Talk:Dutch people/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Archiving Issues - Second try

I think Rex was right to move lots of stuff to an archive, the talk became too long indeed.
However, Rex thought it would be a good idea to give an overview from recent debates, and thus he copied parts of the discussion into the new pages.
While in itself this may seem defendable and even laudable, the chance is that other editors disagree with the choice of the copied parts (which is necessarily coloured by personal bias). This is exactly what happened here. Paul111 missed out on some of his arguments and repeated many of those above. The effort of archiving the talk page has been nullified by this to a large extent.
As I see it now there are three main issues unresolved (note that I do not give a value judgement but merely try to summarise the main sources of disagreement):

  • Quality and sufficiency of sourcing is contested
  • How to refer to Dutch prior to 1830??? Were they Dutch, would these older Dutch include other peoples (e.g. the Flemings) as well, is debated.
  • How to take care that some ideas about ethnicity that find great approval from extreme right wing nationalists are treated in a neutral way (e.g. use of word Germanic, Germanic descent, greater Netherlands, inclusion of Flemings in parts about history).

With these issues listed by me and my own editorial bias, I invite other involved editors who think one of their main topics (and please bundle several related topics under a single label) has not been mentioned to list them below.
If we agree which topics are open for debate, I think we can work from there in a more constructive way to solve those, rather then repeating stuff from the archives.
If you agree this maybe a good idea, I will create a second archive specially for the part immediately above and will put in every discussion above this topic; wihtout any further editorial choices. Arnoutf 08:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Response to clarify open issues

I added this subheader to seperate identification of problem areas from discussion how to solve those Arnoutf 13:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Okay here we go;

How to refer to Dutch prior to 1830? Were they Dutch, would these older Dutch include other peoples (e.g. the Flemings) as well, is debated.

    • The word "Fleming" has for the most part of its history (9th century AD - est. 1910) refered to the inhabitants of the historical inhabitants of the County of Flanders. The current meaning of the "Dutch-speaking etnic group in Northern Belgium" is post-vlaamse strijd and is hence relativly new and did not emerge until the start of Flemish nationalism.
    • In various, if not all, works on the history of the Low Countries/Netherlands the modern Flemings, Dutch-speakers of Northern France and the current Dutch are included in the term "Dutch", the article already explains this has a more broader meaning in current times and that neither the Flemish or Dutch-speakers of Northern France are offshoots of the Dutch.

Quality and sufficiency of sourcing is contested

    • This article, has got more notes than most, if not all, of the articles dealing with an ethnic group. Even the recently featured Iranian peoples article has less inline citations that this article. I regard every source here to be (more than) sufficiently capable of referencing the intended text, section or line.

How to take care that some ideas about ethnicity that find great approval from extreme right wing nationalists are treated in a neutral way (e.g. use of word Germanic, Germanic descent, greater Netherlands, inclusion of Flemings in parts about history).

    • "Germanic peoples" and "Germanic languages" are scientific terms. They were so before, during and after nazism/fascism. I'm not going to allow people who only think that their aply to ideas and theories conceived between 1933-1945 to disrupt this article with they bias/revisionism. How often does this article mention them anyway?
    • The history of the Low countries, and therefore as well that of the "Dutch" is thoroughly and completely intertwined up to a relatively recent point, we cannot and must not deny this.
Rex 11:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not archive active discussions

Discussions which are continuing should not be archived, certainly not if items are only one day old. Issues can not be removed simply because they have been discussed before, that is only appropriate if the issue has been resolved and discussion has ended. At most, if the page is very full, certain issues could get a sub-page of the talk page.Paul111 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not archive tag information

Information which is there to explain the presence of a tag (clean-up, merge, delete, neutrality, and so on) should not be removed from the talk page. If discussion is long, then again a sub-page is a preferable option. Archive pages can not be edited.Paul111 19:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


No source for 'Dutch' emigrants in 1157

User Rex Germanus has used the term 'Dutch' for populations as far back as the Frankish period. He claimed that Dik Linthout's book on relations between Germany and the Netherlands, Onbekende Buren says that Dutch emigrants moved to Brandenburg in 1157. He gave a page reference, 101-102. However, the book does not use the term Dutch for these emigrants (and does not mention the year 1157 either). The book is careful about such terminology, pointing out for instance that the Dutch language was not called Nederlands until the 19th century (page 96).Paul111 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that the information presented by Paul111 is flawed. I suggest you read the book (again), as the book does in fact claim that, it makes it very clear that Dutch immigrants moved to Germany. On page 96 the claim is not that Dutch wasn't called Nederlands until the 19th century, but that the term "Nederdiets" was completely replaced by it. I assume you are/were very much aware of this (the book is very, very clear) and that you hence purposely were trying to misinform the people here.Rex 19:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The original text is Pas in de loop van de negentiende eeuw gaan Nederlanders er officieel toe over hun taal Nederlands te noemen; de tot nog toe gebruikelijke term Neder-Duits raakt dan in het ongerede.Paul111 19:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, now please where does it say they started to call it Nederlands in the 19th century?!Rex 19:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Rex, before that, it was "Holland" and only "Netherlands" cuaght on in 1800 to replace the previous title "Batavian Republic", a disliked vestige of the Napoleonic French era. There are sparing numbers of 'Dutch' emigrants in the 11th to 15th centuries, when tens thousands of farmers, fishers and tailors moved from present-day Belgium and the Netherlands to England, Scotland and Wales, and fewer Dutch migrants went to Austria, Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland. The first thing to do is check again for Dix Linthout and books written by the historian author on AOL search (or google), unless Rex already had did the work and found the claims unsupported and likely a hoax or misnomer (i.e. the "Duitsch" of Northwest Germany, but a corrupted word for "deutsch" or German in the local dialect. + 63.3.14.1 13:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Accuracy disputed

The purpose of this item is to explain the accuracy-disputed tag, please do not archive it so long as the issue is active. The reasons for disputing the accuracy are still much as they were:

  • Greater Netherlands irredentism, specifically the claim that Flemings and Dutch constitute one people
  • the related claim that a single Dutch people existed prior to the Dutch Revolt and was divided by it (ethnic irredentism)
  • any claim for a 'Dutch people' prior to around 1550
  • the claim that the Dutch are a Germanic people, a terminology confined to the far-right
  • inclusion of Flemish and Afrikaner populations in the table, leading to inflated population figures.

See individual items for specific discussion.Paul111 19:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As you must have noticed (if you minded reading the talk page at all) these issues are exactly those summarised by me at the top of this new page. Arnoutf 19:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Stubborness/Revisionism/Contradiction. (reply to Paul111s above remarks, quite possibly in vain)
  1. No such this is claimed. If so, please show us where.
  2. Nowhere is "a single" Dutch people being claimed (note that you yourself admit a single Dutch people exist in 1400, thereby contradicting yourself) only Dutch people.
  3. Same as above, you contradict yourself.
  4. No such thing. Flemish are included as Flemish, not Dutch. The Afrikaners (hence they're called Afrikaners) are included because of Dutch ancestry.
Rex 19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by Paull11

Stop removing referenced information from the article. I dont care how many times more you'll start another section for something that you don't like, but you will leave in referenced information. Wikipedians work very hard to make this article a good one, and have spend hours looking for references. They don't do this so they can be removed because of the tunnel vision and stubborness of someone who refuses to debate his own views and refuses to present counter sources. This behavior is shameless.Rex 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep calm Rex. Arnoutf 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Trying very hard Arnout.Rex 19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that information have a reliable source. That means a source external to Wikipedia. Adding a reference tag with further explanation or details is not a reliable source. Neither is another article at Wikipedia, the guidelines state explicitly that Wikipedia can not serve as a source for itself. That means that a reference to another section ("see Dutch diaspora section") is not acceptable either. A source which states one thing is not a reliable source for another thing. For instance, if the CIA Factbook says 68% of Belgians are Dutch-speaking, that is not a source or for the claim that they are ethnic (or national) Dutch. If there is another reliable source which says that all Dutch speakers are ethnic Dutch, then the two could be combined. (However, since that would make many Surinamese Dutch, I doubt if it would be used as an ethnic definition).Paul111 19:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Again does Paul111 attempt to influence others with false information. The "see Dutch diaspora section" refers to a completely referenced section in which the same claim is explained. The references saying 68% of the Belgians are Dutch-speaking are meant so people can check the figure given. The reasons/views on Flemish are discussed in the article.Rex 19:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Rex; for instance: how can you possibly take the CIA Factbook as an accurate source of information on Dutch people? Take a Dutch survey, or at least something from Holland, to back up your statements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.84.188.56 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Paul111, I do not understand your sentence above "A source which states one thing is not reliable for another". So each source can only be used once????? Or do you mean that the source should be interpreted accurately? With that I agree. Combining sources maybe a good idea sometimes (see little above on Germanic issue). Personally I would not mind listing the Surinamers as Ethnic Dutch ;-) I think that Paul111 is right in saying that you should import the original references into this article to support a contested claim. Arnoutf 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

Please do not reinsert any controversial or disputed material without providing reliable sources.Paul111 10:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete referenced information without proper arguments. It's vandalism.Rex 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No arguments are required for deletion of material without a reliable source. Sources are required for its inclusion. A reference (footnote) is not a source. 'Source' means external reliable sources. Wikipedia itself can not serve as a source for this purpose. Wikipedia is not a personal website or web page, and contributions are subject to editing. The purpose of the edits is to improve the articles. Not (in this case, for instance) to promote the Dutch people or defend their heritage.Paul111 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem of a reliable source is not so easy to solve (as the WP article states). I think it would be civil to give arguments for the removal of any sourced addition. Arnoutf 18:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason was explained in great detail: the cited sources do not say what they were claimed to say, and may even contradict the claimed version. The underlying reason for deletion was also explained in detail, namely that certain claims are disputed for accuracy and political connotations. See elsewhere on this talk page.Paul111 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

the problem being that I do not agree with your statement "the cited sources do not say what they were claimed to say" and nothing in the sources seems to be able to convince you of something else. This means we have a dispute about the interpretation of sources, which may have 2 parts. (1) The sources are not reliable (but I think we agree they are). (2) The sources are misinterpreted. The problem with this second problems is that we are back to square one. Simply put it is two against one about the interpretation of the sources, so you have to provide stronger evidence that the sources are indeed misinterpreted (or a convincing majority of support from other editors). Finally, while accuracy is, political connotations are not a reason for deletion (wiki is not and should not be censored for reasons of political correctness). Arnoutf 20:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Map: Dutch in Northern France

The caption does not make it clear whether this means the Dutch language or a Dutch ethnic group. Either way it is inaccurate since 'Old West Low Franconian' would be accurate for a language at that time, and there was no Dutch ethnic group in the 8th century. (There was no 'France' either). It is not in dispute that Dutch was historically spoken in present-day northern France, but that should be presented accurately and in context.Paul111 19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No Paul111, Old Dutch is the correct and academically used term, even for the language spoken 200 years before this period. The reason France and Belgium are used is (BIG SHOCK!) its projected on a modern map.Rex 19:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Caption therefore changed to read Old Dutch instead of 'Dutch'.Paul111 10:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Old Dutch is Dutch nontheless. Rex 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't hurt to label it 'old dutch'. (Personally I think the map adds nothing though) Arnoutf 18:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Rex, I admit my father is French (he lived in the U.S. for nearly 40 years) but has a Flemish paternal grandmother (she never got the grasp of French, her relatives translate back to her) from a village (I believe it was Vercinques, 30 kms./15 miles north of St. Omer, a very French city about half a hour each from Lille and Calais, despite it's repeatedly been under Dutch-Flemish (and other, like Austrian, English/British, German and Spanish rule in its' long history) in the Nord (department)/Pas de Calais region. St. Omer happens to be in the Pas de Calais department, and the L'Aa river was briefly a national border with France in the late 1700's/early 1800's means the Netherlands was very close to St. Omer and was a minor influence in the town's culture (i.e. breweries and gin distilleries instead of wineries, and more bakeries sell Belgian/ Flemish waffles than equally popular French/Parisian croissants). The local language isn't Dutch per se, but related to Flemish in Northernmost France and officially dubbed "Flemish-Dutch", to indicate this is about the same West Flanders dialect of the language that's completely based on, but different in sound and spelling from "Nederlander" Dutch. So far, according to my father in his last trip to his home region, the Flemish language declined in use and hardly saw or heard anyone use it except for town elders among each other. The Flemish language was nearly pushed to extinction and efforts to wipe out Flemish under the French government in the 19th and early 20th centuries is now highly regrettable, a kind of cultural intolerance in the name of French ethnonational and cultural uniformity. I read there are 35,000 Flemish-Dutch speakers left in Nord/Pas de Calais, universally are a bilingual people and they indeed may attempt to speak more Flemish-Dutch at home, but the region's and departments' governments don't recognize Flemish-Dutch a "co-official" language to be used in schools, courts and national police. In the 20th century, the French Republic urged Flemings in the Nord-Pas de Calais to strictly conduct business in French and highly encouraged Flemish-speaking people to use only French with government officials. However, no longer the French republic can prohibit or replace anyone's language, now a violation of the European Commission on Human Rights agreements and linguicide is illegal in France since the 1970's. + —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.14.1 (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

30 million Dutch

Please do not archive this so long as the issue is unresolved. The only source given for this figure is that some people believe that Flemish and Dutch are one people. Some people do, but they are a small minority, most of them to the right of Vlaams Belang in Flanders. That is not a sufficient source for a claimed population of 30 million ethnic Dutch.Paul111 20:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The idea that the Dutch and Flemish are one people is not limited (as paul111 wants us so desperately to believe) to the extreme right. "Heelneerlandisme" is not supported (or thought of) solely by the far right, to claim that is simply wrong. The fact that it is an acknowledged ideology and it has various clubs and institutions is enough for a remark to it.Rex 20:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Again note that this article explicitly says the Dutch and Flemish are a single people.Rex 20:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Rex, I think you mean to say that hte article explicitly say they are NOT a single people. Also I think we should not go on the larger Netherlands ideology in this article (perhaps interesting for its own article). Finally, this seems again to go towards a confusion between nation and ethnic group; which have large similarities but are not synonyms. Arnoutf 21:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thats what I meant, the article explicitly says they AREN'T a single people.Rex 17:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to address an issue on the accuracy of Paul's claim of a humongous number of people of Dutch ancestry. I went to the archive page 1 for any past issues to bring forth again to clear any mistakes and errors. Here's one post on the estimated number of people in Brazil had Dutch ancestry below.

<<4 million Dutch in Brazil? No source was provided for this figure, which seems absurdly high, given that there are only 5 million self-identified 'Dutch' in the USA. No source was provided for the other 500,000 Dutch in the 'rest of the world' either. Paul111 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)>> Not properly supported, if not truthful. Paul, why not go back to the very origin or source of the "Dutch population in Brazil" and look this up (i.e. Demographics of Brazil) much closely. The only evidence of any Dutch presence in Brazil (while the Dutch republic/empire's only mainland colony in South America, Suriname independent since 1975) was a short period of Dutch colonial rule in coastal sections of Brazil in the 16th and 17th centuries. History of Brazil will explain further on this interesting piece of Dutch history, but the article said war broke out between the Dutch republic and Portugal with Spain in the 1650's. The outnumbered Dutch surrendered to the Portuguese empire and abandoned their colonies in the Brazilian coastline, in favor of peace with Portugal in a treaty back in 1653(?) proceeds another war with Portugal's other ally, England and they lost New Netherlands (New York city and surrounding areas) in 1664. Paul, we don't know you're right or wrong, or this is a demographic fact on Dutch people continued to live or migrate to Brazil (in very small numbers) formed a tiny fragment of a diverse society like Brazil, but not farfetched by the possibility of Dutch remnants absorbed by th Portuguese around them. Rex, we need more output on the Dutch emigration to Australia and New Zealand, but the population statistics are reliable and dependable for research of Dutch (and Belgian/Flemish) descendants. The Dutch went on to other Latin American countries to represent miniscule portions of the country's ethnoracial profile (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela). + 63.3.14.1 13:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Disputed claims

Please do not archive this so long as the issue is unresolved. This is a general list of controversial claims which have appeared in this article. The accuracy of all these claims is disputed, and that is the reason to delete them if no sources are provided.

Irredentism and rattachisme

  • claims that Flemings and Dutch constitute a single people or ethnic group
  • claims that the Low Countries are, or were, inhabited by single people, nation, or ethnic group
  • claims that the inhabitants of the Seventeen Provinces were a single people or ethnic group
  • claims that a Dutch people or ethnic group ever inhabited present-day northern France or Wallonia.

Ethnic terminology

  • claims that the present Dutch people are one of the Germanic peoples
  • claims that a "Dutch people" (Nederlanders) existed prior to the mid-16th century and the Dutch Revolt
  • claims that ethnic groups with Dutch ancestry are thereby themselves a Dutch ethnic group
  • claims that any Dutch-speaking ethnic group is thereby part of the Dutch ethnic group
  • claims that Afrikaners are part of the Dutch people or ethnic group
  • claims that Flemings are part of the Dutch people or ethnic group

Population totals

  • inclusion of Flemish and Afrikaner populations in the population totals for the Dutch people, leading to inflated population figures.Paul111 10:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


The problem is that the discussion seems to deadlock on these issues. Paul111 keeps saying he finds them while I cannot. Going through the list At I&R

  • I cannot read such an explicit claim in the article, although it is argued they are closely related.
  • Idem
  • Idem
  • No such claim, if such a claim it would refer to Artois (N-France) and not Wallonia. For Artois - only stated they are closely related groups

At E-T

  • Indeed a dispute, two Britannica articles combined provide evidence for this claim, however Paul111 states there is evidence that contradicts this (which he has not provided).
  • There is indeed an argument that in US language use the Dutch ancestry groups are marked as ethnic Dutch; note that we should use the English use of Dutch as we are writing in English.
  • No such claims about Dutch speaking peoples, that would include many Surinam and Turkish people
  • Claim is not that specific, moreover it has been explained the Afrikaners were seperated from the Dutch 200 yrs ago.
  • No such claim (also see all above)

At P-T

  • Indeed the inclusion of groups that may not be marked Dutch may give an inflated image. I have stated my agreement with this about ten times before. Arnoutf 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

PS Paul111, please do not add subheaders if you want to discuss topics as a whole, reserve subheaders for separate discussions, and make sure that a message under a subheader can be read independently and is signed separately Arnoutf 12:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the headers to bold text. The list is of disputed claims, not of text. It is intended to indicate the underlying claims which are disputed, and so to cover any other phrasing. Here are examples of text which contained these claims, and no doubt there will be other text which implicitly or explicitly restates these disputed claims...

  • Historically the Dutch chiefly lifed the Low Countries and Northern France but have since the 12th century spread all over the world That implies that a Dutch ethnic group existed in the 12th century, and that they at some time lived in Northern France.
  • Dutch immigrants went to Brandenburg in 1157. That implies that there were 'Dutch' people in 1157.
  • the (future) Dutch were led by Germanic chieftains. Implies that a pre-mediaeval ethnic group were Dutch in some way, and implies a non-existent ethnic continuity.
  • the Dutch now answered to the East Frankish and later German King, which continued until the Dutch revolt. Implies that a Dutch people existed at that time, i.e. before the Dutch Revolt.Paul111 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I once corrected the spelling mistake in the topmost line (lifed) after a while you reverted to the current version. By the way, I think you put too much in these alleged implicit claims (indeed no explicit claims).
You might make more headway by suggesting alternatives for the current text. How do you think about these proposals:
  • "The historical roots of the Dutch lie in the population groups living in the Low Countries and Northern France. However, since the 12th centruy these groups have spread all over the world"
  • "Immigrants from the Low-lands went to Brandenburg"
  • "These tribes were led by Germanic chieftains"
  • "The Lowlanders now answered to..." Although I think in this latter case the archaic meaning of Dutch (in English) may actually be more precise.Arnoutf 18:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I oppose to any attempt to invent wikipedia terminology. Dutch is the term to use, for all "disputed claims" references have been provided. Rex 20:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
trying to come to a workable solution.... I think the first sentence (the historical roots of the Dutch) is probably better than the current (Historically the Dutch lived).
the third line, 'the future Dutch' is also a self-invented term. None of the tribesman lived long enough to become truly Dutch (unless we assume one of them lived to the ripe age of about 1500;-), so the sentence does not make sense (even if Paul111 had not objected). I think the following rephrasing in context is an improvement "Over the centuries, the Dutch have seen many forms of government. In pre-christian times the tribes in the future Dutch region were led by Germanic chieftains who were both political and religious leaders."
For the second line and the fourth line I tend to agree with Rex that the use of the word Dutch is probably the best option. Arnoutf 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Future Dutch is logical. The Franks settled in the Low Countries, and apart for fighting battles on campagn etc, there are little/no references of them leaving. In fact, during and after the reign of Charlemagne many "Franks" send their children to grow up in the North of the Empire (the low Countries) because the people there spoke better "Frankish". We cannot deny "we" inherrited a great part of the Frankish (thus Germanic) culture, if only our language, future Dutch isn't that bad ... Rex 20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem is a technical language one. The sentence as it is now reads is read as: "these individuals who will become Dutchmen in their personal future, were led by Germanic chieftains". Obviously none of the Franks lived to become a Dutchman in person; their offspring became the Dutch a few centuries later. That is why I think the sentence needs to be rephrased. Arnoutf 21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, yes I agree. Rex 21:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Any claim that the Dutch are the Franks is pseudo-history. The present Dutch ethnic group has no specific Frankish origins, its ancestors include many ethnic groups which lived in northwestern Europe, and in that respect they are no different from the population in neighbouring regions. Only the language has a specific relationship to the Frankish language. The acceptable terminology is that generally used in Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden, i.e. geographical terms only. Not the 'Dutch', but the 'inhabitants of the Low Countries' or the 'inhabitants of the Spanish Netherlands' or 'the Flemish cities'.Paul111 10:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not pseudo history. Again, read the article (well, the version before you vandalized it) and take a look at what it really says.Rex 13:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Paul, why not create a new article on Dutch-descendant peoples of the world? Rex, do you agree on my proposal? I believe it's a good idea to at least, keep the Dutch, Afrikaaner and Low German articles separate but equally informative to understand the Dutch and cultures who shared proximity and similiarity with the Netherlands. Here's the facts: Dutch people are Dutch...whether they are white or black or Indonesian, Calvinist or Catholic or other Protestant, Christian or Jewish or Muslim...and any citizen born and raised, or naturalized by immigration officials, are Dutch. The reason why the Dutch people article included mentions of Dutch emigration to North America (the US and Canada), Africa, South Asia and Australia is these immigrants came from the Netherlands (and Aruba, still part of the Netherlands, or Suriname, which was Dutch Guyana until 1975, the Dutch influence in the Americas should not be underestimated).

