. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it should. It is mentioned in the Dutch version, at [3] and I've been taught in school we are a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. Jarkeld (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Euhm yes, but nl.wikipedia is not a reliable source, and what I have learned in school is not verifiable (I learned the same ;-). Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability. As I have said in all posts above, James, show me a reliable source that calls the Netherlands (explicitly) anything other/more than "constitutional monarchy" and I am happy to change. But please stop synthesising what we should call it based on your own inferences and ideas as THAT is unacceptable even if you are right. Also note that wikipedia is not a democracy and core policy (surch as WP:V) trump every possible majority. Arnoutf (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So now we have two editors who think the Dutch version must be right and two who object. I am going to get on to sources, you will just have to be patient. You are also wrong about the use of Wikipedia. I am not suggesting Wikipedia is a source. Wikipedia often has elements of consistency between articles on a similar topic. This is particularly true of infoboxes, as I am sure you know. For example, many national infoboxes contain the same elements, without having to place a source against every infobox element that proves it. However, at present, if your source is "correct", then the Dutch Netherlands infobox is wrong and if you are a good Wikipedian Arnoutf, you should go over there and change it. Good luck with that! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are we having a third thread now on the same topic? I propose to abandon this one and focus on the one above (which was already too much when initiated). You cannot expect people to answer your issues three times.
Of course, we will be patient. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, this is a different topic - comparison with the Netherlands article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Dutch article isn't sourced and at the Rijksoverheids site they use the term constitutional monarchy [4]. The CIA uses that as well. So technically the Dutch page should be corrected. Jarkeld (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

See above Jarkeld - there are loads of sources that say it is both. The ones I show are just as strong, or stronger, than the CIA factbook - for example, the official description of the Netherlands government type by the US State Dept, which is the US foreign ministry. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Politics of the Netherlands

This article needs to be aligned with Politics of the Netherlands, which states in the lede that "... the politics of the Netherlands take place within the framework of a parliamentary representative democracy, a constitutional monarchy and a decentralised unitary state... " At present, this article says that the government type is "Constitutional Monarchy". Clearly this is insufficient description. By way of example, other EU constitutional monarchies like Spain, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, use "Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy". I propose we rectify this article to have an infobox in line with these other relevant articles and in line with reality. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree the opening section of politics of the Netherlands is full with unsourced claims and weasel words. That needs to be aligned with this!

"At present, this article says that the government type is "Constitutional Monarchy". Clearly this is insufficient description." Why is this clear? Reality is a "constitutional monarchy with ceremonial powers for the monarch except in formation of new governments; with a bicamerial parliament of which the lower house consists of 150 members that are elected every four years (unless government crisis leads to early elections) on a 1 person 1 vote system; the higher house of 75 members is elected indirectly through provincial elections every four year." And this is of course a gross oversimplification.

Norway is disputes as you well know, so it is unfair to list that here.

Rectify implies the other articles are "right" and this one is "wrong". Simple question. Show me the evidence, the reliable source that qualifies the Dutch system as "Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy" and you are in business. Without source, there is nothing to rectify; you want the change, you provide the source. Arnoutf (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

CIA world factbook doesn't prove anything - it uses the phrase "Constitutional Monarchy" for all democracies with crowned heads of state. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So you have actually found a source that shows that you are probably not right. Thanks for that, I'll keep waiting for a source to your claim. Arnoutf (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are responding to the argument with an irrelevant point. I am not arguing that the CIA factbook reference doesn't exist. It doesn't prove that "I am not right". It simply terms every constitutional-monarchy country as a "constitutional monarchy". Wikipedia can go further and explain what the government type is in the infobox element for "government type". Clearly it's more than just a CM. The CIA factbook reference is irrelevant to this. Also not clear Arnoutf why you are getting so personal - I am curious about your POV here. Is it that you don't like people who are not Dutch editing this article, or some other reason? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The official FAQ page of the Dutch government also calls it "Constitutional Monarchy" and nothing else ([5] in Dutch). So we now have 2 sources that can be considered reliable that do call it "Constitutional Monarchy" and nothing else. Arnoutf (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I provided this source. It is kind of the first obvious candidates to look up, and I was really not selective. I can imagine there is a good reason for them not to use the label "parliamentary democracy" (PD). Whether or not a country is a democracy is often a question of debate; perhaps less for countries like the Netherlands, but we all know many debatable examples. In the case where a compendium covers all countries (e.g., the factbook or Wikipedia), it is on much safer grounds with formulations like "constitutional monarchy" (CM) or "federal republic". They are undisputed for all countries. Of course, we may still decide whether we want to play it so safe or whether we want to look up reference that would back up a more daring statement. Still, I believe that it may also bear fruit to analyze what "government type" actually means? CM is perhaps more a state type, while PD is a government type - just speculating. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Dutch government (by Dutch constitution) consists of the council of ministers and the monarch; in which all governance decisions are under responsibility of the ministers. The government is controlled by the parliament (the states general), but (again according to Dutch constitution) members of the government (ministers) cannot be members of parliament at the same time. So I am not convinced the specific phrase parliamentary democracy would cover the specific situations of the Netherlands fully. But indeed, let's wait what sources say. Arnoutf (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's absolutely true. Even though many people confuse these concepts, the parliament and the government are two very different things: one is legislative and the other executive. It just happens in many countries that the separation of powers is not rigidly imposed by the constitution and parliamentarians are allowed to be ministers at the same time, and then it happens quite regularly. Anyway, parliament and government are very different.

