User talk:Buster7/Flanders

a comment on the conflict over Flemmings and Dutch ethnicity

RETRIEVED FROM TALK:DUTCH(ETHNIC GROUP)

An editor (Buster7) asked me if I would take a look at this page. One reason I was asked is that I have contributed to the article on ethnicity and in fact my professional training and research involve ethnicity. I have four comments about edit conflicts, only one of which is based on my knowledge of social science research on ethnicity. I also have three final comments about the article itself.

First, concerning ethnicity: most social scientists see ethnicity as a fluid concept and while some editors here have mentioned mainstream elements of definitions (e.g. self-identification; established through a social boundary) my main point is that there is no single authoritative social science definition, but we can agree that social scientists do not use common dictionary definitions. "Ethnicity" is an object of social science investigation just as "evolution" is an object of life science investigation and this being an encyclopedia, we should research what life scientists have to say about evolution and what social scientists have to say about ethnicity. For those curious, I think the best article on ethnic and other forms of identity in general is this: Brubaker, Rogers, and Frederick Cooper, 2000, “Beyond ‘Identity,’” Theory and Society 29(1): 1-47. If any of you are willing to incorporate the contents of this article into our article on Ethnic group and other relevant articles by the way you would be helping Wikipedia a lot.

Second, given the above, I think the most important point I can make doesn't have anything to do with my expertise on ethnicity but rather my understanding of Wikipedia policy. It is a flat out violation of WP:NOR, specifically SYNTH, to take a dictionary definition of ethnicity which does not mention Holland or its peoples, and then apply it to Holland and its peoples. What I recommend doing is looking at peer-reviewed journal articles published in Holland, elsewhere in Europe, or internationally - major history, anthropology and sociology journals and inter-disciplinary journals - I think Ethnos is the leading European anthropology journal, also look at Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Journal of Historical Sociology come to mind - and see what articles they publish on Holland, Dutch, Flemmings, etc. Remember that Wikipedia is about verfiability, not truth - what you want to do is represent all significant views that come from reliable sources, even if they conflict, indeed, especially if they conflict. I would expect a section of this article to include sentences like "Although x and y agree on their definition of ethnicity, x considers a to be an ethnic group, and y does not" or "X, defining ethnicity one way, considers a to be an ethnic group; Y, defining ethnicity another way, does not." That is what an article compliant with NPOV and V would look like.

Third, I see that people are developing lists that do and do not recognize Flemmish as a distinct ethnicity. Remember that NPOV is not about right or wrong, true or false, good or bad, but just different points of view. Nevertheless, a good encyclopedia article makes these different points of view intelligible. In other words, there are reasons scholars, lay-people, political activitists, government bureaucrats have different views. It is not enough simply to provide sources expressing different views. We need to know enough about the context for the source to understand the view. Is it a difference between scholars influenced by Marx and scholars influenced by Weber? Is it a difference between scholars before WWII and scholars after WWII? Is it a difference between scholars and government bureaucrats? I have no idea - it may be more complicated. But this kind of context, to help us understand why people have divergent views (without saying one is right and the other wrong, or one better than another) is important to improving an article.

Fourth and final point on conflicts among editors: I see one editor presenting his/her own arguments about why a particular group is not an ethnic group, period. This is never a good way to edit an article. Nor prohibits us from putting our own arguments into articles. The minute any editor sees himself or herself making anything like a logical argument, they should take a little break. What matters is what verifiable sources with significant views say, not our own argument. In fact, the NPOV policy recommends we edit articles we do not even care about. If an editor has strong feelings about a topic, of course it is possible to bracket those feelings and ignore one's own beliefs and instead focus on what major sources say even when they conflict with one's own beliefs. But if this is too stressful, it is just better to follow NPOV's advice and edit other articles. Wikipedia is not the place for personal crusades, unless your crusade is for WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and WP:V!!

Comments about the current article: First, a couple of sections read as if there is a "natural" ethnicity, and the Dutch, or some Dutch, do not fit that natural definition in every way and are somehow therefore problematic. This is not how social scientists look at it, which means this is not the only view, and if anyone has this view, and they are significant, and published in reliable sources, they ought to be clearly and properly identified. But social scientists have no natural definition of ethnicity so no ethnic group is a problem or problematic. At most one can say that ethnic identity in Holland takes a very different form from ethnic identity in Canada, or ethnicity has a different function in Holland than it does in New Guinea.

Second comment: some sections of the article place discussions of Dutch ethnicity in a historical context. I found these passages most interesting and edifying to read and I would encourage more of them. I know ethnic identity takes different forms in settler-states with large indigenous populations, like South Africa or Bolivia, than it does from settler states with large immigrant populations like the US, than it does from non-settler states like Afghanistan, so it does not surprise me that it takes its own form in Holland. What would be edifying would be to know the historical forces that Holland shares with other countries (e.g. post Holy Roman Empire countries; I would think that the Reformation and the separation from Spain also played a role) as well as the forces it does not share with other countries, that have shamed nationhood and ethnicity in Holland. One section suggests that the rise of the EU is changing conceptions of ethnicity or ethnic identity and again this is consistent with what I know of ethnicity elsewhere. An increase in migration from other parts of the world would (social scientists would predict) further change local notions of nationhood and ethnicity. I would encourage more research into the historial forces that have changed both how people think of "ethnciity" or "nationhood" as well as changed how people think of "Dutch" or "Flemish." But it would be good if the article were more clear about different points of view and provide sources. I think this is a fruitful line for developing the article. I know I would then learn a lot more from it! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I apologize if this is patronizing to anyone. I know that there are several good editors here doing good work. But someone felt there was real contention here, and I am just trying to be constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)