In fact, there was a Dutch presence in Sacramento and nearby Solano and San Joaquin County, California from the 1840's and 1850's (when the US annexed the land from Mexico), thousands of Dutch (Frisian and Flemish included) farmers, miners and shipmates arrived in the low-lying marshlands of the "Sacramento River Delta" connects with the San Francisco Bay. Today, one may find a great similarity in terrain and climate of the "polders" and artificial ponds or islands in fashion of the Dutch polder systems are tesiments of Dutch (and ethnic Chinese, Portugese and Basque from Spain) participated in drainage of the delta for agricultural tracts fit for inland seaports and a moist sea-level area is ideal for fish farms or aquaculture.

If one goes there, one may find flower fields (tulips too), road side Dutch or Belgian bakery shops, breweries under Dutch family surnames, and wineries had Belgian forebears, towns carried names like "French Camp" (probably French people or Belgians of both Flemish or walloon origin), "Van Der Kamp" and "Van Dyke" (several other Van/de or "of" are evidently Dutch), "Lathrop" and "Tracy" are said to be "Anglicized" town names from Dutch sources, "Ijsledam/den" (renamed Isleton, California), "New Holland" near Rio Vista, California) or "New Friesia" in the Stockton area. + 63.3.14.129 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Matters subject to Paul111s continuos unsupported bias.

You shout and accuse allot., but when one takes the time to read your comments (I'd wish you'd read mine sometimes) you'll see you are sitting on air. All your claims are based on nothing or are a case of personal (thoroughly biased) opinion vs references/sources. Explain your claims:

  • claims that Flemings and Dutch constitute a single people or ethnic group. '
    • Where is this claimed?
  • claims that the Low Countries are, or were, inhabited by single people, nation, or ethnic group
    • Where is this claimed?
  • claims that the inhabitants of the Seventeen Provinces were a single people or ethnic group
    • This is sourced, where are your countersources?
  • claims that a Dutch people or ethnic group ever inhabited present-day northern France or Wallonia.
    • This is sourced, where are your countersources?

Ethnic terminology

  • claims that the present Dutch people are one of the Germanic peoples
    • This is sourced, where are your countersources?
  • claims that a "Dutch people" (Nederlanders) existed prior to the mid-16th century and the Dutch Revolt
    • This is sourced, where are your countersources?
  • claims that ethnic groups with Dutch ancestry are thereby themselves a Dutch ethnic group
    • Where is this claimed?
  • claims that any Dutch-speaking ethnic group is thereby part of the Dutch ethnic group
    • Where is this claimed?
  • claims that Afrikaners are part of the Dutch people or ethnic group
    • Where is this claimed?
  • claims that Flemings are part of the Dutch people or ethnic group
    • Where is this claimed?

Rex 13:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul111? Rex 15:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Paul111?Rex 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The cited sources, the Britannica, Gesechiedenis van de Nederlanden and Linthout's Onbekende Buren do not say what they are claimed to say. See the separate comments above.Paul111 18:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous answer. I want to know where we claim what you claim we claim.Rex 18:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we disagree on interpretation of the sources (see the separate comments above). In an ongoing debate about interpretation of sources you may have to acknowledge you may be wrong. One of us is if we interpret sources differently. Arnoutf 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
More than half of what he accuses us of cannot be found in the article. How on earth are we going to make this a good article if he gets to implement his unreferenced bias because of "unreferenced material" that isn't even in the article?!Rex 11:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't tell which is fact or Paul's bias, except to promote an ideology Rex points out is somewhat erroneous and offensive to Rex and other people. The historic territories of the "Low countries" once consisted of tribes and communities, all thought to descended from the Low Germans (i.e. Angles, Batavi, Danes, Franconians, Frisians, Jutes, Morini, Salinians or Saxons), usually the tribes were said to establish an alliance or confederation: the Duites derived from the word bands of fighters in Low Germanic. But, the country name Belgium in the southern edges of the "Duites" tribal range, came from another tribe the Belgae, a Celtic-speaking people came in close contact with the "Low Germans" to the north ("Nederlanders" for low lands, Belgium means "forested"), and Belgium wasn't completely taken over by the Romans in failed attempts to subjugate a heavily-wooded area. The Belgians (or Francophone Walloons) are intensely "Latinized" by the Roman empire, but the empire's border didn't get past the Rhine River (or the Northern Dutch said the "land between the rivers", the region known for a more Dutch Catholic population, or the regional "South Dutch" according to Paul was an existing sub-culture, but can't be verified for what appears false and not suitable for Wikipedia.

The less Latin cultural outlook of the Dutch-Frisians was from a geographic anomaly: it's a difficult task for Romans to conquer foggy, rainy and windy coasts and marshlands the Netherlands stands on (I'm sure they had woodplack drawbridges), or the Roman legions failed to defeat the Dutch-Frisians as the Roman empire weakened by the 4th/5th centuries AD. The original seventeen provinces (actually in 1581, the provinces banded together in independence from Spain and their first official title was "United Provinces of Holland", later became the "Dutch republic" in 1660) had similar, yet diverse characteristics from one region to another: the low-lying "Nederlander" or "Zeelandic" west and hilly "low German" or "Rhineish" east, and with the "Frisian" north and the "French" or "Luxemburger" south, developed each unique customs, dialects and traits on their own. Paul and Rex, work together and share your sources (the AOL search and google must have thousands of web sites or links to Dutch culture and history of the "Low countries"). + 63.3.14.129 10:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Low Germans" as a pre migration age ethnic group?Rex 11:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
perhaps...Paul needs to go in the Low German article to compare, discuss, note and support his claims on the Dutch-Low German connection. yes...the "Low Germans" are an ancestral group, not a nation and there's no such thing as the "Republic of Low Germany". I can tell you, Rex on my own visit to Watten, a village north of St. Omer, France, is where my paternal grandmother is from (I said Vercinques...at least I wasn't lost!) and I came upon several road signs printed in French and Flemish! I believe the language is making a comeback and French transportation officials and geodetic societies allow Flemish and French village names, both official in effort to restore the vibrancy of the language spoken in Nord/Pas de Calais before the French annexed the entire area by the mid 1700's.

Paul, would you rather spend more time in the Flemish people and Flemish language articles and talk pages? I wonder there's gonna be arguments and edit wars over Flemish and Belgian identity, and do you go there, Rex? Yes, I'm totally aware of Dutch, Flemish and Luxemburger (or Luxembourgish) aren't 100% alike in language, customs, history and traditions...and how easy it is to reckon the national term Belgians aren't an ethnicity and not entirely Germanic as it hasn't been in metropolitian France for over two centuries.

Good to know my family history...time for me to head for the Cherokee talk pages to discuss my maternal side, since Native Americans struggle with cultural identity and preservation issues. Sorry to stray off topic a bit, because the Dutch aren't alone and their situation is not uncommon. The Cherokee and the Dutch, although are different, but were divided into two or more groups for the last three or more centuries. Just like what happened to the Dutch and Flemings, the Cherokee experienced a growing separateness (and attempts to unify a tribe) of Eastern (native to the Appalachias) and Western (the South-Central US), full-blood, part-blood and Cherokee American (not necessarily a people who have tribal membership, but an ancestral group lived apart, satirically called "generokee" by tribal members and kept their Native american/Indian culture hidden from the outside world in the 20th century) titles for new "ethnic groups" but are treated as obvious racial minority groups in the United States.+ 63.3.14.129 12:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Flemish language, the signs you saw were most likely in Dutch. I have never heard of "low Germans" as being the ancestors of anything.Rex 13:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're sure in the French side of West Flanders was the actual Dutch language, not Flemish (the village's inhabitants are considered Flemings)...despite the official name of the language is West Flanders Flemish-Dutch? The cross-border people phenomena is a footnote on how certain peoples able to preserve their culture after they found themselves living in another country, as kings and nobles, wars and treaties, and what else happened, redrew the political boundaries without regard to older ethnic/cultural ones. The concept of France wants to revive "Flemish" culture is actually "Dutch" or West Flanders culture, despite they used to be in the Netherlands (1660-1800 and 1815-30), or is it already French territory since 1789/1794.

There's a strikingly similar but whole another issue where I live in Southern Cal. of what's Mexican, American or a whole other national identity in the Southwest US: Chicanos, Hispanos or Tejanos are descendants of the original "Spanish"/"Hispanic" settlers of the region when it's part of Spain (1550-1820), Mexico (1821-50) and finally under the US flag in 1848. They are in American soil, but of "Latino" origin just like peoples on the other side of the border. These newer ethnic self-titles and racial identity issues of Mexican Americans and immigrants from Mexico, reinforced and reintroduced an already-present community of Americans who carried a regional Mexican culture, but are not Mexican citizens or never had parents/ancestors recently arrived from the country. As the saying in South Texas, parts of Arizona or New Mexico, and California goes "we didn't cross a border...the border crossed us." + 63.3.14.1 13:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Rex...on the difficult and confusing issue on the "Dutch" as in "Nederlander" vs. "West Flemish-Belgian Dutch" identity in Northernmost France. To call a group of people a "race" isn't purely a scientific thing, but more like a socially constructed and politically-based meaning. In many cross-border regions of the world, you may find two peoples who might share a language, customs and ethnonational identity had developed somewhat unique and differential traits from one another. In the case of the so-called "Low Germanic/West Germanic" language family (not a race, but ethnic groups who may came from a common ancestor, as you mentioned Rex, the prehistoric migration of people from Northwest Germany). Whether to separate, categorize and officially dub the inhabitants of the Low Countries: "Nederlanders/ Dutch", "Flemings/Vlaams", "Frisians/Frieseans" and "Luxembourgers" is not always an exact sociological process. I don't like Paul and his attempts to promote a "Germanic" view of the Dutch and Belgian peoples (in terms of language if not by ethnicity), but I noticed he wasn't a neo-Nazi/neo-fascist (he didn't include or mention other labels "Nordic", "Indo-Aryan" or "Indo-Germanic" to his comments, a popular method to enhance a fervent racist or political agenda used by the Nazis in order to include the Dutch, English and Scandinavians (the occupation of Norway and Denmark) in the early 1940's). + 63.3.14.2 13:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Paul111?Rex 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Question by user:StevenAR regarding References

Hello, I tried to press [edit] in the 'References' section and see the source for an image there, but there's almost nothing inside! Is this wrong? *Steve (user:StevenAR)

PS:How can I find out if someone responds?

See your own talk page for some general tips on editing wiki. On this page we used automated inline references. The reference is added in the text at the relevant position as follows: <ref>This is how you add an inline referecen in the text</ref> which will show up as a note[1]. The <references/> tag compiles a list out of all intext references; which is only visible in the normal page view, in the edit view only the references tag is visible. This ensures that removed citation disappear from the list, and that all inserted references end up in the appropriate order in the reference list. Nice little tool it is :-) Arnoutf 08:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Difference between the Netherlands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands

In the terminology section is this stated:

The Kingdom of the Netherlands includes Caribbean islands with an ethnically distinct population, and they may or may not be included in the term "Nederlanders". In nationality law, the term Nederlander denotes a citizen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and also includes persons with clearly non-Dutch ethnicity.

The people of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, the two countries which are also a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, are not called Dutch. Together, the three countries form a kingdom, but that does not mean that they all share the same nationality or, indeed, ethnicity. Since there is no question whether people from the Dutch Antilles and Aruba are called Dutch, there is no point in adding such a paragraph. I suggest it will be deleted. --Soetermans 21:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That us not completely true, Antilles people do have the Dutch nationality. Hence some explanation seems to be in place Arnoutf 22:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never heared such a statement, but that doesn't mean anything, ofcourse. Still, it is common to name a person from Aruba Arubaan, so I find it hard to believe that in other countries that person would be referred to as a Dutchman, just because of the nationality laws. But is the statement made helpful? In the way it is described now, I have the feeling it is a bit confusing, since the people from Aruba and the Dutch Antilles are not part of the same ethnic group as the Dutch from the Netherlands. --Soetermans 22:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no easy answer, since this is a politically contested issue. The official attitude is that everyone with a Dutch passport is 'Dutch' but many people in the Netherlands won't accept that a black person (or a Muslim) can be 'Dutch'. This article would be much better if it tried to explain these present-day issues, instead of (for instance) the spread of Old Dutch in AD 800.Paul111 18:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we should do both; explain the origins of the Dutch and talk about the current status of the Dutch Nation, Dutch Ethnicity, and Dutch nationality. Anyway, strictly legally speakng everyone with a Dutch passport has the Dutch nationality; and it does not matter how (s)he came to that. According to CBS, allochtones are those of whom at least one parent was born outside the Netherlands (ie 3rd generation immigrants are no longer allochtone), again no reference to race or color. How this compares to ethnicity (which is a term not officially defined) I do not know. Interesting to explore on the page; however we have to beware of original research and/or POV's Arnoutf 19:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Just like the official policy in the French Republic (France) declares the French people are not an ethnicity (or race), but a nationality based on citizenship within the French republic and overseas territories, or anyone who immigrated and naturalized to become citizens. The Netherlands and Belgians may have similar proclamations to encourage cultural integration and assimilation of newcomers into the Dutch (and in Belgium, national French or Dutch) national culture, by insisting on the avoidance of the term "race", "ethnicity" and "color" of peoples. Most Dutch (and French) are white Europeans of the so-called Caucasian race, especially the Dutch are of multiple ancestries: Celtic, Iberian, Mediterranean and Slavic origins, not only Germanic that Paul obsesses about the Dutch are "very German". Rex, you are quite knowledgable on the dangers of nationalism in an encyclopedia...and the Dutch aren't officially part of Germany or not been part of the German Confederation/German Empire, nor was "unified" with West Germany like the Eastern sector was in 1990. Now, what makes up a race (or major subdivision of the human race) is heavily studied without bias but thesis-and-statement to gone into detail (the HGP-Human Genome Project), tooth-and-nail, to uncover the most accurate report on the origins of the human species. But, the new "correct" theory on race is strictly an artificial social construct without a biological basis is anthropologists, biologists, linguists, scientists and sociologists. There's a Dutch people without doubt as a result of over a millennia (1,500 years) of banding together as a country or into smaller regions/provinces. The Dutch Reformed Church, for example, isn't the main foundation of Dutch culture but a Dutch national institution represented by a king or queen of the Dutch Royal family, the head of state and popular symbol of the Netherlands' pride and foundation as a country. The church is established worldwide in Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Americas, with separate chapters go by the name "Reformed" church (dropped the name "Dutch" from the title) in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Their membership are mostly of Dutch descent...but inclusive and accepted converts of all races and nationalities. + 63.3.14.129 10:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let it be clear that etnicity and "race" are very different matters. I do not believe in races, but I do believe in etnicity.Rex 13:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Rex, you don't believe in false notions of racial superiority and inferiority. I don't know you live in America or Europe or wherever, since I'm in California, US where it seems the people are less prejudiced on these matters than most states. But just like the Dutch, we got our share of pathetic and ridiculous racism against minorities, because of their race or skin color or where they come from (high rates of immigration from Asia and Latin America, esp. the controversy on illegal immigration from Mexico is a serious regional and national issue). You ever heard of a Christmas-time traditional character in Belgium and Holland: Zwerte Piet or they call him in Nord/pas du Calais, France: Le Delve Noire? For four centuries, he was a beloved African character who assisted St. Nicholas (santa Claus) and the elves, and he happens to been a former slave from Morocco (or Spain) when he was discovered. But in today's P-C world, the idea of a "black elf" is considered immoral, racially insensitive to many people (diversity activists) and now inappropriate for young children in the Netherlands and Belgium. Zwerte Piet is always caricatured as a classic "Negro" stereotype (caricatures and racial traits), and held to be an inaccurate description of Africans (btw...Morocco is in North Africa, an Arabic-speaking country and primarily Muslim not Christian) or degrades/offends some black people in today's race-mixed Europe. I heard stories of American tourists went to Holland or Belgium for Christmas and discovered parades, dolls, figurines, carved "giant" statues, story books, comics, magazine ads and TV commercials featured zwerte piet with disgust and confusion. I don't know in these times, the Dutch and Belgians wants to have fun on the idea of a kid-friendly, but racially-charged holiday myth, I just know the Dutch are very tolerant of any group of people welcomed to their country for asylum and opportunity. Zwerte piet, as legend says was fortunately freed from slavery, should be placed higher than a "racist stereotype" or gives the wrong impression to a few American tourists. + 63.3.14.1 14:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I simply do not believe in multiple races of humans. There is but one race, the human race. Btw, Zwarte Piet is a Moor, not an Subsaharan African.Rex 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, your opinion is based on social and scientific knowledge on the topic of "race", "ethnicity" and "culture" are artificial (just like nation-states like Holland and Belgium don't follow previous historic boundaries), but genetically related traits associated with groups of people are real, yet not isolated to a geographical race. The Dutch aren't 100% Germanic people, nor the Flemish and Dutch are 100% the same ethnic group, and "Low German" is more of a regional identity or part of a language family...Rex, you're a scholar on this subject more than me or Paul. I don't really doubt you, but the predominance of blond hair, blue eyes and tall height of the Dutch with those of Germans and Scandinavians have to do with the Northern European peoples share common ancestor(s), but there are blondes, blue-eyed and tall people in every "race" of mankind other than the Dutch and Flemings. + 63.3.14.2 16:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch: tallest people?

This sentence strikes me as odd:

Generally the Dutch are described as being very tall, and they are indeed the tallest people on earth.

The sources added to support this claim are from 2004. I might be mistaken, but I believe that since then there have been other scientific rapports have been put out about the height of the Dutch people. I wonder, has such a research been performed under people of Dutch origin, or to the people of the Netherlands? --Soetermans 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Probable, but not likely. Even if that was the case, "non-Dutch" groups (such as marocans, turks and Germans) have a lower average.Rex 22:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to point out earlier that I have the strongest feeling that it has something of a bit of nationalism in the sentence, especially "they are indeed the tallest people on earth". The "indeed" seems like an extra confirmation, while the "on earth" isn't necessary all together. But it could just be me. --Soetermans 21:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

To assume the Dutch are "very tall' is like to say the French, the Japanese (and other east or southeast Asians), the "Pygmies" or "Bushmen" of southern Africa, the Native Americans of the Southwest US, and other groups around the world, are short like under 5'5" at the least. I'm sure there's proof on over half or a majority of Dutch people are over 5'8" (can anyone translate it into metric here?)according to (un)scientific physiological polls, but note this is where some negative or exaggerated ethnic stereotypes come from. You'll encounter 6'5" Chinese olympic basketball players, the same is true for the French basketball team and we've heard so much on tall west Africans, but not all Black people or Africans are over 6 feet tall...see what do I tell you? From my personal experience on the concept of race, genetics and heredity, I've inherited both "Dutch" and "American Indian" genes (and rumors of Jewish-European forebears or Afro-American ancestors, but unable to find it in my family tree, then I never know over the millions of years the human race existed). My maternal side has Cherokee/ Osage relatives at 5'10" to 6' (so is my mother), but my father of part-Flemish/Dutch descent but a French citizen being from northernmost France is 5'5" (I'm 5'9", so is my brother)...and my half-sister from Dad's first marriage is 5'2", while her late mother of "east coast" Irish/English/Dutch/German (and possibly Spanish/Californian, not "Mexican" or the post-1900 immigration to southern Cal.) ancestry is about 5'5". For a White American to have some Native American descent is said quite common (there's a difference between one born/raised to knew he/she was 1/5 "Indian", compared to someone "discovered" to be 1/20 (or an "Indian" about six generations ago) and never came across some forms of discrimination by other "white" or other people), no longer had a social stigma attached. But, you'll have skeptics assume for most white Americans to think they have Amerindian blood in them, is another way to disguise/cover up a possible "slave"/black African (or in Cal., Chinese or Japanese back in the late 1800's) ancestor or their distant relatives had an once forbidden inter-racial romance or rape, and usually mixed-race descendants ended up being legally "black" (the "one drop rule" are bygone state laws and US census practices to categorize any person of any trace of black/African-American descent, even the person is 90% White Caucasian, into the status of a racial minority group), or in the lowest socio-economic strata and far apart in the American cultural periphery. This is what Rex talks about, the idea of race is an artifical construct, but it's possible for anyone like myself to carry physiological traits of both "races". The most accurate scientific study of race (not limited to ones' skin color) are the "major divisions" of humanity, again not always exactly like that: Caucasoid (Europeans, the Middle East and East Indians), Negroid (Africans, but like Caucasians, the race is further subdivided to smaller ones by region or tribe), Mongoloid (east Asians, but includes Native Americans and Polynesians) and Australoid (Aborigines, Melanesians and some tribes of Dravidians or Negritos in south Asia), and my point is the "Dutch" and "Flemish" people aren't biological terms, but are nationalities invented by mankind's urge and custom on how we identify by "race", or tribalism in our tendency to decide whether he/she belongs to the tribe. + 63.3.14.2 16:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I found an article in a Chinese newspaper where the "Dutch being tallest people in the world" was confirmed, they even talked about things like minimum ceiling heights going up (of which I've never heard - but still...). If I can find it, I'll put up a post.marten

It is somewhere in the 'bouwbesluit' that around 2005? the proscribed height of doors was increased. I looked it up once for wiki, but can't remember where I placed it. Arnoutf 08:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I started this discussion about the sentence itself, whether or not it might be true isn't my point. Can one of the regulars around here rephrase it? --Soetermans 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Undo blanket revert....