Nevertheless, i can imagine that when you use the term "government type" you mean something more general in the sense of "political system". Tomeasy _{T C} 18:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

None of which demonstrates that Netherlands is really much different from the other modern european constitutional monarchies, all of which incorporate various mechanisms involving the monarch in limited decision making. Interestingly, Constitution of the Netherlands further confirms that the Netherlands is constitutionally a parliamentary democracy in it's opening lines - of course Wikipedia is not a source, but this is another article you will both need to substantially change, as at the moment neither of you accept the Netherlands Constitution, so you will need to edit other Wikipedia articles to fit your arguments. I quote from the opening lines of that article... "The Constitution of the Netherlands is the fundamental law of the European territory of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The present constitution is generally seen as directly derived from the one issued in 1815, constituting a constitutional monarchy. A revision in 1848 instituted a system of parliamentary democracy." I wonder how many articles will need to be changed so that you can refuse the one change I did to the edit box here without first (silly me) checking in with the two of you that it's OK? Better start work! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No it does not shown anything BUT we have no reliable sources for the government form of the Netherlands that calling it anything but a constitutional monarchy. As you well know Wikipedia is not a reliable source and besides interpreting the line from that article "The present constitution is generally seen as directly derived from the one issued in 1815, constituting a constitutional monarchy. A revision in 1848 instituted a system of parliamentary democracy." could as easily be PD under CM as CM and PD.

I am no saying you are wrong, I am not saying that some form of consistency is bad. But I am saying that (if challenged, which TomEasy has) each and any text has to be supported by a reliable source. You can argue what you want, but your task is to provide a reliable source for the Dutch situation. Without such source there is not much to talk about. Arnoutf (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

James, you really misunderstand how Wikipedia works. It is not that we have to walk through every article and change them, because they are not in line with this one here. If you observe such inconsistencies, what you can rather do is to ask for reliable sources to back up the differing statements. Since here, we have such reference, you might want to add {{cn}} tags in the unreferenced articles.

Also, nobody has yet said that PD is completely wrong. I am just arguing that t this point it might be wise to state the safer term CM for which the Dutch government and the CIA give evidence.

You wrote "at the moment neither of you accept the Netherlands Constitution". How can you say this. A quote from the Dutch constitution would be most authoritative. Just provide it and you are in business. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, spent some time now on proving the obvious that the Netherlands is a parliamentary democracy. Here are some useful references to support the infobox statement that the Netherlands is a parliamentary democracy as well as a constitutional monarchy.

Reference 1: (US government official site)

US government site [6] - to match the use of the CIA factbook. The US State Department who are the responsible US government body for foreign policy.

Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

Background Note: The Netherlands

"Government Type: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch. "

Reference 2: (UK official parliamentary journal)

UK official Parliamentary journal. [7].

Journal of Parliamentary Affairs, Vol 57, Hansard Society 2004 "Overview of Parliamentary Democracy"

Page 73

"The entrenched nature of democracy in, for example, The Netherlands, can be seen from the fact that it has had parliamentary democracy since 1848."

Reference 3: (quality British newspaper)

The Guardian [8] 3 August 1999.

"What ever happened to the Kings and Queens of Europe?

"The Netherlands

The Netherlands is a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch, Queen Beatrix."

Reference 4: (academic journal)

Legislative Studies Quarterly [JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/pss/439677] III, 1 Feb 1978 Page 11 para 3.

"An Analysis of Consociational Democracy"

"Quoting "The Politics of Accommodation" by Lijphart, 1975"

"There has been a stable democracy in the Netherlands since 1848".

If we need more, I am happy to research further. However, this appears to be sufficient to change the infobox. I would suggest a paraphrase of the wording used in the Guardian article, "Parliamentary Democracy under Constitutional Monarchy". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see you write under now. I am fine, if you turn monarchy into monarch, provide the first of your references, and add it to infobox. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "Parliamentary Democracy under Constitutional Monarchy" sounds fair, I would source it to the US govt site. This also fits with the structure and content of the Dutch constitution which first mentions that it is a monarchy, and then that the parliament is the principal governing body in the monarchy. Arnoutf (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I think "Parliamentary Democracy under Constitutional Monarchy" is OK though and not "monarch" - in English, just to explain, "monarchy" refers to the system and "monarch" to the individual - we are talking about a system of government here, not a reference to the Queen specifically. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, the monarch is a person. And that's who the English-speaking sources put it. Perhaps it is kind of strange to say that one system is under another one, while the monarch is head of state and as such on top, also on top of the monarchy. Just one possible explanation to the consistent wording of both references that talk about PD and CM. Why go against? Tomeasy _{T C} 19:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's why the other european cm/pd country infoboxes use "and" and not "under" and why I was therefore challenging the Norway usage. The issue is just one of language and I would guess that as English is not your first language - and I don't mean this in a nasty way - it is a little difficult to get the sense of this. In English, "Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy" is better, because it gives the sense of a multi-part system. English speakers know that a "monarchy" means both a system and an individual head of state/monarch. They are used to seeing it written this way. The State Dept source, uses "under" - this is also possible, but slightly more old-fashioned. "And" captures the modernist feeling of it - everyone says that the Netherlands and Scandinavia have the most modern monarchies. So do you see now where the "and" comes from? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is a bit confusing. The phrasing "Parliamentary Democracy under Constitutional Monarch" is rather clear to me, the system is a parliamentary democracy, but its leader (i.e. the one the rest serves 'under') is a hereditery monarch that is controlled by a constitution. Replacing "under" by "and" does not do this any justice as the word "and" implies two systems operating in parallel. So no I do not see where the "and" comes from. And in any case we are not at liberty to freely change sourced information to our wishes because then we loose any support the source originally gave. Arnoutf (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Be sure that I understand the difference in both statements.