The background of Paul111s revert cannot be learned from this page.
However, I agree with him the strangely compiled set of edits by User:213.125.116.112 should be reverted; as it not only reverts Paul111's edits but a few others as well, and there is no place it actually reverts to that I could find. Such a complex edit needs a better summary and/or discussion here. Therefore I agree that this revert was justified (although the edit summary was not very informative or concise)
I agree with Rex, that Paul111 only responds to questions here if it fits his agenda; which in my opinion is not a very constructive attitude. Arnoutf 15:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a shame he only uses this talkpage to vent his opinion rather than to solve issues. His denial of sources and casual use of "per talk page" is not the wikipedia way.Rex 18:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

'South-Dutch' as ethnic group

It was claimed that Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden speaks of Zuid-Nederlanders (approximately 'South-Dutch') especially in the period after the Dutch Revolt. It does not. It uses only geographic terms and names of geopolitical entities, such as 'Spanish Netherlands' and 'Austrian Netherlands', and the adjectival forms derived from these names. It does use the word 'Belgians' from after the 1830 secession. Zuid-Nederlands is an established linguistic term, and has some cultural uses as well. However it is not the name of an ethnic group, it is not a sub-division of an ethnic group, and it does not imply that there is a single ethnic group living in the Netherlands and Flanders. Its use in this way is unsourced. Replacement with a geographic term is the simple solution.Paul111 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Zuid Nederlands is by no means a linguistically used term. Never.Rex 18:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion at Dutch-language Wikipedia [5] gives an indication of the linguistic usage and the associated controversies.Paul111 19:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

mmmm now you are doing what you accuse Rex of, referring to wiki pages; and who is to say anything about the quality/value of a sister project talk page..... Arnoutf 19:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dutch wikipedia is a laugh. Zuidnederlands is not a linguistic term. And I should know. Then again, that's your forte isn't it paul111? Claiming stuff is correct/false but not having the sources to back it up.Rex 20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources are not required for the talk page, which is also intended to provide background for users who may be interested. Reliable sources are required for the article, and in this case a source is needed for the claim that an ethnic group called Zuidnederlanders exists, or that the ethnic group Nederlanders is divided in two sub-groups, with one sub-group including the inhabitants of Flanders.Paul111 10:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source, you cannot use Wikipedia as a reference. I question your claims and you REFUSE to answer them on this talk page. The ridiculous claim that sources arent required for talkpages is a laugh. Since you refuse to give them in the article, please tell me Paul111 how do you expect to create a referenced article?! Rex 11:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Paul, where did you get the claim of a "grass-roots" South-Dutch ethnic or provincial movement? I've heard of Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden or the Zuid-Nederlander (actually, Rex is right...the activists in the 18th and 19th centuries succeeded in having the Catholic portions of what was the Netherlands to become Belgium...we call them Flemish and Zeelandic, or if they live in the kingdom of Belgium, they are Belgians. So, the problem of the national concern of Zuid-Nederlanders about to break away from the Dutch Protestant north is unclear and questionable. Paul can't find one web page or organization letter to address the Zuid-Nederlander cause is in question. Besides, the Dutch have a great tradition of religious tolerance and the status of Dutch Catholics are very positive, as well there are other Protestant churches in the Netherlands. There are small church membership rolls of Dutch (and some Belgian) church attendees belong to these Protestant sects: Adventists, Anglicans, Christian Science, Eastern Rite, Evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutherans, Mormons, Orthodox Christians, Pentecostals, Uniates and the Moravian Church. + 63.3.14.129 11:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict resolution

A few days ago Paul111 made a very wise remark referring to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
I think this artice is dominated by 3 editors (myself, Rex and Paul111) who are in obvious dispute. The problem is that other editors and possibly valuable edits are not made because people shy away from getting involved in the dispute. I agree with Paul111 we have to find a way out. Going through the stages of conflict resolution, I think the talk to stages stage 1 - 'talk to each other' is not very feasible at the moment, as we do not seem to communicate, but produce a lot of text doing so.
So I would suggest for all three of us to go to stage 2 (disengage). So I call on both you (Paul111 and Rex) to leave this page as it is at twelve midnight on January 28/29 untill February 14th (I will stop editing and posting immediately after this message but you should have an opportunity to respond). That means I call upon both of you not to edit the page (barring very, very obvius vandalism) nor vent discussion for about two weeks. Perhaps the issue is cooled down after that and we can go back to stage 1 (talking). Otherwise stage 3 offers a lot of options to involve neutral 3rd person editors.
This is the last you guys will see from me on this page for a few weeks. Arnoutf 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not confined to this talk page or article. The underlying problem is the use of Wikipedia articles to promote the claims of specific nationalist ideologies, see for example Vergina Sun and Macedonians (ethnic group), or Zionism and Palestinian people. There are issues similar to those here, at Flemish people and there were at Greater Netherlands. Conflicts should not obscure the goal of an accurate article, and accuracy should not be abandoned in pursuit of consensus. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for nationalist (including irredentist) claims. In this specific case, the article would be improved by renaming it back to Dutch people or adding the term nation to the title. Limiting it to a presumed Dutch ethnic group (anterior to the Dutch state) is itself inaccurate and misleading. The article should give some historical background, but focus on the current issues in the Netherlands, concerning national and ethnic identity.Paul111 11:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The only person here misleading people are you Paul111. By removing REFERENCED information and make the article suit your unreferenced bias.Rex 11:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rex, thanks for the mass deletion of my useful edits :-( They are facts and for real, not made up stuff. I wish to retrace my steps to where I got them from. Oh well...REFERENCED. Let's see...I won't come to the article again, like paul right? Btw...I'm American of Dutch descent and fascinated on subjects of the Low countries. Rex, you would know the same stuff are factual, and you know any web links to research the subjects? The SS article has good amount of info. on SS Walloonie, the Dutch polders and dykes are described in where else...the Netherlands article, and the Dutch Reformed Church article has an extensive list of countries the church is located and their missionary work programs. I apologize for the failure to "meet wikipedia standards or criteria", but you're able to (or other wiki admins, since I'm not one) look the edits before they're deleted? Oh...the foreign profanity article has a thing on Dutch language obscenities/profanities (the main root of Dutch profane words are disease/sickness!) for encyclopediac reasons (should I discuss this issue in the talk:Dutch language page?). I'm able to look at the bad words and definintions, which I don't like either...but didn't allow it get to me. 63.3.14.2 19:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of information sounded plausible but the fact of the matter is that we need references to make this article reliable.Rex 20:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Other Netherlands Dutch stereotypes

The Dutch are referred to as a very tolerant people, but I thought the Dutch and Flemings are more conservative than let's say France or Germany in the 18th and 19th, even the early 20th centuries. The rural areas in Belgium and Southern Netherlands are more Catholic and they tend to attend church more regularly than in the Northern parts or in major cities (Amsterdam, Brussels and Rotterdam). The Eurobarometer indicates just the opposite of the Dutch are more portrayed as "atheists", the other poll over a quarter of the Dutch and Belgians are non-religious. Other stereotypes about the Dutch are politically "far-left" , extreme socialists and anti-capitalist activism made the Netherlands to share a reputation like California has in the US...a "safe haven" for sexual fetishism, moral/legal perversion, strong sense of anticonformity and a hotbed for political correctness. There's a rise of ecofascism and National Socialist black metal bands indicates there's a growing nazi-influenced Germanic neopagan movement in Belgium and the Netherlands, but most neopagans are more likely to express left-wing and pacifist, as well ecological views against Nazism and fascism. The article had a hilarious Dutch maiden painting shown her with a joint and a beer bottle-like bucket of typically Dutch items, she stands in front of smoke stack factories and polluted canals filled with industrial runoff. I guess the Dutch aren't so "green" and environmentally conscious like the world thinks of them after all, they are also portrayed as "tree-humpers", organic vegans, "back-to-nature" hippies, "flower children" dancing in the tulips, all the men are "gay" and the women rule over them (note the queen is in charge...well, the head of state of the Netherlands), is standup comedy of how we Americans viewed those "free-wheeling" Dutch in the US (we need another liberal progressive secular "blue state" to keep in balance with those "patriotic" conservative bible belt "red states" in check). But the Dutch's excellent system of dams, dykes, man-made isles and polders can keep the Netherlands "high and dry" while the world's coastal and low-lying areas face the challenge of the earth's sea level rise may displace millions of people without the kind of system the Dutch developed for thousands of years. + 63.3.14.1 04:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Mike D 26 02:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

February 2007 deletion list

The accuracy is still dipsputed and most of the disputed claims have been re-inserted. For a general list of disputed claims, see the list above, the main problems are claims that Flemings and Dutch constitute one people, that this single Dutch people existed prior to the Dutch Revolt, the claim that the Dutch are a Germanic people, and inclusion of Flemish and Afrikaner populations in the table, leading to inflated population figures for the 'Dutch'.

To address these issues the following deletions are necessary:

  • Dutch are a Germanic people: cited source (Britannica) does not say the Dutch are a Germanic people, and it does not say that speakers of Dutch belong to a Germanic people. It identifies the Germanic peoples as historically existing Indo-European peoples who later assimilated (by the Middle Ages). It does not say the Dutch are an Indo-European people, and it does not equate Indo-European language speakers with the Indo-European peoples. A map of Indo-European language distribution, for instance in the Britannica article on that subject, does not in itself show the ethnic groups in the area covered are either 'Indo-European' or 'Germanic'.
  • Historically the Dutch chiefly lifed the Low Countries and Northern France but have since the 12th century spread all over the world. No source for claim that Dutch ethnic group ever lived in Northern France. No source for claim that Dutch people existed in the 12th century. Inline reference refers to another section of this article itself, and is not an external reliable source, see WP:SOURCE. In any case, the book quoted in the Dutch diaspora section (Dik Linthout's Onbekende Buren) does not say that a Dutch ethnic group lived in Northern France, or that Dutch people existed in the 12th century.
  • 30 million Dutch: the only source given for this figure is that some people believe that Flemish and Dutch are one people. Some people do, but they are a small minority, most of them to the right of Vlaams Belang in Flanders. That is not a sufficient source for a claimed population of 30 million ethnic Dutch.
  • Flemings listed as Dutch in population table: no source. Cited CIA Factbook simply says that 68% of the Belgian population are Dutch speakers. It does not say they are Dutch.
  • 5 million Afrikaners listed as Dutch in population table: no source. Cited source simply says they are of partial Dutch ancestry.
  • "Historically the modern Dutch and the people now known as Flemings were considered one people. Cited source, Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden, does not say what it is claimed to say: it does not speak of Nederlanders before the Dutch Revolt, (or from the time of the Franks). On the contrary, it consistently avoids the term Nederlanders until it treats the Dutch Revolt, and for the period before that uses the geographical term only, Nederlanden, in the plural, meaning Low Countries. In the introduction it states explicitly that the book is a history of a geographical area, Nederlanden. Request to quote the passage or provide a page reference for the claimed material in Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden did not lead to either being provided. Inline reference also claims that Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden speaks of Zuid-Nederlanders (approximately 'South-Dutch') especially in the period after the Dutch Revolt, implying a politically divided 'Dutch' ethnic group. It does not: it uses only geographic terms and names of geopolitical entities, such as 'Spanish Netherlands' and 'Austrian Netherlands', and the adjectival forms derived from these names. It does use the word 'Belgians' from after the 1830 secession. Additionally, non-usage of the term 'Flemish' does not show that the Dutch and Flemish were considered one people and can not form a source for that claim.
  • Dutch and Flemish see themselves as the closest related people. Cited source - page 21 of a Clingendael Institute study, in a section on the perception of similarity [6] - does not say this. In fact it says the the Dutch respondents saw the Belgians as the most similar people. The cited section does not use the word 'Fleming' or 'Flemish'.
  • Afrikaners generally do not consider themselves to only be ethnic Dutch. Delete word only, it implies they do consider themselves to be Dutch. No source for implied claim that Afrikaners self-identify as ethnic Dutch.
  • Dutch immigrants went to Brandenburg in 1157. No source for existence of a Dutch people in 1157. Cited source, (Dik Linthout's book on relations between Germany and the Netherlands, Onbekende Buren) does not use the term Dutch for these emigrants (and does not mention the year 1157 either).
  • Dietsland name for image: linked article has been renamed from 'Dietsland' to Greater Netherlands.
  • the (future) Dutch were led by Germanic chieftains. Implies that a pre-mediaeval ethnic group were Dutch in some way, and implies a non-existent ethnic continuity. No source for the existence of 'future Dutch'.
  • the Dutch now answered to the East Frankish and later German King, which continued until the Dutch revolt. Implies that a Dutch people existed at that time, i.e. before the Dutch Revolt. No soure for existence of a Dutch people at that time.

No source is required for the deletion of unsourced material, and no arguments are required, see WP:DELETE. The onus is entirely on the editors who want to retain material, to provide a reliable source for it. These points have been discussed already, and no consensus has been reached. A cooling-off period also failed, since not all editors observed it, and disputed material was simply re-inserted. The next step in the dispute resolution procedure should therefore be followed, which is most appropriately a request for comment.Paul111 11:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to stop implementing your bias on this article. You make up nonsense. Yes, indeed. You refuse to show where the article claims what you says it claims and as a result of that you think you have to the right to imlement your changes. We've provided references for everything we claim, stop showering this talk page with made up claims.Rex 14:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not reinsert any controversial or disputed material without providing reliable sources.Paul111 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT LIE PAUL111.Rex 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Message (once again) to Paul111

Do not revert any edits untill you show us WHERE we claim what YOU CLAIM we claim in the article. This is NOT the same as making up a list with accusations from which you supposably get the right to remove REFERENCED INFORMATION.Rex 12:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which anyone can edit. It is not a personal webpage or website, and is therefore not suitable for a stable presentation of an article or essay on a particular topic, by a single editor.Paul111 19:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Answer the questions or you WILL be continually reverted. You accuse people from adding false information, providing false references and have even accused some of nazism AND YOU REFUSE TO PRESENT PROOF. All you do is claim stuff is in the article that ISN'T THERE and that's lying Paul111, and that extremely unwikilike.Rex 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Other matter

I hate to interrupt, but I came upon a map of the German language (where it was spoken in 1910 before the outbreak of World War I). I spotted the light-orange shaded area of "Low Saxon/Low German" speaking people in the Netherlands! Could Paul be right...on one thing? The Low Saxons or "Low Germans" in the Netherlands are simply Dutch when it comes to nationality and citizenship. I disagree with Paul's "Germanophilia" or what kinda sounds like Nazi propaganda out of the pages of Hitler's notorious novel mein kampf. The map clearly shows a few Dutch people, if they came from Northwest Germany, may be refered to as "Low Germans" or correctly, are able to speak or understand the Low Saxon-German dialect. Note the German language map only shown the distributed range of German in the early 1900's and would be quite different today (the former OstPrussien or east German provinces of Poland and Kaliningrad province of Russia since World War II). Check out the link and what's your comments on the matter, Rex?+

Map of the distributed range of the German Language in 1910 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.14.2 (talk) Mike D 26 02:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 17:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC). That map claims Zuid Gelders, Dutch Low Saxon and Limburgish are German dialects ... which is incorrect. AFAIK there is no "Low German ethnic group", low saxon itself is but a shadow of its former self.Rex 18:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I never understood why Dunkerque (Dunkirk), France was shaded dark green to indicate German was spoken there. I thought it was Dutch or a dialect based on the Flemish, since the city was part of the historic province of Flanders. Some data in the 1910 map doesn't rule out the absolute accuracy on the range of German-speaking areas and population. I do know, the range has shifted and changed boundaries after the two world wars and the Soviets' expulsion of ethnic Germans out of Eastern Europe. + Mike D 26 02:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

REVERSIONS OF PAUL111

Paul111 has spend nearly his entire time on this wikipedia project removing information and accusing people. On this very talk pages he has made "list" in which he arrogantly places himself into a kind of a "censor" position to which every other editor must comply. Completely against the ideology behind Wikipedia. This lists are however, filled with made up claims, and paul111 continually refuses to say where the article makes these claims. He does not discus but instead repeats himself. I would like to ask every wikipedia wether a registered user or an anonymous editor to revert paul111 untill he has made clear where the article claims what he says it does. Rex 21:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true that points which have been removed from the article are no longer in the article. However, if they are re-inserted, then they are back in the article. They are then subject to removal if - as in this case - they are controversial, their accuracy is disputed, and no reliable source has been provided.Paul111 13:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Again Paul111 refuses to provide answers.Rex 13:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I will try to help you rex in removing Paul111s vandalism (though I dont he's a vandal, rather just destroying the article) as much as I can.213.125.116.112 10:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

List, message to Paul as he refuses to answer questions directed at him

Dutch are a Germanic people: cited source (Britannica) does not say the Dutch are a Germanic people, and it does not say that speakers of Dutch belong to a Germanic people. It identifies the Germanic peoples as historically existing Indo-European peoples who later assimilated (by the Middle Ages). It does not say the Dutch are an Indo-European people, and it does not equate Indo-European language speakers with the Indo-European peoples. A map of Indo-European language distribution, for instance in the Britannica article on that subject, does not in itself show the ethnic groups in the area covered are either 'Indo-European' or 'Germanic'.

User:Paul111

The area of the Netherlands (as wel as Northern Belgium) have since the migration period been occupied by Germanic peoples. The "French-Dutch", as wel as it's historical "Roman(ce)-Germanic" linguistic border can be considered to be a good example of the area of settlement in Europe. Britannica makes very clear that Germanic people are those who speak a Germanic language. Dutch is a Germanic language. Merriam-Webster ([7]) too makes clear that "Germanic" simply means "of, relating to, or characteristic of the Germanic-speaking peoples". The main reason why this term is disputed by Paul111 is because he (solely) associates it with nazism rather than science. His "evidence" for his views have been pictures of old Nazi Propaganda and links to wikipedia articles on SS brigades. Nazism, the German army between 1933-1945 and nazi propaganda ... hardly reliable.


Historically the Dutch chiefly lifed the Low Countries and Northern France but have since the 12th century spread all over the world. No source for claim that Dutch ethnic group ever lived in Northern France. No source for claim that Dutch people existed in the 12th century. Inline reference refers to another section of this article itself, and is not an external reliable source, see WP:SOURCE. In any case, the book quoted in the Dutch diaspora section (Dik Linthout's Onbekende Buren) does not say that a Dutch ethnic group lived in Northern France, or that Dutch people existed in the 12th century.

User:Paul111

The book of Dik Linthout, for those unfamiliar with the author, is about the cultural (and to some degree linguistic) differences between the German and the Dutch people. The book is about the Dutch and German people. Why on earth would he write about then paul111? Are you going to (accidentally of course) misquote this book again like you did before? An ethnic group in it's broadest sense is about people feeling connected culturally, and language is a major factor. The fact that Dutch has been documented since the 5th century AD means it was already spoken for 700 years before the first "Dutch" people left the Netherlands is another (aside the book quote) indication of a Dutch ethnic group living at the time. Paul111 needs to get his definitions (among others) of an ethnic group straight.

30 million Dutch: the only source given for this figure is that some people believe that Flemish and Dutch are one people. Some people do, but they are a small minority, most of them to the right of Vlaams Belang in Flanders. That is not a sufficient source for a claimed population of 30 million ethnic Dutch.

User:Paul111

Members of certain political ideologies. Which paul111 attempted to place on the extreme right (which isn't by far always the case, a clear sign of his bias) view the Flemish and Dutch as a single ethnic group. For all they care there are 13 million Flemings living in the Netherlands. Point is they exist, and they represent a noteworthy point of view. The Flemings are not included in the number total of the infobox, which lists 25 million Dutch people and thus it is made clear (in the infobox as wel as the article) that it is not a mainstream point of view (in the same way that the idea of a Flemish ethnic group is not commonly accepted.)

Flemings listed as Dutch in population table: no source. Cited CIA Factbook simply says that 68% of the Belgian population are Dutch speakers. It does not say they are Dutch.

User:Paul111

The source is only used to determin the number of Dutch speakers in Belgium, or Flemings. Explanation of the reasons for semi-inclusion are given (clearly) in the article.


5 million Afrikaners listed as Dutch in population table: no source. Cited source simply says they are of partial Dutch ancestry.

User:Paul111

The infobox has a clear disclaimer in which it explains what is listed in the infobox:

"Note that the figures below do not always differentiate between full Dutch etnicity, decent or heritage.".

Historically the modern Dutch and the people now known as Flemings were considered one people.

User:Paul111

This is a fact, which Paul111 furiously tries to remove from the article. He revisions history. Belgium, between 1971-1980, for example had 3 "cultural communities", A Dutch, French and German one. Only after 1980 did it become known as the Flemish community. Why would Flemings be part of the Dutch cultural community if they weren't and didn't consider themselves part of a broader Dutch people?

Dutch and Flemish see themselves as the closest related people. Cited source - page 21 of a Clingendael Institute study, in a section on the perception of similarity [8] - does not say this. In fact it says the the Dutch respondents saw the Belgians as the most similar people. The cited section does not use the word 'Fleming' or 'Flemish'.

User:Paul111

What Paul111 "forgets" to say is that the same source also makes it very clear most Dutch people think of Flemings when they speak of Belgians.

Afrikaners generally do not consider themselves to only be ethnic Dutch. Delete word only, it implies they do consider themselves to be Dutch. No source for implied claim that Afrikaners self-identify as ethnic Dutch.

User:Paul111

Here Paul111 makes things up. The article is very clear that the Afrikaners have Dutch heritage, but aren't seen as a part of the Dutch people. This is a good example of a claim in Paul111s authorian lists which isn't in the article.

the (future) Dutch were led by Germanic chieftains. Implies that a pre-mediaeval ethnic group were Dutch in some way, and implies a non-existent ethnic continuity. No source for the existence of 'future Dutch'.

User:Paul111

It implies no such thing. The Dutch' ancestors were mostly Germanic tribes and hence, they are regarded as their ancestors. That is the only reason why "future" is used. Rex 14:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster does not say that the Dutch are a Germanic people. Dik Linthout's Onbekende Buren does not say that a Dutch ethnic group lived in Northern France, or that Dutch people existed in the 12th century, and that can not be inferred from its other content. Flemings and Afrikaners are listed in the infobox for the 'Dutch ethnic group', and the total of 25 million includes at least one of them, to reach that figure. Groups of Dutch descent can be removed from the infobox, and treated in the Diaspora section: that would resolve this issue at least. The Clingendael Institute study says clearly that follow-up research is necessary to determine attitudes to Flemings. It does not say that Flemings are the 'closest related people', nor that they can be considered as such. As far as the other points go, a reliable source is still needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul111 (talkcontribs) 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

What a ridiculous comment. "Merriam-Webster does not say that the Dutch are a Germanic people" was that the best you could come up with? By definition, rather than (your) opinion, the Dutch are a Germanic people. If you claim that Onbekende Buren (the book of Dik Linthout) does not make clear it speaks of Dutch people, then let me repeat myself for the umpteenth time; it's about DUTCH and GERMAN PEOPLE. The Dutch are and always have been (since their existence) the dominant group of the low countries, this includes North Western France (which is also called the French Netherlands [9]) there is no point in denying that the Dutch language was and still is spoken there for over 13 centuries. I will not remove the Afrikaners from the infobox as they still speak a Dutch semi creol and have more than considerable Dutch ancestry. The Clingendael is very clear on its testresults and the article claims no more than can be read from the report. Rex 17:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Rex, I'm on a wikipedia account. The history section stated the Dutch homeland include all of Northernmost France, not limited to the present-day Nord/Pas de Calais or "Flanders" region. If you drive west of St. Omer all the way to the English Channel instead of north to Calais, you may notice several towns or villages end in the word "hem". I figure this is from the Germanic languages ("heim"), but may be the French spelling of the Anglo-Saxon "ham". Is it a Dutch linguistic term or more of a reminder of the English era in this part of France from the 11th to 15th centuries? St. Omer was named for the saint of Omer, but the surrounding area has St. George, the same patron saint in England. Let me get it straight...was the Nord/Pas de Calais region co-founded by peoples of Anglo/Saxon origin, not only by the Dutch and Flemings lived there for over a millennia? I've heard a few legends or tales of the Moroni (a tribe of Flemish? Dutch? Celto-Latin? background) might been able to visited the southeastern end of England (Kent, where Dover sits in and only 30 miles from Calais). I never came across evidence to support the claim, but I'm sure the Morini (like the Dutch) made grass-made or wooden boats to get around in the low-lying wetlands, canals and lakes found everywhere in Nord/Pas de Calais. + Mike D 26 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dik Linthout's book is not a history of the Dutch and German peoples, and its historical background information does not imply that a Dutch ethnic group existed at some time in the past). (The book also mentions the Roman Empire, but that does not mean Romans were Dutch). The cited passage does not describe migrants from the Low Countries as 'Dutch', in fact the only population group it names are the Berliners. Geographical names are not evidence for the dominance of an ethnic group, or for its existence at specific periods in the past, unless they are derived directly from the ethnic group. No source was provided for the claim that Afrikaners are 'Dutch' - they certainly have partial Dutch ancestry, but so do other ethnic groups in South Africa, both black and white. see below on the problems with the table.Paul111 10:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

These are lies. The book attempts to explain the differences between the German and Dutch people and also gives the historical developement. What you say and claim here has no value.Rex 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dik Linthout as source

Rex Germanus gave as a source for the passage on 'Dutch' emigration in the early Middle Ages the book Onbekende Buren, by Dik Linthout, page 102/103. The following points do not appear on those two pages. Please quote the passage from they book where they do appear, or give a page reference:

  • The first big wave of Dutch immigrants to leave the Low Countries came from present day Northern Belgium as they wanted to escape the heavily urbanised cities in Western Flanders. No mention of this on page 102 or 103 of Linthout's book. text appears to have been copied from the Fläming article, which itself gives no source.
  • They arrived in Brandenburg in 1157. No mention of this and year 1157 does not appear on the two pages.
  • Due to this, the area is known as "Fläming" (Fleming) in reference to Duchy that these immigrants came from. No mention of Fläming on page 102 or 103 of Linthout's book.

Linthout does say that farmers migrated to The Wash in Britain, the delta of the Gironde in France, around Bremen, Hamburg and western North Rhine-Westphalia and to the Elbe and around Berlin He does not use the word 'Dutch' for them, but only the geographical terms for their region of origin, e.g. Holland.Paul111 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

When a book about Elephants speaks of "the trunked animals" on one page, this doesn't mean that page isn't about elephants. Linthouts book is about the Dutch and Germans and that's what he speaks of. Stop this ridicule.Rex 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No 'Dutch' state or ethnic group existed in the early Middle Ages. This is why the claim about 'Dutch' emogration was disputed, and it cannot be inferred from the subject of Linthout's book in the way that you suggest. Please provide the page references or quotes as requested. If that is impossible, and editors still wish to retain material, then they should consider the dispute procedures (such as RfC).Paul111 11:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE FOR THAT FACT THAT NO DUTCH GROUP EXISTED IN THE MIDDLE AGES?! WE HAVE A REFERENCE THAT SAYS THERE WAS ONE. WHERE ARE YOURS?! THIS IS FOR DISCUSSING AND WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING EXCEP A FLAWED OPINION:LEAVE.Rex 12:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Population table removed

The table contradicts itself. It is a table for the Dutch ethnic group, but includes a disclaimer to say it is not. The disclaimer does not say which entries it covers, and the table includes groups with other names and disputed 'Dutch' ethnicity. It is in any case selective in its inclusion of ethnic/population groups of partial Dutch descent. The total population given is not the sum of the entries, and no explanation is given of how it was reached. No source is given for the 'related groups' or the languages, both of which are controversial issues. I suggest that this article dispense with a table, because of the inherent controversies, and lack of official definitions and statistics for the 'Dutch' population.Paul111 10:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a total outrage and you are on the brink of being reported a vandal by me, and hiding behind WP:DELETE wont help you there. "Dutch" has multiple interpretations and hence those are given in the box. You knowingly removed CORRECT information because YOU couldn't live with the information there. I'm going to keep my promis to Arnoutf but just wait until that date. Scar and delete all you want. Nothing will stand for long.Rex 16:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You can discredit almost any concept by showing their inconsistancies/exceptions. Certain phenomena in quantum mechanics transmit information faster than light (as proved by the experiment in Switzerland). Age and biology dont correlate 100%. These inconsistancies/exceptions dont mean we should throw theory of relativity or limit of legal age. The table gave its warnings. These information should be presented. Lukas19 00:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree with all that was said above. (except paul111 of course)213.125.116.112 10:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose to remove the infobox again pending editing. The alternative is to cut the entries to the population entries for the Netherlands and Belgium, since these at least have a reliable source, even if the definition in belgium relates to nationality. The other information is contradictory and unreliable, which justifies removal pending editing, see above. In particlular no reliable source has been provided for the inclusion of Afrikaners, Flemings, Dutch-descended Americans and Dutch-descended Canadians under an infobox for the 'Dutch ethnic group'. All these groups exist, but that does not necessarily make them 'ethnic Dutch'.Paul111 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

All figures in the box have reliable sources. And you deleted referenced material with a lie. Saying that the information was false. You are very lucky nobody reported you.Rex 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Referenced material may be removed, if its accuracy is disputed and no reliable sources have been provided, see the item below on removal of referenced material Paul111 11:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The infobox at the French people article has been renamed and re-organised. It is now called French nationality/French speaking/French ancestry claimed and consisits of 3 separate columns, one for each of these. So there are three separate entries for Quebec, the first one realating to French citizens resident in Quebec. The article currently opens with a section on the problem of definition, and that seems appropriate here also.Paul111 10:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

NEWSFLASH: the French aren't the same as the Dutch. This article adresses the Dutch as an ethnic group. If you want an article on the Dutch nation ... CREATE IT.Rex 16:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a section on the total number of Dutch. The figures indicate a maximum of around 15 million autochtoon Dutch, and since they are reliable statistics, the table should stick to that maximum figure. The question of whether Dutch-ancestry groups are the same as 'ethnic Dutch', or form part of the Dutch nation, can be dealt with in the Diaspora section.Paul111 11:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced material

Any editor may delete referenced material, if it is disputed and/or likely to be challenged, and without a reliable source. That means an source external to Wikipedia. The mere existence of an inline reference does not provide 'immunity from deletion', or from accuracy and neutrality requirements. Adding an inline reference with extra text, further explanation, details or opinions, does not make a reliable source. Neither does a link to another article at Wikipedia, the guidelines state explicitly that Wikipedia can not serve as a source for itself. That means that a reference to another section within the same article (for instance "see Dutch diaspora section") are not a source either. A source which states one thing is not a reliable source for another thing. No source is required for the deletion of unsourced material, and no arguments are required, and no answers to questions on the talk page are required, see WP:DELETE. The onus is entirely on the editors who want to retain material to provide a reliable source for it. Very dubious political claims have been inserted into this article, and despite repeated requests no source has been provided for most of them. That is why deletion is necessary, because there is a major problem with the accuracy.Paul111 10:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You have made a mistake there. Referenced material is not the same as unreferenced material and cannot be deleted the way you're doing it now. "Disputed" means you have countersources that proof the articles ones false. You don't have those, you only have your personal opinion and the irritating ability to repeat yourself till kingdom come. Rex 16:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The accuracy of claims such as the existence of a Dutch ethnic group prior to the Dutch Revolt is disputed. Editors who delete material under WP:DELETE are not required to prove anything. Please do not add any further statements to that effect, the issue has been discussed often enough already. If you disagree with edits, then use the dispute resolution procedure.Paul111 11:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because you, someone who refuses to accept/see provided references, dispute it doesn't mean it's false. Get that will you.Rex 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work on the principle of true/false with regard to content, but requires reliable sources, neutral tone, and verifiability. That is what is required here. I suggest this issue now moves to dispute resolution.Paul111 12:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed something you cannot provide. The sources are reliable and the article does use a neutral tone. Ever wondered why 5 people have been reverting you?!Rex 14:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page edits by user 213.125.116.112

213.125.116.112 removed my recent contributions to the talk page, including a request for sources addressed to another editor. See the talk page history.Paul111 11:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC) I re-inserted them, hopefully this will not happen again.Paul111 11:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The actions undertaken by the IP were not wiki-like, yet neither is your behavior. The constant repeating of adressed issues by you and you continually and deliberatly avoiding talk page discussions are what brought us here.Rex 16:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please simply provide the page references and other sources which were requested. If editors can not provide sources, then they should simply accept the deletion of the material in question. That will avoid endless discussions.Paul111 11:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

They have been provided you merely continually refuse to see them. That's the case here.Rex 12:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment suggested

After the name issue has been resolved one way of the other, I propose to add a Request for comment. (The name change has consequences for the content, since it would end the inplicit limit 'ethnic only').Paul111 13:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has always dealt with the ethnic Dutch, hence the name change only has positive consequences for the content. Title and content now fully match.Rex 13:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Brought forward.Paul111 15:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Religion map inaccurate

Although the general north-south division of religions is correct, the exact boundary does not correspond with the last available reliable source, the 1960 census. The maps for this census question are at Map XI-9 of the Atlas van Nederland, (SDU, 1963-1977). The map needs to be corrected. Added signiature. Paul111 18:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with using this map. It specifically refers to the situation before the influx of guest workers from abroad from 1960 onwards, and any map can only serve as a rough guideline. A map like this should just show a north/south divide and not try to be too precise. Any attempt to create a better map would still only be an approximation (and pretend to be more exact than it is) and I don't even want to think about making one for today. Skeptic77 00:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Numbers of ethnic Dutch

The following claim was added to the section on total numbers:

About 25 million people consider themselves to have a considerable degree of Dutch herritage or ancestry and can hence be considered part of the Dutch ethnic group. However, it is fairly uncommon in the Netherlands to see anyone beyond the second generation Dutch immigrants as Dutch. Hence there is somewhat of a gap between the "legally Dutch" and the people culturally attached to the Dutch.

No source is given for the figure of 25 million. It would seem to include both Americans with Dutch ancestry. and Flemish, and can not therefore be correct. The question is, does a group of people exist who are "culturally attached to the Dutch" and on that basis classifiable as ethnic (or national) Dutch? Claims to the existence of a 25-million-strong Dutch ethnic group are not supported by the statistics, and do not match the perception of Dutch identity in the Netherlands itself.Paul111 12:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, you assume to much and claim the ridiculous. 25 million includes the Dutch, Dutch americans, Afrikaners and the rest of the Dutch immigrant population.Rex 13:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Afrikaners are not Dutch, they are Afrikaners. No source was provided for the claim that they are 'Dutch', see discussion of that point above. The US Census does not count Dutch-Americans, see US Census. The question in the 2000 Census enumerates ancestry or ethnic origin, and the figure does not constitute evidence that the respondents are ethnic (or national) Dutch. This too was discussed above. There are undoubtedly Dutch people resident in the US, but a reliable source is needed. I suggest that this circular discussion now closes, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.Paul111 13:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like circular discussion then stop making them. You are the only one not interacting and continously repeating yourself. As for Arbcom ... they are here to resolve personal issues, not content disputes.Rex 13:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Providing a reliable source, or accepting deletion in cases of accuracy disputes, are the two primary options. If neither is acceptable, then the dispute resolution procedure should be used. Simply re-inserting the deleted material, and/or restating it on the talk page, leads to circularity.Paul111 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really. You continuously repeat your lists. These list are filled with lies and incorrect information. You then (while constantly being reverted by 5 different people) remove referenced information "per talk". Paul111... Wikipedia doesn't work that way. So if you think an Arbcom case will get accepted: go ahead, I'm not going to stop you. Rex 19:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree that people who descend from the Dutch are (at least sometimes) seen as at least part Dutch, even in the Netherlands, but that most often we ourselves define their ethnic group a lot more narrowly in daily life. How about:
"About 25 million people are Dutch or at least can trace back their ancestry to the Dutch and can therefore consider themselves to have a (considerable) degree of Dutch heritage or ancestry. They could all be considered part of (or at least related to) the Dutch ethnic group. However, it is fairly uncommon in the Netherlands to see anyone beyond second generation Dutch emigrants as Dutch. In the Netherlands even immigrants (or descendants of immigrants) who hold the Dutch nationality are often referred to as "allochtoon", a word used to indicate people who descend from people born abroad, even if one of the parents was ethnic Dutch. Hence there is somewhat of a gap between the Dutch as an ethnic group or Dutch as a nationality on one side and people culturally related to the Dutch on the other. The first groups are much more narrowly defined than the second." Skeptic77 00:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus.--Húsönd 03:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Dutch (ethnic group)Dutch people — Restore earlier name, the Dutch are both a nation and an ethnic group. Article was renamed to limit its content to the ethnic aspects, this is neither accurate nor neutral. NPOV policy requires that titles use the most general and objective terms. Paul111 20:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support. At the time, I tried to push for some consistency accross ethnic group/nation names, but I still don't see why it failed here. Now we have another unnecessary variation on the same theme. From WP:NC(CN): Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. I fail to see why the article was unilaterally moved in the first place. Ah, I guess it's Rex's stanza that "ethnic group" and "nation" are always different things. No they aren't in all cases (unless one wants to debate whether 1% of ethnic minorities make substantial difference), and we normally don't have nor need articles on nations: there's country name and Demographics of Country Name. Duja 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    We are talking FAR BEYOND 1% here.Rex 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. The Dutch are a people. It is more consistent with other articles this way.--Sefringle 05:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Strong Oppose. "Dutch people" are indeed both a nation and an ethnic group. This article is, and always has been about the Dutch as an ethnic group. If you want an article on the Dutch nation go to Demographics of the Netherlands or start a Dutch (nation) article.Rex 21:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    This is not a unique Dutch situation as far as I know. Who is or isn't actually included in major ethnic groups is in most instances a complex and controversial issue, but this doesn't mean that readers of an encyclopedia are well-served by separate articles about almost synonymous concepts. It's very difficult to get through such huge amounts of discussion, but it appears to me that the dispute has resulted in a POV fork. / Peter Isotalo 16:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. I too oppose the plan presented by Paul111.213.125.116.112 08:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. As the article is written now I oppose. The article treats the history and current development of the Dutch ethnic group and not that of the Dutch nation. Renaming it now, would impy these terms are synonomous. As long as there is no undisputed solution how to treat this very subtle yet sensitive difference inside the text, this article should not be renamed as this will almost inevitably lead to POV forks. Some political expedience of all involved editors will be required to achieve this, but this has been sadly lacking over the last few months; therefore I am not prepared to give this move the benefit of doubt Arnoutf 17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

As of now (and Paul111 knows this very well) Dutch people redirects to Dutch (ethnic group) because the article Dutch (nation) doesn't exist (yet). Once it's created (Might be something for paul111, to show deleting referenced material isn't the only thing he does) Dutch people can be turned into a disambig page.Rex 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

An article on the Dutch nation could be created, but if it existed I would propose its merger with this article, since the Dutch are both an ethnic group and a nation, and not two separate groups. This merge seems a pointless procedure, but if other editors insist then I will do it.Paul111 11:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Nobody wants you to merge anything.Rex 12:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You should speak for yourself, Rex. I think the move from Dutch people was ill-conceived and confusing. It's based on some very odd argumentation about the difference between very similar terms. Was there even consensus for the move to the current title to begin with? It's difficult to tell due to the voluminous discussion.
Peter Isotalo 15:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Peter has some point in stating that the original rename was based on the argumentation for the two similar terms (nation and ethnic group). The problem originally was that (as I could interpret) Paul111 comments came down to the idea that they are not only similar terms, but actually synonyms. Especially in the context of history, and immigration this could only lead to hot debates (which it did). Therefore, I think the original rename was not that bad; and as the issues have clearly not yet been solved I would not go to renaming it right now. Arnoutf 10:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
But there's clearly no consensus for such a renaming, as can be shown from the survey. It should moved back until that consensus is actually found. This is a matter of uniformity in terms of definitions of ethnic groups, not the Dutch people per se. Is there any kind of precedence for forking these two synonyms?
Peter Isotalo 12:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the issue is a bit complex. The Dutch nation includes (IMHO) Surinam and Indonesian Dutch (as well as other immigrants) but not Afrikaners or Flemings. The Dutch etnic group, may (or may not) include desendents of immigrant to America and (highly debatable) the Flemings. I am pretty sure it will not include the Surinam Dutch. If you assume the terms are indeed synonyms, there is justification in Paul111 argument that closely relating Flemings to the Dutch ethnic group calls for the 'Groot Nederland' (large netherlands) idea. If you say the difference (although subtle) is an essential one, (as I favour myself), this issue is much less sensitive. See here the problem; I am not sure whether the solution is as easy as making two separate articles. I think the history of Ethnic Group and Nation can be written together; so that would be the argument about a single article. On the other hand in such a case there MUST be a section explaining the difference between the Dutch Nation and the Dutch Ethnic Group. mmmm While typing this response, that may actually be the way out. Rename to old and add a clear section Difference between the Dutch ethnic group and the dutch nation. Arnoutf 13:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to express an opinion in the survey that it is obvious that this article should be under Dutch (people), but the contents have stopped me. If a person lives in the Netherlands and is a citizen of that country and speaks Dutch then they are Dutch. If they are a citizen of another country they may be of Dutch decent but they are not Dutch. I think that article is badly in need of a clean broom. I suggest that the English (people) is used as a template. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Relisting

There is obviously no consensus to move at this point, but I fear that we will just revisit this again and again unless more editors contribute to this debate, so I am relisting. Andrewa 16:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


In spite of this survey, Paul111 has unilaterally moved the page today. I have to say, the move may prove the only way forward, but I am not sure whether unilateral action in this heated debate is a good idea. Arnoutf 16:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "disputed template" added by Paul111

Dispute taggs and templates are a good thing, as they increase Wikipedias reliability. However sometimes they are abused. This template:

Has been present on this page for quite some time. But as of now there is no real reason to keep it. The template says that the factual accuracy of this article is disputed. This is true, it is disputed. However it's only disputed by 1 person and this person (paul111) does this based on false information. He spamms this talk page with "deletion lists" which are full of claims that are nowhere to be found in the article.