We may argue whether or not we prefer the touch given by the version used in the sources. There is certainly something for it. Under, as I explained on Talk:Norway, is more descriptive as the neutral conjunction and. Bringing in the personal monarch instead of monarchy may fit better with the chosen conjunction. Perhaps there are even different reasons why the sources worded as they did. In the end, however, we are planning to put a source next to the statement, so it is just logical to use their version. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's true that so far I haven't located a source for "and". I think it's just assumed - the monarchs of all the modern European monarchies are no longer "in charge" but are either figureheads or "involved but not authorising". I think this is why, regardless of the precise way in which sources are worded, "and" is more widely used, because it conveys that sense of it not being subservient to the democratic system. However, I do accept that Norway appears to be a little different, because the King is still directly involved in decision-making, at least partially. Not so in the Netherlands, at least as far as I understand it, which is more like the UK. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That is your original research. Why do that while we have a clear source. I would even contest your point of view. I understand the queen's role exactly like that: authorizing. But I do not understand why we need to argue? Tomeasy _{T C} 06:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I want to have an argument with you Tomeasy, or do original research. I am generally in favour of having infoboxes say different things for similar situations only if there really is a difference. Do you have some material about the Queen's role in the Dutch constitution that shows she has a more authorising role, than say, the Danish or British monarchs? I have read the contrary in the past. I will seek out sources on it, but I was curious if you know of sources? I think we need a good reason why it should be different to all the others. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, from a very quick google search, I have already found material that backs up my assertion that the Dutch Monarch's role is at most minor when it comes to government authorising/decision making. See for example the En-version of the Dutch Royal House pages on the Position of the Head of State at [9] - this article defines the Queen's role thus: "As well as carrying out official tasks as head of state, the monarch works actively on behalf of the people of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, playing a cohesive, representative and encouraging role." Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not as much about role but about position "Position and role of the monarch (King or Queen) as head of state The monarch and the ministers together make up the Government. The monarch is the head of state and as such has to carry out a number of official tasks.". From the same website, which clearly identifies the monarch as part of the government, and if you read the constitution is the "official" leader of the government (although she is not allow to say anything and the prime minister has all responsibility of running the government). And anyway the Dutch monarch has a real power in appointing "informateurs" the person responsible for the early phases of coalition negotiations after elections, where the monarch can appoint anyone (s)he prefers (although being adviced by parliament about their preferences). No other European monarch has this much power. Arnoutf (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Informateurs part is interesting, I will look that up. The part about them "together making up the government" with the Q not being allowed to do anything supports the argument that it should be "and" and not "under", as clearly the democratic system is not subordinate to the Queen. Thanks for the constitutional information, I will spend a little time reading up on it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Euhm no, the Queen is the "head of state" and ceremonial head of government. For example She opens the political year in September by pronouncing the vision of the government for the next year (although she has not written the text, nor is allowed to influence the contents). The title minister is actually derived from a word meaning "servant". Arnoutf (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just like Britain Arnoutf - the Queen is Head of State, she is not subordinate to Parliament, but neither is Parliament subordinate to the Queen. Are you thinking either (1) I am being disrespectful of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands or (2) that I am in some way trying to sneakily diminish the role of the Monarchy? Neither is true. I for one am very fond of monarchy and please be assured that I personally respect and admire both the Dutch as a people and their Royal House. I hope that clarifies any misunderstandings you may have on that score. I am simply seeking an accurate way of describing this that is NPOV in Wikipedia. The reality is that neither are subordinate - modern constitutional monarchies in Europe are democracies with a titular head of state based on monarchy, creating a team leadership. I hope this is clear. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't read the Dutch source for this piece 2010_Dutch_cabinet_formation#Exploration but it sounds like the 2010 Informateur was chosen by Parliament, not the Queen, she just acted as formal approver. So far I have seen no evidence that the Dutch monarchy operates any differently from, say, the British or Danish. The only remaining objection raised is that Minister means Servant - we call them ministers in the UK too, but they aren't servants any more! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

just for convenience

The parliament does advice the Queen. However if you further into the article you may notice the appointment of Tjeenk Willink and later of Ruud Lubbers was somewhat of a surprise as commentators inferenced neither of those was recommended by parliament. Arnoutf (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I think part of the problem here is that the refs are mostly in Dutch when you get down to the more detailed level. Do Dutch newspapers say this was the Queen exercizing her powers, or do they say that it was political manouevering? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is cloude in secrecy. The Queen can appoint whomever she likes, but it is customary that conversations with the Queen are kept completely secret; so someone may have adviced her to do so, but who we will never know. In any case it seems she has adopted the advice of a minority with Tjeenk Willink. So some of her power was used. It is a thin line and the Queen is very careful not to go too far besides what is acceptable, if only to make sure this power is not withdrewn. Arnoutf (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Dutch queen appoints the mayors in the Netherlands.

Anyway, more important for James to understand is that nobody has to prove here that the Dutch queen is more powerful than the Danish. This would be a desperate endavour. If you are concerned that the word under here and the word and in the Danish infobox insinuate exactly this (i.e., the Dutch queen is more powerful), then go to the Danish article and make a "consistent" change there, or better look up a source for that article, change the content accordingly, and add the reference to it.