It's time to get honest. This article has over 60 inline citations. It is referenced, the information is reliable and correct. Remove the template. Rex 20:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Rex 20:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. 213.125.116.112 08:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I come here as a completely neutral party (came here from WP:RM). There appear to be large parts of this article that are unsourced. There are even more parts of it that seem to undergo ongoing edit wars to change certain figures depending on the source being used. That's pretty strong evidence that the factual accuracy of the article is in question. --- RockMFR 06:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. The accuracy of the article is indeed disputed, and particularly the pseudo-historical material relating to the Dutch as an ethnic group. The sources often do not say what they are claimed to say, and dubious sources have been added, see item on right-wing websites. No reason to remove tag while this content is still being reinserted.Paul111 10:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Unfortunately, I have to agree that the article, as it is now, contains some rather doubtful claims and information which is only partly accurate. For instance, a couple of claims are being made such as that the Dutch have achieved this and that, lots of painters are Dutch and that we were the first capitalist nation. Several such claims seem to be no more than boasts. All in all, I think this article can be a lot better, so there is at least some ground for dispute. I think it'll be difficult to work something out as long as there seems to be a serious dispute between Paul111 and other people here, but I'll try to add my 2 cents here and there in hope that it'll help. I must admit, however, that this is a difficult subject, considering that we, the Dutch, don't even know what our cultural identity is. Which is why we need a group of historians to put together a historical canon to help us teach our own people what it means to be Dutch. *rolls eyes* Skeptic77 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

This article has 70 references. That's more than most featured articles. The only person disputing (and thus reverting) this article is Paul111. Paul111 is also the one who made up a whole list of "claims" not even in the article. The fact that the information (despite being referenced) doesn't fit into paul111s biased view, doesn't mean the article should suffer. Rex 14:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Polling is evil, guys. This is not a good way to resolve the dispute.
Peter Isotalo 16:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Far-right websites as source

User:Rex Germanus added the website Roepstem as a source for claims that the Dutch are descended from Germanic tribes, that the Dutch and Flemings were seen as one people, and for the term 'Dutch' for mediaeval emigrants to Germany. Roepstem is a right-wing website which also maintained a forum on the major neonazi forum site skadi.net. Roepstem exchanges material with the Dutch nationalist website heemland.nl, and both are listed as recommend sites [10] for white nationalists by Stormfront.org. The Dutch-language forum at Stormfront, Roepstem and heemland.nl are the three main websites with far-right versions of Dutch and Flemish history, with the emphasis on Germanic origins and ethnic bonds.

The website Roepstem is run by Marcel Bas, who is active on both the Afrikaans and Dutch Wikipedia as user Thiois - he gives his real name on the user page, and links to the Roepstem website. A right-wing activist since the 1990's, he is currently associated with the only 'paleoconservative' website in the Netherlands, OpenOrthodoxie.nl. It also supports the Whole-Netherlands ideology, seeking to unite Afrikaners, Flemings and Dutch. This ideology has almost no support, is largely unknown, and neither OpenOrthodoxie nor Roepstem are reliable sources on Dutch/Flemish/Belgian history.Paul111 10:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Roepstem is not a far-right website. It's a site dedicated to preserve/provide knowledge on the Dutch/Afrikaans culture and the two languages. The fact that neo nazis at stormfront (which you apparently visit) add it as a "useful link" has (or should have) no effect on the source provided. I hope this isn't your new tactic. First you made stuff up that wasn't in the article and claimed there were no sources. Are you going to try to make every link we come up with as if created by hitler himself?! Rex 14:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Btw, the fact that you imediatly attack the supposed author instead of the information is examplary of your disruptive wikipedia behaviour.Rex 14:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Marcel Bas has himself contributed to Stormfront.org, or others have reposted his items there, for instance against Turkish EU membership and for a European Europe, and also for Dutch linguistic purity. Even republishing by other Stormfront users would, given the content of the posts, be relevant for the issue of reliability. Following the links from/to Roepstem results in a grand tour of the Flemish and Dutch far right. Most relevant here is that Marcel Bas is a self-identified supporter of the obscure Whole-Netherlands ideology, which seeks to annex all Belgium (including Wallonia), and probably northern France and Luxembourg as well, into a Great Netherlands state. By that token alone his website is not a reliable source on claims that they are/were inhabited by a single people.Paul111 19:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No that only means the website doesn't fit your own bias. Just because Nazis use the content doesn't mean its unreliable. Nazis also used the theory of evolution, did that become wrong?Rex 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Message to uninvolved users concerning Paul111s "deletion lists".

Those of you who've seen the edit history of Dutch (ethnic group) have probably seen the following comment in Paul111s edit summaries: "accuracy dispute, material was reinserted, see deletion list at talk page" and might wonder what this means. "Deletion lists" are lists posted by Paul111 on this talkpage containing information which he claims is false or lacking sources. However, please know that these lists largely (or solely) contain claims that are not in the article or are but are thoroughly referenced. Paul111 ignores comments posted by the other editors that remind him of this and continously repeats himself. I would therefore advise to be very cautious and visit and read the talk page before choosing to aid him.Rex 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This dispute is about whether the article should treat the Dutch only as an ethnic group (not as a nation), about the question of who belongs to the 'Dutch people', the resulting population totals, the definition of the Dutch as a Germanic people, and the historical claims made about the Dutch people.15:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

User Paul111

The article was originally titled Dutch people but the title was unilaterally changed by one user. The Dutch people are both an ethnic and national group, and their national identity is a major political issue in the Netherlands, since mass immigration in the last decades. What is not in doubt is that the identity relates to the present national territory in Europe, to its history, and mainly to people who were born there. It is xenophobic and inward-looking, as commentators inside and outside the country have noted. However, the accuracy has been compromised by pseudo-historical claims, which are wrong in themselves, unbalance the article, and make it difficult to cover the real identity issues. The version of history presented was approximately this:

about 1500 years ago the Franks settled in the Low Countries. Since then there has been ethnic and linguistic continuity, with the western Franks later being known as Nederlanders (Dutch). A single ethnic group of this name has inhabited the Low Countries and northern France since the early Middle Ages. It is a Germanic ethnic group, and the present Dutch and Flemish peoples are in fact the same ethnic group. This group was divided by the accidents of history in the 16th century, and many people support the reunification of at least the Netherlands and Flanders. White descendants of Dutch emigrants also belong to the Dutch ethnic group.

The problem is that the historical narrative is false, and no reputable historian supports it. For this reason, users who promote this view can find no reliable historical source. They relied on claims to infer historical facts from sources such as dictionaries, and other Wikipedia articles. Recently, far-right websites have been used as sources.

The general consensus among historians is that the Dutch identity and the Dutch state both start at the Dutch Revolt, that no 'Dutch' entity existed before then, and the Burgundian administrative unification of the Low Countries in the late Middle Ages had not produced a single identity or culture by the time it broke up. The current Dutch identity relates to the present national territory, and the popular idea of Dutch history also starts with the Dutch Revolt, its naval heroes, and the subsequent Golden Age. The current boundaries of the Netherlands and Belgium are indeed artificial, but that does not mean that a "true" ethnic nation would emerge, if they disappeared. Dutch do not see Flemings as Dutch, much less the rest of the population of Belgium. Flemish do not see themselves as Dutch, but as Flemish, with a separate Flemish history. Almost no-one in the Netherlands thinks that 'ethnic Dutch' inhabit northern France. These views are confined to a tiny minority, most of them on the far right, most in Flanders. Their views are irredentist, in Belgium the term rattachisme is used for proposals to 're-attach' Flanders to the Netherlands. The recently cited website Roepstem is an example: its obscure Whole-Netherlands ideology had a following in the 1930's, but at present most people in the Netherlands and Belgium have never heard of it, let alone support it. The disputed content presents the views of less than 0.01% of the population, as if it were historical fact.

Self-identification by a Dutch person as "Germanic" is also extremely rare, and almost entirely confined to neo-nazi websites. "Germanic" is a bona-fide linguistic term but does not apply to modern ethnic groups. The Germanic peoples were assimilated into later ethnic groups, including the modern Germans, by the end of the Middle Ages. Most Dutch people do not consider themselves Germaans (Germanic): it implies they are German (which they typically reject). It also has historical associations with the Nazi occupation of 1940-1945. Nazi propaganda promoted a common 'Germanic' identity of Germans, Scandinavians, Flemings, and Dutch, see Germanic-SS.

The problems at this article recur at others related to nationalism and ethnicity at Wikipedia. Such articles attract content which is controversial, disputed, and often subject to long disputes, see for example Vergina Sun and Macedonians (ethnic group), or Palestinian people. Similar pseudo-historical claims about the Low Countries history have appeared at for instance Flemish people and Greater Netherlands. The problematic claims at this article include any explicit or implicit claim that Flemings and Dutch constitute a single ethnic group, that it inhabits/inhabited the entire Low Countries and present-day northern France, that any "Dutch people" (Nederlanders) existed prior to the mid-16th century and the Dutch Revolt, or that every Dutch-speaking ethnic group is thereby part of the 'Dutch ethnic group'. The derived inclusion of Flemish and Afrikaner populations in the population totals for the 'Dutch people' is also inaccurate. As for the Afrikaners, some of their ancestors are certainly Dutch, but the Dutch colonists did not limit themselves to white partners, and many other South Africans have just as much 'Dutch ancestry'. (Only if they are white and speak Afrikaans are they considered Afrikaners).

Because of the aggressive tone at the talk page, I tried to limit my edits to removal of the disputed material. That was continually reinserted, and an editing truce suggested by one other editor was not observed by others. All my deletions were grounded in lack of reliable sources, including the use of Wikipedia as sole source. Some cited sources simply do not say what they were claimed to say: see the individual points at this talk page. For instance, the CIA Factbook was given as a source for the inclusion of 6 million Flemings as "Dutch". In reality, it says that 68% of the Belgian population are Dutch speakers, that's all. The claim that the Dutch are a Germanic people was inferred from articles in the Britannica. One says that the Germanic peoples were Indo-European peoples speaking a Germanic language, another includes a map of the Indo-European languages. Since Dutch is an Indo-European language, the articles taken together were claimed to show that the Dutch are a Germanic people. In reality, the 'Germanic peoples' article places them in a specific period, Iron Age to early Middle Ages, and does not speak of modern ethnic groups or nations as Germanic peoples.

The article has many other faults, including ethnic boosterism and trivia, and it needs a complete rewrite. However, this RfC is directed at the historical inaccuracies and irredentist claims in the article: they obstruct a good article on the current national identity issue in the Netherlands.Paul111 15:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reaction by Rex to lies/false claims by Paul111

The above heap of text is ridiculous and is the creation of Paul111s imagination.

 :about 1500 years ago the Franks settled in the Low Countries. Since then there has been ethnic and linguistic continuity, with the western Franks later being known as Nederlanders (Dutch). A single ethnic group of this name has inhabited the Low Countries and northern France since the early Middle Ages. It is a Germanic ethnic group, and the present Dutch and Flemish peoples are in fact the same ethnic group. This group was divided by the accidents of history in the 16th century, and many people support the reunification of at least the Netherlands and Flanders. White descendants of Dutch emigrants also belong to the Dutch ethnic group.

— Paul111

Never has this been claimed in the article whatsoever. This is ridiculous, made up and false. User can check it for themselves at any time. This is not what was claimed in anyway. This is purposly misinforming people Paul111. Negative manipulation.

The general consensus among historians is that the Dutch identity and the Dutch state both start at the Dutch Revolt, that no 'Dutch' entity existed before then, and the Burgundian administrative unification of the Low Countries in the late Middle Ages had not produced a single identity or culture by the time it broke up.

— Paul111

No such consencus exists. There is not a single respected historian I know of that says/claims the Dutch started at the the Dutch revolt. Neither does paul111 as he's never provided any references for this outrageous claim.

Self-identification by a Dutch person as "Germanic" is also extremely rare, and almost entirely confined to neo-nazi websites. "Germanic" is a bona-fide linguistic term but does not apply to modern ethnic groups. The Germanic peoples were assimilated into later ethnic groups, including the modern Germans, by the end of the Middle Ages. Most Dutch people do not consider themselves Germaans (Germanic): it implies they are German (which they typically reject). It also has historical associations with the Nazi occupation of 1940-1945. Nazi propaganda promoted a common 'Germanic' identity of Germans, Scandinavians, Flemings, and Dutch, see Germanic-SS.

— Paul111

This, of all comments, most clearly demonstates you disrupting bias. Germanic does not mean German. And The Dutch are a Germanic people and speak a Germanic language. This is a scientific fact. In Science nobody thinks of the Germanic SS when they write down Germanic. Only you do.

Because of the aggressive tone at the talk page, I tried to limit my edits to removal of the disputed material.

— Paul111

The agressive tone here (if there is any) has come to be because you refuse to discuss matters and accept others referenced views. You have yet to visit this talkpage with anything other than your opinion.

All my deletions were grounded in lack of reliable sources, including the use of Wikipedia as sole source.

— Paul111

No, they are grounded by your personal bias. All sources are reliable. Wikipedia articles are not used as references. Merely (in 1 or 2 cases) as further reading.

For instance, the CIA Factbook was given as a source for the inclusion of 6 million Flemings as "Dutch". In reality, it says that 68% of the Belgian population are Dutch speakers, that's all.

— Paul111

Again manipulation by Paul111. The source is used to get the number of Dutchophones in Belgium. Other sources already validate the mentioning of Flemings as closely related to the Dutch and because seeing them as solely Dutch is not a general opinion they are not included in the final count. This has been explained to you many times before but you ignore it and hope to manipulate others with false information. Sad.

Everything else you claim is once more (you repeat and repeat ...) either not in the article or already adressed.

Rex 17:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Others can add comments here...
And so they shall. I'm a history student and, at least formally, a student of Dutch history (my specialism, Military History, falls under that subfaculty), so perhaps I can be of some help.
The Dutch themselves, as most Europeans, are multi-ethnic, as evidenced by the broad range of appearances, they descended from Celtic tribes, Germanic tribes and Nordic ones. The Dutch are also confused themselves about their cultural / ethnic heritage. So this is a difficult issue. I'd propose to mostly rely on the most used definition of "Nederlands" (the Dutch equivalent of Dutch) and then in the narrow sense which does not include people who are descended from people who were born abroad, with the disclaimer that this is indeed a very narrow definition. I would also suggest throwing out most of the things which are more closely related to the history of the Netherlands than to the Dutch as an ethnic group. Of course they are related, but a history lesson is much better reserved for pages relating to Dutch history than to the Dutch as an ethnic group. We can always refer to Dutch history in passing and leave it at that. In a similar vein, I think culture is separate from the Dutch as an ethnic group. The Dutch culture transcends that ethnic group, especially today and is not intrinsically linked to the people themselves, it is something that is created by them, a product. So there is a connection, yes, but no real need to treat it on this same page. It adds to the confusion, I think. Moreover, it's wrong. The Dutch, as a narrowly defined ethnic group, are not by themselves solely responsible for their culture and their history. BTW, see also my additions in the "Numbers of ethnic Dutch" and "What does Dutch mean" sections on this talk page.
I would definitely try to steer clear of any race-related or discrimination-related disputes, but apparantly that might be difficult to do here.
I would like to suggest throwing out most of the talk page and starting anew. This is simply a huge challenge to read through and if this goes on a little while longer, then it'll be impossible for anyone to create anything sensible out of this, while anyone new will just say "sod this" and move on. I'm surprised I haven't done so (yet). Would it be possible for Paul111 to summarize his objections and then keep that and throw everything else out and work from there? IE, if he voluntarily summarizes his objections, then maybe we can try to move on without having to work through a HUGE talk page filled with all kinds of disputes? So, Paul111, if you are seriously interested in creating a better article, then please tell me if you would be willing to write down your most serious objections which we can keep and use as a basis, so we can throw out the rest and then work from there? Otherwise this will undoubtedly end up an edit-war, which is something I don't have time for. Skeptic77 01:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I also feel it's important to point out that, as it is now, according to the first lines this article is only about what in Dutch are called "autochtonen" or the indigenous population which can trace back its ancestry to people living within the territory which is today the Netherlands. That is a very narrow definition. But the title of this page is "Dutch people", while in the article itself it says "ethnic group". Dutch people also automatically redirects here. That is confusing. I think we'd be better off to just drop the "ethnic group" thing for this article and just work on the Dutch as a people, the people living in the Netherlands and descendants of people who have lived in the Netherlands. Defining the Dutch as an ethnic group if very difficult and as a historian I am much more comfortable with Dutch, when used to refer to people instead of used to refer to the language or as an adjective, being defined as "people who live, have lived or are descended from people living in the Netherlands. I also think that that is really the way the term is used in the textbook "Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden" as that is a book about the history of the low countries, including Belgium and Luxembourg. Moreover, it should ease some of the fears of this page being used by people with a right-wing agenda. Skeptic77 02:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What does Dutch mean

I thought a bit about some on the problems (especially the history section). I think part of the problems stem from a disagreement about the term Dutch; and whether it should only be used if the related (Dutch) term equals Nederlander. I disagree with this idea,as we are writing an English encyclopedia. Therefore I looked up the word Dutch in etymological dictionaries. [11]. Looking at these, I found that in English from early medieval times a term like Teuto was used for the Germanic tribes (including the Hollanders and Flemings) and that in English the term Dutch is used from 1380 onwards for all (western) German peoples, in my opinion this includes the Flemings, Hollanders, Artoisians, Guelders etc etc. From about 1600 onwards the term becomes exclusively used for the Hollanders, and the other states of the Netherlands.
Should we add a short section on the etymology of the term Dutch; or can we work this into the history section? Arnoutf 10:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The sources do not say that. Specifically they do not include the limitation to 'western' Germanic in the early use - which is in any case indicated as archaic. As far as earlier usage is concerned, this is explicit enough (bold added)...:
c.1380, used first of Germans generally, after c.1600 of Hollanders, from M.Du. duutsch, from O.H.G. duit-isc, corresponding to O.E. ˛eodisc "belonging to the people," used especially of the common language of Germanic people, from ˛eod "people, race, nation," from P.Gmc. *theudo "popular, national" (see Teutonic), from PIE base *teuta- "people" (cf. O.Ir. tuoth "people," O.Lith. tauta "people," O.Prus. tauto "country," Oscan touto "community"). As a language name, first recorded as L. theodice, 786 C.E. in correspondence between Charlemagne's court and the Pope, in reference to a synodical conference in Mercia; thus it refers to Old English. First reference to the German language (as opposed to a Germanic one) is two years later. The sense was extended from the language to the people who spoke it (in Ger., Diutisklant, ancestor of Deutschland, was in use by 13c.). Sense narrowed to "of the Netherlands" in 17c., after they became a united, independent state and the focus of English attention and rivalry.
That seems a sufficient source for the modern meaning, and for limiting its use in this article to that modern sense. If the earlier usage is mentioned, then under etymology, and without the limitation to 'western' Germanic contexts, either linguistic or ethnic.Paul111 12:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
With Western I meant that it includes Dutch and Flemings but probably excluded Poles or even Prussians. Anyway based on these sources I fully agree Dutch is used exclusively for the Hollanders (and republic) from the Dutch revolt onward. However, before that the English did not seem to distinguish between the German Fiefdoms, calling them all Dutch (which supports Rex prose, using Dutch for the medieval Holland, Fleming, Artois people). My idea to put in the etymology section (something like) this
Etymology of Dutch
In the English language, the term Dutch evolved from the Old English eodisc (lit: belonging to the people). The English used this term in general for all Germanic peoples. Around 1380, the phrase Dutch was first used, still in reference to all the German fiefdoms (including Artois, Flanders, Holland, Zeeland, etc). From about 1600 onwards the term Dutch became restricted to the Hollanders, and their republic
.
If we put that in we can subsequently decide how we refer to the tribes in the Netherlands area from about 500-1380 (no use of Dutch in English) and how we refer to the Lowlands fiefdoms from 1380-1600 (I would accept the LowLands there, but something can be said for using Lowlands-Dutch; or Western Dutch as well). At least if we put the etymology section in, we clarify that in English history the term Dutch has not always meant the Netherlanders exclusively. Arnoutf 13:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The latter (and greater) part of 500-1380 wasn't marked by traditional tribes. Hollander, has always been a pars pro to in international use as this was most often the ownly province foreigners visited. To think Dutch only mean Hollanders since the 15th century is ridiculous.Rex 13:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry what I meant was that the eodisc first referred to the tribes, but later (800+) to the German holy roman empire fiefdoms, just like Dutch meant all the German/holy roman empire fiefdoms (including Flemings, but also the people living near Cologne, Hamburg etc.) pre 1600; and became a reserved name for the Dutch Republic only during/after the Dutch revolt Arnoutf 13:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say, in the cited sources, that around 1380 the term Dutch was used for all the German fiefdoms? And where does it say that the "German fiefdoms" were all in the Low Countries/ present northern France? The cited sources confirm the lack of a clear distinction between the territories and inhabitants of what later became Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The source also says that the modern English word Dutch evolved not from Old English but from 'duutsch' - corresponding to O.E. That raises the question of what it meant, at the time, outside England. Additionally, explaining the etymology of the English-language demonym (not the 'exonym' as the text wrongly says) does not necessarily clarify the etymology or usage of the term which it usually translates, Nederlands. Paul111 19:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We have to drop the idea of "flemings" in the modern sence here. The Flemish nation is relatively recent (post vlaamse strijd). Flemming before that means inhabitant of the county ... just like hollander.Rex 21:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You cannot always literary quote a source, the text in the dictionary is good for that aim, but unreadable in an encyclopedia article. How I interpret this:
If Dutch means German, then it means all Germans, thus it means all (German) provinces, which are fiefdoms.
I explicitly state that these fiefdoms INCLUDE provinces, no longer considered German, it is not necessary to add that these fiefdoms also included Saxon-Coburg, Bavaria etc etc. It must be made clear that at that time the definition German included what now is Netherlands, Flanders and Artois.
Ok fair enough, replace in Duutsch instead of the O.E.
Indeed, it does not. That is exactly the point I try to make here. We should use the English conventions rather then the Dutch when using the word Dutch; otherwise we have to use the word Netherlandic Ethnic Group.
To Rex, I agree, Flanders as was Zeeland, Holland, Frisia was a county, just as Guelders was a Dutchy and Utrecht a bishopdom. That is how I refer to Flanders for any reference prior to (at least) the Dutch revolt. As I have stated above somewhere; the idea of stat/nation states is relatively new. Arnoutf 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Right, I'm Dutch and I came across this article, noticed it was tagged "accuracy disputed" so thought I'd take a look and add my 2 cents.
This is an encyclopedia, so imho this article should elaborate on the meaning or meanings of the word Dutch (when referring to an ethnic group), because after all someone might be interested in "Dutch" as relating to an earlier period than modern times. At the same time, it'd be best to keep it relatively short and snappy, to keep it clear. I'd propose a section along the lines of:
'In the English language, the term "Dutch", when used to refer to an ethnic group, is nowadays usually used to refer to the indigenous population of the Netherlands, or to the population of the Netherlands as a hole, including immigrants and descendants of immigrants. However, in the past "Dutch" could also refer (sometimes mistakenly) to other cultures, groups or languages. For instance, the Pennsylvania Dutch, who were actually of German descent, or "Deutsch", in their native language. The confusion is understandable, because originally, around 1380 BC, the term "Dutch" was used to refer to Germanic peoples, a group to which the Dutch belong. It was not until the early 17th century that the term was mostly used to refer to the people of the Dutch Republic (which later became the Netherlands).
To make matters even more confusing, "Dutch" is (or at least was) often used as relating only to a part of The Netherlands, Holland, a county or province which used to be pre-eminent among the semi-independent provinces which together formed the Dutch Republic (which ended up becoming the Netherlands), an area which even now is home to most of the people of the Netherlands and of key importance to the economy. On the other hand "Dutch" could also be meant to include the Belgians (especially the Flemish), especially during the period of 1815-1830 when Belgium was combined with the Netherlands to form the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. The same is also true for Luxembourg, for the same reasons, for the period of 1815-1890, but in modern use it is only used to refer to people from the Netherlands. Today, there is no term similar to "Dutch" in use in the Netherlands, but abroad the term has become the standard English designation for anything related to the country and its inhabitants. In the Dutch language, it translates as "Nederlands", both when referring to the language or when used as an adjective, but as "Nederlanders" when referring to the Dutch as a people. An early form of the Dutch language was called "Diets", which obviously bears a close resemblance to the word "Dutch". The term "Nederlanders" is most often used to indicate people belonging to the indiginous population, people (descended from) people who were born abroad are most often seen as as a separate group, even when they or their ancestors were born in former colonies when they still were administrated by the Dutch, even when they are from the Dutch Antilles (which are formally a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands), and even when they have the Dutch nationality. However, "Nederlanders" can also be used to indicate everyone with the Dutch nationality. So, when using the term "Dutch" one needs to take into account which period it is referring to and how it is meant if it is being used in a narrow or a broader sense.'
I would definitely not include present-day Belgians or Flemish, except perhaps to say that the Flemish Belgians speak Flemish, which is closely related to Dutch. AFAIK, it's officially a separate language. If the term is used to indicate people from Belgian, that is done in error. I think most people from the Netherlands and Belgium would disagree and some of them would be offended by such use of the term.
It might also be useful to state explicitly which definition is used where on this page. Hope this helps. Skeptic77 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Flemish is not a separate language, it is a colloquial term for a number (2) Dutch dialects, or a pars pro to for Dutch as spoken in Belgium. Rex 09:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that automatically mean that we're talking about a separate language here? Flemish is different from Dutch as spoken in the Netherlands, just as local dialects spoken in the Netherlands are different from ABN, Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands, or General Civilized Dutch. How can something be a dialect or at least different from Dutch as spoken in the Netherlands and elsewhere, while still being completely identical? The term "Vlaams" or Flemish is expressly used to refer to the variants of the Dutch language spoken in Belgium. Therefore they are different. The fact that the Belgians themselves use the same official spelling / pronunciation rules as used in the Netherlands does not make a difference here. Speaking in a more general sense, I also feel that the Flemish as a group are not automatically Dutch. People from the Southern Netherlands during the period of 1815-1830 can most certainly be considered to be so, but outside of that period and the period around the Dutch Revolt it is best to speak of kinship, not of actual interchangeability between Dutch and Belgians, even when they speak (a variant of) Dutch. After all, Americans speak a variant of English, but that doesn't make them English. The two are clearly related and before the American Revolution people living in the colonies had the English nationality, but that doesn't make them identical.
Basically, the problem here as well is that the term Dutch is used rather arbitrarily at times. It is very hard to pin down a specific group or specific cultural traits as Dutch. Therefore my proposal to move on from discussing Dutch as an ethnic group, which is pretty hopeless imho and work first on the Dutch as a people, which seems to be a broader category, and then move on to say something about the Dutch as an ethnic group in a more narrow sense. Most of the things on this page actually refer to things related to the Dutch as a whole, ie. including immigrants. After all, the territory which is the Netherlands has always had a history of substantial immigration, from the Roman era to the present day. Also, the term Dutch when used of people is basically always used to refer to people inhabiting the Netherlands, sometimes specifically including immigrants, sometimes excluding them, so a page with this title should probably reflect that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skeptic77 (talkcontribs) 10:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
That Flemish has the same words, grammar and spelling as Dutch makes a convincing case it IS the same language. i.e. it is much closer than e.g. UK and US English which do not share spelling.
I think a lot of the arguments on this page are related to the confusion between 3 terms: Dutch people - Ethnic Dutch - Dutch Nation. By assuming these as synonyms you will readily see any reference to a Germanic-Euroean descent as nationalistic, or even outright racism; if you distinguish these the issue is of less relevance. We have not managed to come up with a solutions so far. Arnoutf 11:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not talking about any ethnic connection between language and people. I know me learning Chinese isn't going to make me Chinese. I was simply reporting the fact that "Flemish" is not a language, let alone a separate one. The languages of Belgium, as stated in the constitution, are French, German and Dutch. A lot of Dutch people living above the rivers call "their" Dutch "Hollands", and to many Belgians (and a lot of Dutch people too) they have a (heavy) accent as well, does that make "Hollands" a separate language? No. Thing is,that Dutch has a number of dialects. When Dutch people say "Flemish accent" they linguistically mean a Brabantic one, as the majority of the Dutch-speaking Belgians have a Brabantian dialect. A true "Flemish accent" (west or East Flemish) would sound more as Zealandic to most Dutch.Rex 11:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

But Flemish does -not- use the same words, grammar and spelling, that's precisely the point! Belgians who speak Dutch are supposed to adhere to the same official standards as people from the Netherlands. However, they do not, they speak and write in a different way, according to localized dialects which not only vary with ABN (Official, Standardized Dutch) but also among eachother. The term Vlaams or the English equivalent Flemish are used precisely to pinpoint the difference between ABN and the versions of Dutch spoken in Belgian. Therefore, they are -not- interchangable. Also, I'd say that in my experience most Belgians who speak Dutch/Flemish would -not- consider themselves to be Dutch but rather Belgian/Flemish. After all, Belgian -was- part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands between 1815 and 1830, but the Belgians revolted and left that United Kingdom because they felt they had a separate, cultural identity. Basically, imho, you could regard the entire concept of the Dutch as a separate ethnic group or separate people as something which quite simply is an artificial construct. After all, who to include? People descended from people living in the Southern Low Countries (present day Belgium), people who have lived and whose ancestors have lived in the present-day Netherlands? Would that be including Jews who moved here during the Revolt and people who have lived here and whose ancestors have lived here for generations but who are descended from people living in the former colonies? This is, whichever way you want to see it, a concept which transcends national boundaries. Nowadays many Dutch people define Dutch very narrowly, meaning that some of my close friends, although born here and in possession of a Dutch passport, still would be considered to be "allochtoon", even if one of their parents is actually Dutch (here used as in autochtoon, indigenous Dutch). Which I think is very arbitrary. We need to make a clear desicion here on what this article should be about, Dutch as a group, including people who originally migrated here (which basically goes for everyone living here if you go back far enough) or Dutch in a very, very, very narrow sense which is basically useless in everyday life. Personally, I'd see it as broader concept, including people living in the United Kingdom, but not including people living in present-day Belgians. Therefore I think that Wikipedia should at least have an article devoted to the Dutch -group- of peoples, in the expanded sense, rather than just an article on an arbitrarily defined group which in all practicality doesn't even exist and which no one can really identify or characterize. After all, we don't even know what our mutual history is anymore... Skeptic77 12:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because people have different accents doesn't mean they speak a different language. People from Twente have speak Dutch differently, as do people from Limburg. Does that mean they speak different languages? Rex 13:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Now there are 3 things we should not confuse.
1) Language: This has little to do with ethnicity or nation or people or whatever. Just like Wallonians are not French (but speak it); Flemish are not Dutch (but their language is called Dutch). This is of little relevance and should not receive much attention here (e.g. English is spoken in many countries among others it is the ofiical language of Singapore, hardly ethnic English there).
2) De facto definitions - which is what I think you are referring to. These are the most difficult as here all kinds of subjective feelings may creep in (actually I think finding acceptable de facto definitions is much what the arguments about this page deal with)
3) Official definition (allochtoon). This is fairly simple; an inhabitant of the Netherlands is only autochtone (i.e. not allochtone) if the person has Dutch nationality AND both his/her parents were born in the Netherlands. My father was born in Germany, and lived there for the first 4 months of his life (but never outside the Netherlands after that) hence I am an allochtoon. On the other hand, a 3rd generation immigrant (if the person is Dutch and both parent were born in the Netherlands) is counted as autohtoon. (Centraal Buro voor de Statistiek definitie).
Let's try not to confuse the issue and separate these issues as much as possible Arnoutf 16:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
With regard to Flemish as a language, I'm willing to concede it is not an official language, but I would still point out that there is a difference between Dutch as spoken in Belgium and Dutch spoken in the Netherlands, just as there are regional dialects in the Netherlands itself, while Frisian also is a separate (and recognized) language. I think my underlying point here is that I again would say that Belgians and Dutch are at least somewhat related, but would still highlight the differences. Despite the shared history here and there, despite some Belgians using the same language (albeit in a slightly different way), the differences are still significant.
Now, on the other hand I would not like to exclude too much. I would prefer to have this section be more inclusive than exclusive with regard to allochtonen, for instance. After all, immigration is a huge part of our culture, it has made this country what it is! Despite the fact that, yes, you could argue that official statistics and such like make the distinction as well, I do feel it'd be shortchanging some people and the Dutch as a whole. If people really intend to create an article only about indigenous Dutch (autochtonen) then I think we will end up with something that bears a passing resemblance to the full story, but would leave out important bits and pieces. For example, the story of Anne Frank, for instance, which symbolizes the whole traumatic experience of occupation and deportation of fellow citizens, would that be considered part of the Dutch history/culture? I think it does, it's certainly part of the "canon" of history facts that has been created in order to represent the official Dutch history. After all, the Dutch have created a relatively open society which not only is very permissive, but which also has allowed significant immigration to take place. This immigration in turn has changed our society in some respects as well. That is also part of the story.
In any case, I still feel the proposal I made for rewriting a section of the article along the lines laid out above, stands. It doesn't seem to me that we disagree that much on the content of that, or am I wrong? The way I see it, we're debating things which should be included (or excluded) elsewhere, especially the part about Flemish being Dutch or not. The part I wrote is about a usable definition of "Dutch" when referring to people, not about languages (except to say that the term "Diets" sounds similar to "Dutch") so we could still add another section about languages. As long as we both agree that the Flemings aren't Dutch, although they are closely related. The part about including a bit more about allochtonen, or at least using a broader definition of Dutch also seems to be more of a fundamental debate about the take on this article in general, which, while important, is not relevant for this proposal in particular. Or do you specifically wish to have these issues adressed in this part of the article? If you think this proposal is usable, but you would like to have (some of) it rewritten, please feel free to come up with a rewrite so we can discuss that. BTW, I added one last line, although I'm not certain I'd want to phrase it that way. Skeptic77 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems we all agree. Flemish is not a separate language, much as Twents or Rotterdams are not. Belgium poeple are a separate people.
We would not want to be to exclusive. Indeed not only Anne Frank but also Spinoza (2nd generation Portuguese immigrant) and many other typically Dutch people would be excluded. Finding a definition has proven not to be easy though. I would like to go for the opening line of the Ethnic group article An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of humans whose members identify with each other. Arnoutf 08:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that sounds quite alright to start with, at least. But we obviously need something more. Any thoughts on that? Skeptic77 11:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


I would say something like. For the Dutch nation this identification is often based on cultural belonging and nationality; for the Dutch ethnic group the identifaction is more usually based on common genealogy and descent. But that may trigger objections; and is a non-sourced distinction between the two. Arnoutf 17:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree with the direction you're taking with this, but I'm having a hard time integrating it in the existing text. I think it'd be best to start off by rewriting the first two sections of this article, then proceed from there. Considering all the fuss over this article, why don't we try to work out a proposal others can then take a look at? Skeptic77 21:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think working it out here on the talk page, before editing the main article is a very good idea; if alone to prevent revert warring. I'll try to have a go soon. Arnoutf 08:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not correct to say that the Dutch nation has a cultural definition, and the ethnic group an ancestry definition. Both the ethnic group and the nation are defined by common culture, and widely by common descent. However there is no consensus in the Netherlands on this issue, see Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders. Many people use a very restricted definition of both the ethnic group and the nation, and also assumes that they coincide. Others do not assume that, do not see the Dutch as an 'ethnic group', and think that a Muslim born in Morocco of Moroccan parents can also be "Dutch". This article should describe that controversy.Paul111 12:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, we seem to agree (at least a little) on that. The explanation as to how "ethnic group" can be interpreted here as given by Arnoutf is quite clear that various interpretations are possible. As we've discussed here, the term "Dutch" is not that easily defined and therefore we would like to approach it from a broad, inclusive description, then narrowing it down and explaining how it can be viewed in various ways and how it would have been viewed in the past (ie. Belgians being Dutch in the 1815-1830 period) and how it is viewed now. Picking either a broad or a narrow description and then sticking to it would not suffice, as it would only be valid for one viewpoint in one period. So I do think that this article should at least include something about this debate as well, although we'll see how far we'll go in doing so, since it could rapidly expand into a whole new article by itself, whereas it's probably best to just give some outlines here and then refer to other articles. So people can start here, get an overview and then jump to other articles to find out more.

So, Arnoutf, I think for now it is your turn. ;) Skeptic77 14:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I will have a go, but I think Paul111 notion should indeed be taken to heart. There is no agreement whether the nation and the ethnic group are synonyms and that should be acknowledged. PS let's not go into too much detail into the badly informed; but sadly popular political ideas of Wilders Arnoutf 14:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic group and nation are not synonyms. There's no need for concensus, they simply aren't synonyms. Just like "cat" and "dog" aren't synonyms. This article is about the ethnic group known as the Dutch, not the nation or its demographics.Rex 16:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rex, I don't think that anyone suggested that nation and ethnic group are synonyms. We were discussing "ethnic group" and have concluded that it's a broad enough concept to be interpreted both narrowly and more broadly and that both ways of using the term should be referred to in this article. If only because this is an encyclopedia and we should not just focus on the present. I think that this is indeed a major problem on this page. How to define this term and how to have this article reflect it. So I'll say, let's wait to see what Arnoutf comes up with and then take it from there. Skeptic77 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It was Arnoutf, most likely influenced by Paul111, who questioned the fact that nation and ethnic group are not synonym. No matter if this subject is dealt with broadly or narrowly (what's the current situation?) it will not become a mix between nation and etnicity.Rex 17:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please make the difference between the state Netherlands, Dutch nationality/citizenship, the Dutch nation (referring to a group of people much like the first nations in Canada) and the ethnic group. I was more thinking along the lines of (mind you it is rough, it is messy, it is not finished but perhaps as start) There are several classifications of Dutch people. Most broadly this could refer to anyone living in the Netherlands and those outside the Netherlands with the Dutch nationality. A bit more narrow the Dutch maybe referred to all those who have the Dutch nationality and citizenship (which go together according to Dutch law). Even more narrow definition would limit being part of the Dutch people to allochtones. Less formal definitions of the Dutch are be the Dutch nation a group who share a common identity, a common language, religion, ideology, culture, and history (this is the definition from the nation article); or the Ethnic Dutch a population of humans whose members identify with each other (from the Ethnic people article), both definition are often supplemented by a common genealogy or ancestry.
If we tak this up we have a broader definition for ethnic group compared to nation. Fine with me as I don't like the nationalist in nation..... Arnoutf 17:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The intro to ethnic group is misleading because it is a very selective quote from A. D. Smith's Ethnic Origins of Nations. The article does not say that an ethnic group is defined only by mutual identification, since in many groups and clubs (and religions) the members identify with one another. A. D. Smith does not say that either. The theoretical literature does not offer a clear-cut distinction between an ethnic group and a nation. Every criteria used to define ethnicity, has been used to define nations as well, except citizenship and legal nationality. Ethnic group and nation can coincide, which is not the same thing as being synonymous. Many people in the Netherlands think that the 'Dutch people' and the 'Dutch nation' coincide, and distrust anyone who claims to be 'Dutch' but has a non-Dutch ethnicity, such as the ministers Nebahat Albayrak and Ahmed Aboutaleb.Paul111 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Be careful not to confuse reference to published literature (the first part of your comment) and what 'many people think' what is your last part. Those same people will probably think the Maxima IS Dutch, while she has less right to that name compared to Aboutaleb (fewer yrs in Nl). Arnoutf 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Also not completely irrelevant is the fact that this page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia Ethnic Group Project, which on one hand strictly defines ethnic group (and then goes on and on about how contentious this term really is), but on the other hand allows quite some latitude within the same project. Moreover, it has been suggested that this article be changed to "Dutch people" which would grant even more latitude. As said before, I feel this article (especially considering the way it is now) fits a broader category much better and that we should start there anyway, since there -should- be a page like that on Wikipedia, but without this one, there is only a page on demographics and suchlike. Skeptic77 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of citecheck and copyedit tags

User Rex Germanus removed citecheck and copyedit tags. The copyedit is necessary because of the poor quality of the English in places, and the poor structure in especially the stereotypes section. The citations need to be checked, for reasons explained in the February deletion list above.Paul111 12:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a local message for the stereotypes section would serve your goal better; more precise and less work; which may be a better incentive for editors to take up the challenge. Arnoutf 12:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul111. Your very wiki-like deletion list was proved full of lies quite some time ago. The style is fine, improvement is another matter but no one on this project will say this article is written in bad english or argue that the inline citations can't be checked.Rex 13:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The tag indicates that some citations need checking. The reasons are indicated in the February deletion list. The article has been edited in a piecemeal fashion, even aside from the edit conflicts, sections overlap, and it needs a rewrite. Copy-editing is a minimum.Paul111 18:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not the one who can simply superimpose your personal rules on this article. Your lists are riduculous, manipulative and filled with lies and false claims. Get that straighted out before you continue this ridiculous behavior.Rex 18:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Move Dutch diaspora to separate article

There is a series of articles on diasporas, and since the section is getting bigger, it seems logical to move the content to a spearate main article. Some of the content on Dutch influence could go there too.Paul111 12:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

sounds like a fair enough idea, that would take out some of the disagreements whether to call historic migrants still Dutch for example. Arnoutf 12:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It would just move those discussions. I don't think the section is particularry big, wikipedia has enough small articles already.Rex 13:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Move stereotypes and image section

I propose that this section be moved, not so much because of its length, but because the content is specific and unrelated to much of the rest of the article. It doesn't fit, in other words. A one-paragrapgh section and a 'main article' link to the new article, would suffice.Paul111 18:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose you discuss matters in openend sections before you start yet another one.Rex 20:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Netherlands as state or Dutch people?