This debate here, whether and how much we adore monarchs is meaningless. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't meaningless - it's about why the Netherlands infobox should say something different than the other national articles with the same government. Once again, you seem to me to resent anyone other than yourself editing the Netherlands article Tomeasy. It isn't your personal article. Also I really, really resent your rude remarks like "how much we adore monarchs". I was trying to explain that I don't have a POV about it. Perhaps you are just trolling and if so it isn't working. This is a serious issue. The fact that you jumped all over the original edit in seconds and made a very insulting edit comment at the same time shows that it matters to you as well. I'm not going away on this just because you think you control this article. I'm getting pretty sick of your rude remarks. If you can't keep a civil tongue, stay out of the discussion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If anything, that was rude. If you want to take one advice (even if it's from me), stick to the subject.Tomeasy _{T C} 20:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, so when you said I was talking about how much I adore monarchs, you didn't say that to be rude? Yeah, right. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not rude but simply meant to tell you that your following statement was meaningless: "I for one am very fond of monarchy and please be assured that I personally respect and admire both the Dutch as a people and their Royal House." Tomeasy _{T C} 20:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no country with the same government as the Netherlands. There are several countries with similar governments, but that implies there are also dissimilarities. To determine the dissimilarities are worth less than consistency within Wikipedia is a value judgement and unless backed up by reliable sources clearly OR. Arnoutf (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course not - there are SIMILAR governments and that's why we have been going through references to determine how big any dissimlarities are. It isn't OR because it directly affects use of the term in the infobox!! Anyway, it's sorted now. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

True, my example about appointing "informateurs" links to Dutch news, but indeed the Queen also appoints mayors and judges too (and there are several other appointments by the crown). My main point is that the Dutch monarch has some responsibilities/tasks that other monarchs have not, and vice versa, I am sure the English/Danish/Norwegian/Belgian/Spanish... etc monarch has tasks the Dutch has not. The specifics of all the governmental systems are different and thus a one-size-fits all approach is not as straightforward as argued earlier. Arnoutf (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that Arnoutf. I have also now located this British-en quality newspaper source [10] that bears out your point. So I am willing to go ahead with "Parliamentary Democracy under Constitutional Monarchy". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

a constitutional monarch ! Note that capitalization isn't required either. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything else you can think of to be deliberately obstructive? Font colour perhaps? It's a system - therefore it's monarcby. This element is "government type" - not "head of government". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Parliamentary democracy is a system, Constitutional monarchy is a system, but Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch is also a system. You are wrong when you claim the opposite. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It even currently says "Constitutional monarchy" - why haven't you changed it before if it's wrong? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Because that is what the source attached says. Please try to understand this core concept of editing. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it come clearer when I provide examples. I am fine with Constitutional monarchy if we use the factbook or with Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch if you use the source you provided. I really do not understand your problem with following the source. Do you think they do not know their business? Tomeasy _{T C} 20:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I was using the same format used in other national infoboxes. If we are continuing to use the CIA source which says "Constitutional monarchy" and we introduce as discussed above the (better) State Dept source, then we need an agreed common form of wording. Arnoutf agreed to it above and I thought you had. It can't be "constitutional monarch" because that is not a government type, that is a description of the head of state. Therefore either we do away with the CIA ref and use the entire State Dept wording, or we use a form of wording that cleverly incorporates both meanings. It's called editing and guess what - I do understand it. "Constitutional Monarchy" is so close to "Constitutional Monarch" - it is still supported by the State Dept reference - it's just applicable here in Wikipedia. I think you know we are not just brainless relayers of exact text snippets from sources. Or don't you? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you read my comment above: "Parliamentary democracy is a system, Constitutional monarchy is a system, but Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch is also a system. You are wrong when you claim the opposite." Tomeasy _{T C} 20:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So the final format will be "Parliamentary Democracy under a Constitutional Monarch" with the state dept ref. Agreed? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I find the capitals unnecessary. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Have it your way - I would hate to want you to accept another view. Wierdly, if we dab it, "Constitutional monarch" will redirect to Constitutional monarchy. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hate?

Sure that another thing that is common to Wikipedia as you have seen on the UK article where parliamentary democracy links to parliamentary system. What was your opinin on that one again? Tomeasy _{T C} 20:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion on that one is that the target article should move to Parliamentary Democracy - that's what it's most generally known as. Articles should use the widely known names for things, not fancy names that WP editors dream up. The same goes for Constitutional Monarchy - I really do think this is a point in English language usage Tomeasy. I know you claim you understand all the subtleties, but from your comments, I don't think you "get" this one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is really funny. The one who does not understand the logic that Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch is a proper description of a political system tries to lecture here. Scroll up this talk section and you will find that about 50% of it was written because you went into a logical fallacy which has at least to some extend a linguist root cause. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, aren't you happy now with the result? You can see the declaration parliamentary democracy and from a verification point of view this bit of the infobox is now better than most of the other infoboxes. I understand that you did not like the process of getting there, you showed that all too clearly, but I think we can be happy with the result, as concerns the Dutch infobox. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)