I propose to remove from the article most material describing the Netherlands state and the activities of the Dutch East India Company, because they are not attributable to the Dutch as ethnic group, people, or nation. They belong in other articles, mainly in History of the Netherlands. This article often confuses the Dutch people, Dutch society, and the Dutch state - this is a general problem at ethnic group articles. (The attribution of individual actions to an entire ethnic group is also disputable. "The Dutch" did not paint van Gogh's paintings: he did.)Paul111 11:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we could shorten the description sections. Also the refereence to the VOC maybe shorter. I have to say though that the sections on the monkey, Japan etc. do justice to the article as they give an outside view on the typical Dutch ethnic group of that time through the eyes of other cultures. I think those should stay (even if that means we have to keep a bit on the VOC to introduce why the Dutch were in the far east in the 16th century). Arnoutf 11:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch were active in the entire world because of the VOC, the VOC itself was a Dutch compagny. It is an important (or at least very visible) part of the history of the Dutch. What you want is simply ridiculous. How on earth were you planning to explain those 0,5 Dutch Eurasians? Cheap vacations and champagne? Rex 12:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Paul111 only wants to limit the elaboration on non Dutch ethnic group decription of the Netherlands where unnecessary and better placed elsewhere; I do not believe he proposes to delete mentioning VOC where it serves this article. Arnoutf 12:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then Paul111 needs to learn how to explain what he wants. Ultimately [[#REDIRECT Demographics of the Netherlands]] I guess. Rex 12:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that all Indonesian Eurasians are of Dutch descent. The "European" population in the Dutch East Indies was (as the term implies) not exclusively Dutch, and included for instance many Germans. Similarly, there is no evidence that the VOC (East India Company) crews and staff were exclusively Dutch, and some evidence that they were not mainly Dutch at all. The influence of the VOC on Asian history can not be atributed to an ethnic group as a whole. Such attributions are un-historical: most of the 'Dutch people' never went to the Indies, or the Cape Colony, and never worked for the VOC.Paul111 12:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that Paul111. But do remember that the VOC, never made attempts to colonize or educate the local population. Merely to get their spices. The Dutch Goverment after 1800, installed a governemental structure and deployed entire armies and created a permanent constant occupation. Those men were almost entirely Dutch.Rex 13:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

New aproach in dealing with "disputed" claims

Paul111s deletion lists are unwiki-like, and, more importantly, filled with false claims and purposely (?) manipulated information. Hence, I have a new aproach in solving his problems. No longer will you make list paul111 (which you post on the talkpage and never valuably respond to) but you will post SUBsections (not new ones) below this one in which you will discuss whatever you think is wrong 1 issue at the time. Note that discussing means responding to others' comments, not just listing your opinion (and repeating it). If no problems are listen in 2 days. I'm going to remove the dispute template. Rex 13:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The dispute template should not be removed so long as the content is still disputed, and so long as the Request for Comment is underway. For the disputed material, see the February deletion list above, and individual items on specific problems. There is no point in re-listing it all here, certainly not while the Request for Comment is still underway. If no third-party comments are receievd by the end of February, then it can be concluded that the RfC has failed.Paul111 13:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
As long as you refuse to say and discuss what you dispute there is only you obstructing the writing of a good article. As said before your "deletion list" (a name just dripping with wiki- good faith) are filled with a claims either sources or not in the article. You refuseto disuss matter. List your problems individually below or hold your piece. Rex 14:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Another thing, if Paul111 does not add any problems below, but still reverts my removal of the template, I will request a mediaton, as this is going to be sorted out one way or another.Rex 15:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The problems with the article have been listed extensively above, see also the talk page archives. They have also been discussed endlessly. Due to editing disputes a Request for Comment was initiated. While that is proceding, it is better not to remove the accuracy template.Paul111 17:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No they haven't. You only list problems, but when we make it very clear to you items on your lists aren't even in the article and when you refuse to discuss matters (please, no more claims of "endless discussions") then this is the only sollution. So, if you're planning to add any problems below, you'd better hurry, or else start preparing for a mediation. Rex 20:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The items are not in the article if they have been deleted. If they are put back in the article, then they are in the article once more. At present they are in the article, so the accuracy tag relating to them should stay.Paul111 13:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Again you twist and turn but say nothing. Your lists, are full of claims that ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE in the article. You have less than a day listing your problems below. Rex 14:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My new approach to deeling with disputed claims would be: to treat them individually (ie not make lists). Interpret carefully why you disagree with the claim. Interpret carefully why the claim was originally entered into the article assuming good faith of the other ediror. Assume that the pat you disagree with can be caused by lack of writing skills; lack of control of perfect english by the other editor. Suggest a version in which the ideas of the original editor are respected, but where the problems encountered are solved. Arnoutf 16:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem 1

...

March 2007 deletion list

The accuracy is still disputed and most of the disputed claims have been re-inserted. The main problems are explicit or implicit claims that Flemings and Dutch constitute one people, that this single Dutch people existed prior to the Dutch Revolt, the claim that the Dutch are a Germanic people, and inclusion of Flemish and Afrikaner populations in the table, leading to inflated population figures for the 'Dutch'.

To address these issues the following deletions are necessary:

  • Dutch are a Germanic people: cited source (Britannica) does not say the Dutch are a Germanic people, and it does not say that speakers of Dutch belong to a Germanic people. It identifies the Germanic peoples as historically existing Indo-European peoples who later assimilated (by the Middle Ages). It does not say the Dutch are an Indo-European people, and it does not equate Indo-European language speakers with the Indo-European peoples. A map of Indo-European language distribution, for instance in the Britannica article on that subject, does not in itself show the ethnic groups in the area covered are either 'Indo-European' or 'Germanic'. Additionally, any descent from Germanic tribes does not make the modern Dutch "Germanic".
  • Historically the Dutch chiefly lived in the Low Countries and Northern France but since the 12th century they have spread all over the world. No source for claim that a Dutch ethnic group ever lived in Northern France. No source for claim that a Dutch people existed in the 12th century. Inline reference refers to another section of this article itself, and is not an external reliable source, see WP:SOURCE. In any case, the book quoted in the Dutch diaspora article (Dik Linthout's Onbekende Buren) does not say that a Dutch ethnic group lived in Northern France, or that Dutch people existed in the 12th century.
  • 30 million Dutch: the only source given for this figure is that some people believe that Flemish and Dutch are one people. Some people do, but they are a small minority, most of them to the right of Vlaams Belang in Flanders. That is not a sufficient source for a claimed population of 30 million ethnic Dutch.
  • Indonesian Dutch in infobox table. No reference given for cited statistic, unverifiable. NIDI estimates in Demografie van de Indische Nederlanders, 1930–200 (Gijs Beets, Evert van Imhoff en Corina Huisman) a total of 458 000, including ethnic Dutch born in the Dutch East Indies, ("totoks").
  • Flemings listed as Dutch in population table: no source. Cited CIA Factbook simply says that 58% of the Belgian population are Flemings. It does not say they are Dutch.
  • 5 million Afrikaners listed as Dutch in population table: no source. Also listed as related ethnic group: no source. Cited source simply says they are of partial Dutch ancestry. (Other ethnic groups in South Africa also have partial Dutch ancestry).
  • Dutch in Australia - the cited source makes it clear that the 2001 census question records only ancestry, even in cases where the respondent does not identify with the ancestry.
  • Dutch in New Zealand cited source refers to people with some Dutch ancestry. May even be an underestimate, but it does not say they are Dutch.
  • Dutch Americans See cited source at US Census: the 2000 Census question asks: What is this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin? and does not indicate current ethnicity or national identity (which will be in most cases 'American').
  • Figures for Dutch in France and Germany. Cited source is an evangelisation website, which does not quote any official source for its statistics. It is not a reliable source. (Reliable statistics for Germany should be available at the Dutch statistics office CBS).
  • Burgher people of Sri Lanka listed as Dutch. No source. Cited source does not say they are Dutch, indeed specifically names them as "Dutch Burgher". They do not have Dutch citizenship, and do not qualify for it.
  • Ethnic groups listed as Germanic in population table: no source for any modern group belonging to Germanic peoples.
  • 11,5 million people outside of the Netherlands consider themselves to have a considerable degree of Dutch herritage or ancestry and can hence be considered part of the Dutch ethnic group as they feel culturally connected. No source for this at all.
  • Header Closely related ethnic groups. No source for this claim.
  • Historically the modern Dutch and the people now known as Flemings were considered one people. Cited source, Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden, does not say what it is claimed to say: it does not speak of Nederlanders before the Dutch Revolt, (or from the time of the Franks). On the contrary, it consistently avoids the term Nederlanders until it treats the Dutch Revolt, and for the period before that uses the geographical term only, Nederlanden, in the plural, meaning Low Countries. In the introduction it states explicitly that the book is a history of a geographical area, Nederlanden. Request to quote the passage or provide a page reference for the claimed material in Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden did not lead to either being provided. Inline reference also claims that Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden speaks of Zuid-Nederlanders (approximately 'South-Dutch') especially in the period after the Dutch Revolt, implying a politically divided 'Dutch' ethnic group. It does not: it uses only geographic terms and names of geopolitical entities, such as 'Spanish Netherlands' and 'Austrian Netherlands', and the adjectival forms derived from these names. It does use the word 'Belgians' from after the 1830 secession. Additionally, non-usage of the term 'Flemish' does not show that the Dutch and Flemish were considered one people, and can not form a source for that claim. Cited source by Prof. P. C. Paardekooper is not an academic work, bit a 47-page pamphlet published in 1962, originally radio talks. At the time, during increasing language conflicts in Belgium, Paardekooper promoted a pro-Flemish, anti-Wallonian, anti-French, and especially anti-Belgian line, with an irredentist tone. He supported the controversial claim of the Flemish movement to control Leuven university, splitting off its French sections (later implemented). As a result, he was expelled from Belgium in 1962, when he tried to speak at the university. The uproar also lead to violent incidents, as French-speaking students clashed with police. Paardekooper was later expelled from Belgium again, on grounds of interference in internal affairs. He supported the Volksunie, and expressed understanding for Flemish volunteers who fought with Nazi Germany. Paardekooper is in no way a reliable, neutral, or authoritative source, for claims that the Dutch and Flemish constitute a single people. Additionally, link to this source links to a right-wing personal website (see elsewhere on this talk page).
  • Dutch and Flemish see themselves as the closest related people. Cited source - page 21 of a Clingendael Institute study, in a section on the perception of similarity [12] - does not say this. In fact it says the the Dutch respondents saw the Belgians as the most similar people. It does not say that the Dutch and Flemish are related peoples or related ethnic groups, or that the perceived similarity is derived from a perceived shared ethnicity. The cited section does not use the word 'Fleming' or 'Flemish'. The report also does not say that the Dutch and Belgians are 'related peoples', or related ethnic groups.
  • Afrikaners generally do not consider themselves to only be ethnic Dutch. Delete word only, it implies they do consider themselves to be Dutch. No source for implied claim that Afrikaners self-identify as ethnic Dutch. Occams razor suggests that Afrikaners are in fact Afrikaners, unless proved otherwise.
  • Map of "Dutch" in present northern France. Caption and inclusion both suggest that 'Dutch people' formed the population of that area. Irredentist claim, no source for Dutch ethnic group in France at any time.
  • Dietsland name for image: linked article has been renamed from 'Dietsland' to Greater Netherlands.
  • the (future) Dutch were led by Germanic chieftains. Implies that a pre-mediaeval ethnic group were Dutch in some way, and implies a non-existent ethnic continuity. No source for the existence of 'future Dutch'.
  • the Dutch now answered to the East Frankish and later German King, which continued until the Dutch revolt. Implies that a Dutch people existed at that time, i.e. before the Dutch Revolt. No source for existence of a Dutch people at that time.
  • part of Choice of Leadership prior to the Dutch revolt: no Dutch at that time, and no evidence that earlier forms of government determined post-16th-century government of the Netherlands.
  • Dutch invented golf - no source except another Wikipedia article, and no source for claimed 'Dutch' in 1297.
  • In general, material describing the Netherlands state, and the activities of the Dutch East India Company, which are not attributable to the Dutch as ethnic group, people, or nation - unless a reliable source describes it as an activity or attribute of 'the Dutch' as a population group.

No source is required for the deletion of unsourced material, and no arguments are required, see WP:DELETE. The onus is entirely on the editors who want to retain material, to provide a reliable source for it. These points have been discussed already (at length), and no consensus has been reached. A cooling-off period also failed, since not all editors observed it, and disputed material was simply re-inserted. A request for comment resulted in only one third-party comment (two comments by one person).Paul111 10:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of deleted material as of March 1st 2007

Since a lot of material has been deleted by Paul111 it seems to me that this page is indeed having a problem. Since I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia protocol, I don't know what to do about this but I have a two suggestions.

1) I think it's safe to say that the basis for these actions is very small. Paul111 himself justifies his action by referring to a page which is about the deletion of entire articles, not about deleting seemingly random portions of an article because he does not agree with them. Yes, I think a lot of work is to be done and I even agree with some of the points he makes, but no, I don't feel that this is the way to go. People who know a bit more about Wikipedia should try to address this problem somehow, or otherwise this could continue for a very long time.

2) I feel that one problem here is that this page is (at least ostensibly) about an ethnic group which I'm not that sure exists. The Netherlands is very small and has always known a lot of immigration and emigration. Therefore, I don't think that it is easy to define a group of people sharing genetic traits which could therefore be called "the Dutch ethnic group". Moreover, as is pointed out at the homepage of the Wikipedia Ethnic Groups project, this term is a bit controversial, hardly better than the term race. Although I feel it is completely up to other Wikipedians to create an article related -solely- to that particular group, I'm not an expert in genetics or whatever, so I don't think I'm very well equipped to debate the merits of such a term, or how it should be used. Moreover, I feel that, since Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a proper article for the people of the Netherlands in a broad sense, apart from one about demographics, which is another matter altogether, there should at least be an article like that. I also feel that several of the items on this page would be better suited for a more general page about the Dutch as a whole. Without being able to define who belongs or belonged to the Dutch ethnic group it's very hard to define if a certain event or cultural phenomenon or whatever can be attributed to them, but they surely can be attributed to the Dutch as a whole. Even if something was the act of an individual or a group of individuals, usually Dutch society, made up by all the Dutch people, made such an event possible. So I feel that we should either

a) rename this page in such a way that it can be used for a much larger group, the Dutch as a whole, without any debate about what the page is supposed to be about. If it is already the intention of this article to be more broad, please see a discussion and suggestions for new first paragraphs here.
b) continue with this article, find a way to work things out, but also proceeding with a NEW article, which -will- cover the Dutch as a whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skeptic77 (talkcontribs) 11:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
IMHO, there is indeed a problem with the article and that is that Paul111 puts up deletion lists and then acts upon them without any further discussion. As I have stated above many times, I often agree with Paul111's remarks, but have much trouble with his blunt approach of 'I follow the rules I do not have to listen to anyone; I just delete what I like.' So I fully agree with your statement under (1), a lot of work should be done, but in a more constructive and positive way than Paul111 is using.
In your point 2) you make some very valuable suggestions. I have been doubting the whole Dutch ethnic groups as a kind of racial thing for exactly the same reasons. However in Wiki the sentiments are mixed (mind yuu, a while ago both me and Rex had to fight a fierce debate with an editor who was defining Dutch along the lines of 'Wier Neerlands bloed in d'n aderen stroomt van vreemde smetten vrij' (although the editor was a German nationalist, I think you get the point). I agree I would like to go back to the generic Dutch people, however, Paul111 insists there can be no mention of the Dutch people prior to 1568 as that is the start of the Dutch revolt. Even the modest historical introduction about the Holy Roman Empire had to go in the March deletion list.
So yes I agree, we have to come up with a more constructive way here. Arnoutf 13:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All issues were discussed already

All the issues involved were discussed already. In several cases a compromise text was already agreed. However, the older version was simply reinserted. The new policy, which supersedes the older version, is as follows:

In principle, any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found...

In some cases, such as the number of Dutch in France, statistical sources may be available. However, despite repeated complaints about the accuracy, no reliable source was provided, and removal was the only option. In other cases, no reliable source can be expected, because the claims reflect the view of a small right-wing minority, and are unsupported by either public opinion or academic sources. Nevertheless, if it is necessary to repeat all the points again, I will do that, and I will re-open the earlier sections on specific issues, below.Paul111 14:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just not true as the History section you deleted was such a compromise section. The complaint on accuracy are from you and you alone; the best option would be to find sources that explcitly support your ideas and change the text that way. Just posting a deletion list is just very unconstructive. For example; to extend this kind of behavior to the ridiculous, I could state for each and every article that the word 'the' is not duly referenced thus I deleted all usages of the words the. That would destroy Wiki. Recently I thought you started to discuss, but apparently your only wish is to reshape this page in the image you have in mind. Please consider that you may be wrong sometimes and that other editos may have good ideas even if you don't like them.
Also do not modify talk pages; moving text out of its context (i.e. order of original listing) can imply a certain POV by editors that would never have been considered otherwise. You can refer to above sections, you can quote you can even copy; but never ever move or even copy my signature mark anywhere but where I myself placed it; that action can be considered vandalism. Arnoutf 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You requested the listing of each individual point. Since that had already been done in many cases, I moved the discussion down the page. If I had not done so, and started a new section, users would undoubtedly complain that I was duplicating sections. If you want the items back in the original order, I have no objection, but then please do not ask for 'discussion by item' for points which have already been discussed by item.Paul111 16:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul111, it is not true that all these things were "discussed". As far as I can see, all that happened was that you took a position in which you found yourself unsupported and that you then unilaterally decided to take action. In my opinion, Wikipedia is not supposed to work this way. Such drastic changes should be proposed and debated, especially when, as in this case, you get so little support. You claim to be working according to Wikipedia guidelines, but when you refer to an article about Wikipedia procedures to support your claim, even a casual glance at it will show that you are incorrect. Therefore, the actions you've taken are tantamount to wholesale destruction/vandalism and I completely support the view that these actions were rightfully reverted. If you can't win a debate, don't just take unilateral action. All that will result in is an edit war and the complete and utter destruction of any credibility on your part, even when certain points you make actually have some merit. I urge you to stop this and just participate in the discussion here, and not by creating a dozen or so lengthy sections, but just by creating a simple, brief list of problems you have with this article. What you are doing is -not- constructive, but destructive. Skeptic77 16:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I was not only asking to discuss separately, but also and more importantly to delete or edit separately with a reference to the relevant discussion. The problem with your wholesale deletion is that it is no longer possible to distinguish where you are right and where you are wrong (and trust me even you will be wrong once in a while). Hence the only way to disagree is reverting the whole block of deletions in one go. Which I did again. Arnoutf 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Argument and discussion on the talk page are not required for deletion of unsourced material. If an argument was required for such deletion, then editors could keep disputed material in an article indefiniitely, by arguing about it on the talk page. For that reason, Wikipedia policy and guidelines allow 'unilateral' deletion: it is unfortunately necessary. In this case, Arnoutf has re-inserted some controversial material for which he gave no source. He did not write it originally, but he did put it back in the article. The onus lies with the inserting editor to provide a source for the material he re-inserts. If the material is controversial then drastic changes should not be proposed and debated: the unsourced material should simply be deleted. If other editors disagree with this, then they should use the dispute resolution process.Paul111 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not reinsert some constested stuff, I reinserted all of it, just because you did not want to discuss issues ~; hence no senisble discussion was possible about distinct issues Arnoutf 00:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

delete the word 'the' from this article

I propose to delete any use of the word 'the' from this article as any use of the word 'the'in English is only placed in extreme right wing pov sources. Arnoutf 00:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.Paul111 11:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The word the is right wing word, to prevent that in this article I am perfectly allowed to ignore such rules. Arnoutf 13:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch are not a Germanic people

Please do not archive this so long as the issue is unresolved. The cited source (Britannica) does not say the Dutch are a Germanic people. It identifies the Germanic peoples as historically existing Indo-European peoples who later assimilated (by the Middle Ages). It does not say the Dutch are an Indo-European people, and it does not say that speakers of Dutch belong to a Germanic people.Paul111 19:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It does exactly say that, this is revisionism. Rex 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It does not say the Dutch are Indo-European (language) people, however the Indo-European languages article on the same [13] shows a map with the Nehterlands as part of the I-E langauges. Thus from that source: Dutch is a Germanic Indo-European Language AND all speakers of Germanic Indo-European Languages are Germanic people. Therefore the Dutch are a Germanic people. Mind you I do not care too much to list the Dutch as Germanic people, however, your comments tend to be destructive (i.e. trying to get rid of things you don't like yourself rather) than constructive (trying to understand what the other editor meant and improve the text by increasing accuracy). Arnoutf 19:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason to dispute the accuracy is that the Dutch simply do not self-identify as Germaans (Germanic). The reason for that is, that the term is associated with Nazism, see Germanic-SS and Nederlandsche SS. The articles in Britannica do not equate Indo-European language speakers with the Indo-European peoples, and therefore a map of Indo-European languages does not show the ethnic groups in the area covered are either Indo-European or Germanic. The Germanic peoples spoke Germanic languages, but it does not apply the other way round.Paul111 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again, apart from the fact you have absolutely no proof the Dutch don't see themselves as "Germaans" it doesn't really matter if they don't (again no proof exists they dont) see themselves as a Germanic people they are one. The "classical" history of the Dutch didn't start with the Germanic tribesmen crossing the rhine at roodeschool for nothing, and neiter do the Dutch speak a Germanic language for "nazi" reasons. This is pure revisionism.Rex 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Paul111, as listed above, the articles, nor van Dale, link Germanic to Nazism besides the fact that the Nazis used the word Germanic. They did use other words (for example the German words Ein, Zwei and Drei) should we stop using ALL words the Nazis ever used because of alleged connotation?? That is just plainly ridiculous. You are really trying to hold onto every comma in every source that is provided to keep Germanic out of the text. If you provide a scholarly text published in the last two decades that explicitly state Germanic is not used because of the Nazi connotations; I will support your opposition. Your only response to this kinds of requests has been that doubting claims does not require proof according to WP. However, in all the time you used typing here, you could have easily dug up such a source IF it existed. Arnoutf 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Germanic is a linguistic term referring to modern and older languages, and an ethnographic and archaeological term referring to historically existing peoples. It is not a term for modern ethnic groups. Misuse of the term for racial theories since the 19th century and especially in Nazi propaganda has contributed to its abandonment for non-linguistic purposes. Sources are not required for the talk page, sources are required for the article. The talk page explains the background for changes in the article, including in this case the political connotations of terms used. The onus is on the editors who want the article to say the the Dutch are a Germanic people, to provide a reliable source for that claim. Simply stating that Dutch is a Germanic language (which is correct) is not a source for that claim. If there is an editing dispute, which seems to be the case, then please follow the procedures, see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.Paul111 11:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with not providing sources is that I just do not believe your statements. To convince me of your point of view you have to provide sources otherwise yo won't. So while you are not required to provide sources that would be the way out of the dispute. I will state it here as challenge to you: The moment reliable sources are provided that counter my opinion I will change it that moment (actually this is what I stated above; while you are not required to, for reasons of conflict resolution you may consider to provide them anyway). Arnoutf 20:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Rex is right...the Dutch are a combination of various auchtonomous peoples. Before the Low German tribes settled the area between the Rhine River and the Frisian Islands in the first millennia AD, there were Celtic tribes came under the influence of the Roman Empire that briefly lasted until the Frisians arrived by to end Roman rule in the 400s AD had immersed and merged Celto-Latin tribes to another ethnolinguistic identity. Other related tribes came later, shared lingustic characteristics with tribes in Germany and Scandinavia (and the Anglo-Saxons), but in reality the Dutch developed a separate kingdom, language and culture in its' over 1,500 year history outside of the traditional "German" speaking lands we associate with Germany. You'll find most Dutch have blonde hair (about two-thirds according to a Dutch newspaper poll) and the rest are lighter brown, dark brown or reddish haired, and genetic scientists believed these inherited traits came from Celts and Latins in the Low Countries ("Benelux") passed down to modern-day inhabitants. I read that Dutch newspaper poll to research what made the Dutch unique from other Europeans by analysis of hair color, height, weight and eye color: 6 out of 10 poll respondents are blue eyed, 3 out of 10 have brown eyes and 1 had either grey, green or black eyes. The recent influx of immigration into the Netherlands from north or south Africa (Moroccans, Ethiopians and Nigerians), east or south Asia (Chinese, Indonesians and Pakistanis), Latin America (Surinamese, Brazilians and Argentines) and the Muslim world (Arabs, Iranians and Turks) has surpassed 10 to 15 percent of the country's population, one of the highest percentile rates of foreign-born people in western Europe. The ethnography will also change the physiological appearance of the Dutch in the next century, but the trends depend on the integration and assimilation of these newcomers and their descendants into the Dutch mainstream culture. On the other hand, the Netherlands and Belgium are officially multi-cultural and their traditions of religious, ethnic and lifestyle tolerance is said to slowed down the process of most of its' over 1 million Muslim citizens from choosing to fully or partially adapt (out of necessity in an European country) without violating their religious values. + 63.3.14.1 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution states that reliable sources are needed, and that personal websites such as that of Marcel Bas (Roepstem) are not sources:

A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published.

Marcel Bas may cite his own material, but only if comes from a reliable, published secondary sources. Paul111 15:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

From the discussion with Paul111, elsewhere I think his problems are confined to the 2 uses of Germanic in the introduction (the other uses are historic or linguistic thus not a problem).
The lines in the intro are The Dutch mainly descend from various Germanic tribes,[19] and are hence regarded to be a Germanic people.[20]
I see Paul111's objection to the descend, as over the centuries the Dutch have mingled with everyone, and the descend line sounds like 'vrij van vreemde smetten'. I would suggest something like the following: The cultural roots of the Dutch can be traced back to the early medieval period - Ie we take out the difficult genealogy, but still say something about the roots; I think Germanic is not truly necessary.
The second part is not a logical conclusion from the first, and I agree, not what Britannica says. Britannica's argument is more something like Dutch is a Germanic language, which is an indo-european language. All Germanic language speakers of the indo-european language group can be considered Germanic people. Hence the Dutch can be considered Germanic people.
This is of course ridiculous. I would just limit it to Dutch, the language of the Dutch people, is a Germanic language, and leave all other conclusions and inferences to the reader. Arnoutf 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No source for Dutch before Dutch Revolt

User Rex Germanus claimed that Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden speaks of Nederlanders (Dutch) from the time of the Franks. He gave that as a source for his claim that there was a broader definition of Nederlanders Dutch in the past, applying to more than the present Netherlands territory, and that there was a 'Dutch people' before the Dutch Revolt. However, the book does not say what he claims it does. On the contrary, it consistently avoids the term Nederlanders until it treats the Dutch Revolt, and for the period before that uses the geographical term only, Nederlanden, in the plural, meaning Low Countries. In the introduction it states explicitly that the book is a history of a geographical area, Nederlanden, which had various names before the creation of the present nation-states fixed the terminology.

  • The book explicitly refers to other population groups in the Middle Ages such as the Hollanders for inhabitants of Holland (in 1370, page 61) and Flemings for inhabitants of Flanders around 1300 (page 51). It does not use the name Nederlander for these groups.
  • The book explicitly states that in the Nederlanden three languages were spoken.
  • It says explicitly that the Nederlanden were formed by personal unions of monarchs, that around 1400 there was no common identity, and that individuals' loyalty was directed at their city and village, at most a prince or faction beyond that.Paul111 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The book uses both the terms "Dutch" as well as the "county-name". The 3 languages spoken in the Low Countries were French, Dutch and German. The book makes it very clear Dutch was more than dominant. Common identity is irrelevant, culture and language are sufficent to establish an ethnic group. Nationalism doesnt appear untill the french revolution. By that definition there were no ethnic groups prior to c1800 which is historical revisionism.Rex 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If the book uses the term Nederlanders for the period before the Dutch Revolt, can you quote the passage and/or give a page reference.Paul111 19:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait that is NOT what we need. We need a term that translates (preferably uniquely) into Dutch; even if the original word in a Dutch tekst is not Nederland. For example both 'Cellar' and 'Basement' translate into the Dutch 'Kelder'. That does not say that you require Cellar if you want to talk about a Kelder. Arnoutf 19:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well... there is this:

  • Nederlanden (hist. country)→ Nederlanders (Dutch, broad) "People of the Low Lands"
  • Nederland (country) → Nederlanders (Dutch, modern) "People of the Low Land"

Rex 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no ethnic or national group corresponding to the broad definition. There might have been, if the United Kingdom of the Netherlands had survived, but it did not.Paul111 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC

Please note that we carefully avoid talking about the Dutch nation (because of extreme rightwing connotations). Also myself (and I think Rex as well), would like to use a fluent definition of ethnic groups. I said it jokingly above, but I really would not mind if the Surinam Dutch people were counted among the ethnic Dutch (which would be not thinkable of in the 1500's). PS I think the united Netherlands of the pragmatic sanction may have had a chance for survival (barring the Dutch revolt), but I have a hard time believing the united kingdom was ever a real possibility Arnoutf 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The requested page references for Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden have still not been provided. I checked the book, and it does not say what is claimed in the inline reference. It does not treat the Dutch people as an entity until the Dutch Revolt, and indeed avoids the term.Paul111 15:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply put there are two options. There were people in the Netherlands area that shoudl be acknowledged in the history section, in my version of the history called lowlanders, not Dutch. OR there were no human beings in te Netherlands and only in 1568 they where beamed in from an extraterrestrial intelligence. There are two possible opnening section of the history section. Either something like "No human-beings lived in the Netherlands prior to 168, but suddenly in 1568 there was the Dutch revolt". OR something much like my introduction. Paul111, make your pick.Arnoutf 00:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic groups and peoples start at some point, see Ethnogenesis. The inhabitants of the Burgundian Netherlands had no common identity related to that state. Some regional tersm such as Hollanders are in use for them.Paul111 13:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this all about where we start the counter; and how you define identity. They things in common: common language, common part of the Holy Roman Empire, common religion. Arnoutf 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They did not have a common language. They spoke at least French, Dutch and Frisian, and the dialect range in all of those was much wider than it is today (after the 19th and 20th century standardisations). But the issue is simple: if the inhabitants of the Burgundian Netherlands had a common identity, and if it was 'Dutch', then why does no modern academic historian say so?Paul111 19:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you list a modern academic historian giving a datee when the Dutch ehtnic group appeared? I doubt it; perhaps because these issues are trivial to the academic debate. (I challenge you to provide a modern academic source making the case the world is round instead of flat). Anyway, all the article siad that the Dutch ethnic group evolved from the Batavian Netherlands (ie a gradual process), no exact date when they should be referred to as Dutch is given. Unless your arbitrary start of the Dutch revolt is taken. Now THAT is a bold statement which requires a modern academic source (the Dutch were not considered Dutch prior to 1568, but are after) Arnoutf 13:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is and was no start date for the Dutch people in the article. There were, and are, claims that a Dutch people existed before the Dutch Revolt. That is what needs a reliable source.

The Dutch ethnic group existed before the Batavian Republic. If that was intended to be 'Burgundian Netherlands', then there was no evolution over its entire territory, which of course was split during the Dutch Revolt. That would be a Greater-Netherlands historiography, which did exist, but is no longer generally accepted.Paul111 14:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that you cannot place a single date on the moment the Dutch became an ethnic group, just as much as in speciation you cannot say when homo-sapiens became homo-sapiens. I think the Dutch revolt is as arbitrary a boundary as any. There was some common culture: e.g. Karel ende Elegast, Reinaert, are typically medieval Dutch literature, is known both in Belgium and Netherlands; but hardly outside that region. I think that the evolution towards a single group was only completed in the early 19th century, but that early connections already started as early as Charlemagne. Arnoutf 21:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch-Americans

Please do not archive this so long as the issue is unresolved. On the issue of wheter Dutch-Americans should be included in the 'Dutch', see the original US Census question: at US Census. The question in the 2000 Census asks:

What is this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin?(For example: Italian, Jamaican, African Am., Cambodian, Cape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian, Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.) - signed by ANON IP

Most reported ancestries correspond to one existing state, but some (Scotch-Irish, Arab, Slavic) do not. Multiple reporting is possible, the largest single combination is 'Irish-German' . The Census question does not in itself provide a source for the claim that there are 5 million Dutch people in the US. It indicates what it says on the question, ancestry or ethnic origin.Paul111 10:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, the Dutch-Americans article question was settled, and to bring the Dutch-American issue must be supported to indicate direct Dutch/Netherlander ancestry. Most Dutch-Americans, except for any actual Dutch immigration going on today in the US, are sixth, 8th or 10th generation, and no longer have any ties or connection with the Netherlands. The Hudson Valley region of New York has plenty of Dutch colonial evidence, although the weak, small and vulnerable New Netherlands colony was taken over by the British long ago in the 1600's. However, you'll find thousands of "blue-blood" Dutch American billionaires and millionaires whom hailed from the region and discussed their awareness of direct Dutch lineage: the Roosevelts, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers and other Dutch-American Patrouns or Renesalers, but I believe Dutch and English or other ancestry intermingled to become oblivious of who's and what's Dutch, like street names in Albany and town names like "New Paltz, New York". Sometimes, American historians placed New Jersey, parts of Connecticut, a small section of Pennsylvania, eastern half of Maryland and Delaware in the historic New Netherlands colony (note there was New Sweden and New France that included the area what we known as the English Colonies of America in the late 17th and early 18th centuries). If you ever came across any Dutch cultural legacy (The New York state government documents was also printed in a local dialect of Platsduits until the 1930's when it's announced the language has gone extinct, after 300 years spoken and acknowledged in a small circle of people, maybe the "Dutch" elite in New York state), maybe the Dutch-American thing lasted longer than we thought. + 63.3.14.129 11:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason not to include the Dutch-Americans is simply accuracy: they are not considered to be "Dutch" in the Netherlands. They are also not seen as Dutch in the US, instead they are seen as Americans of Dutch ancestry. Some are naturalised immigrants born in the Netherlands and they can be listed as Dutch, but a reliable source is needed for the figures (immigration and naturalisation statistics).Paul111 15:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree for the table, some referene somewhere in the article might be useful somewhere in the article though. ALong the linse of "Dont confuse American Dutch with Dutch. Am Dutch maybe descendents of Dutch emigrants, they are no longer part of the Dutch Arnoutf 00:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Right-wing websites and historical material

Much of the historical content at this page seems to have originated at two right-wing websites in the Netherlands, Roepstem and Heemland. Heemland has been officially identified as a right-wing site in an official report for the Dutch Ministry of Justice. Roepstem is a personal website of a user on Dutch Wikipedia, who has also published material at Heemland. Wikipedia guidelines say specifically:

Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.

Roepstem is indeed a source, (one of the few), for the obscure Whole-Netherlands ideology, but it does not make that ideology a fact, or even a widely held view.Paul111 15:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here you have to provide evidence (ie references) of your accusations, simply naming a source as dubious is not sufficient. I could call the journals science or nature dubious (but that would probably not be sufficient for their exclusion as source and I would have to provide evidence for that). And even a dubious source maybe right. Arnoutf 00:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines on fringe theories include this:

  • Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance for the idea among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance.

In other words, if the claims of a dubious source are right, then a non-dubious source can be found. If it can not be found, then the material does not belong in Wikipedia. There are indeed sources available for the political activities of Marcel Bas, but since he is a Wikipedia user, I have limited comment to the question of whether his website is a reliable source. Wikipedia policy says clearly that any personal website is not.Paul111 11:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what finge theory do you suspect this article of? Arnoutf 13:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The theories that the Dutch and Flemish form a single ethnic group, that they formed a single ethnic group at some time in the past, that they both or singly are a "Germanic people", that the inhabitants of the Burgundian Netherlands formed a single ethnic group or nation, that they had a Dutch identity, that a "Dutch people" existed before the late Middle Ages, that Afrikaners are Dutch, and that a Germanic form of kingship influenced the present government of the Netherlands.Paul111 19:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes truly wonder if you are refering to the same article.
Dutch Flemish - not in the current article
Germanic people - no longer in the article; Germanic roots should be acknowledged
Burgundian Netherlands - Only claim is a political/personal union; however language, culture, religion were common identifiers
'Dutch people before late middle ages' We do not even agree that a Dutch people existed prior to 1830; there is no such claim in the article; it is about ancestors, predecessors of the Dutch
Afrikaners : No such claim, only that they descended from Dutch settlers
Germanic kingship: Now you loose me completely, there is no such claim, nor has there ever been such a claim; the whole section only illustrates that the Netherlands have known many types of ruling. Arnoutf 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See the March deletion list for the specific passages.Paul111 13:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Passages in your deletion lists are not acceptable because taken out of context, not always literally quoted from the article; and often interpreted out of proportion. Arnoutf 13:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Choice of leadership"

I propose to delete this section, since it is the state that has a system of government, and not the ethnic group. The present Dutch ethnic group has no identifiable 'leaders' of its own. If the subject is not already covered adequately in History of the Netherlands, then the section can be moved to that article.Paul111 10:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the section was a bit overly detailed; however your deletion made it very weird. The section now opens with After the Dutch revolt the Dutch tried to find a new monarch at first, it was later decided the new form of government would be a republic.. This poses two assumptions that cannot be understood without some introduction: (1) The Dutch provinces were (part of) a monarchy at that time (2) During the Dutch revolt the monarch disappeared. Without any explanation introduction how the Low Lands became a monarchy, and how the monarch disappeared this makes no sense. Arnoutf 11:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't propose, you delete. Doesn't matter though. I'll revert you in like a week. This behavior will not stand and I will never allow you to continue to scarr this article with your unsupported bias.Rex 13:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The section still does not belong in the article, it belongs at History of the Netherlands but without claims about a "Dutch" choice of government in the early Middle Ages.Paul111 15:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Simply put, the term Dutch only became accepted in the 20th century, delete anything before about 1930. The history is an essential part of the formation of the cultural identity of the Dutch, hence of relevance to this article. Arnoutf 00:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If the kingship of the Germanic tribes is essential to the history of the Dutch, then please provide a reliable source for that claim. You might find that in 19th-century histories, but current historians do not attribute any 'Germanic' character to the Dutch, with the important exception of their language.Paul111 11:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I only say that the uptake of the name is not a reasonable starting criterion. We have the history somewhere. The effect of the Roman empire is still visible (e.g in Utrecht or Nijmegen) so that seems an option. Alternatively, the division in our current provinces was part of the governmental system of Charlemagne, I can accept we start there as well. I would not go to a later date as much of the current structures in the Netherlands (cities, windmills etc) started that long ago. Arnoutf 13:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe this to be a particularly pointless discussion. The Dutch are a people or an ethnic group. People have leaders. Leaders act in ways that affect the aforementioned people. Leaders are therefore a valid subject of a brief overview of the history of these people. Even if you argue that the current ethnic Dutch (autochtonen) are only part of the Dutch population and do not have any specific leaders of their own, which is true, the ethnic Dutch still form the majority of the Dutch nation and therefore have a huge influence on the Dutch government and the way the Dutch state works. Ergo, this part of the article should stay, although, like the rest of it, it should be properly vetted. Although I do not think that anywhere the claim is being made that leaders in the Early Middle Ages had any effect on the preferences regarding governance, it could probably be improved upon. Skeptic77 13:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is the "leader" of the present Dutch ethnic group? Pim Fortuyn seems to have had that status for a section of the ethnic group, but not for all of it. States have governments, governments have leaders, but they are the leaders of a state/government and not an ethnic group. There is no evidence that there is a specific preference for a type of leaders among the Dutch, distinct from that in neighbouring countries. The section does suggest something like that, and it is misleading.Paul111 19:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the queen may qualify in this respect (much more than Fortuyn). Arnoutf 20:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No ethnic Dutch in northern France

No source has been given for the claim that a Dutch ethnic group lived in Northern France. The inline reference refers to another section of this article itself, and is not an external reliable source, see Wikipedia:Attribution. The book quoted in the Dutch diaspora article (Dik Linthout's Onbekende Buren) does not say that a Dutch ethnic group lived in Northern France, or that Dutch people existed in the 12th century. The claim is original research. Wikipedia policy says that material counts as original research if it:

  • introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article;

No such source has been provided, and the claim is irredentist. Flemish was widely spoken in parts of northern France, and the Flemish movement opposes its disappearance, but only a tiny minority within the Flemish right thinks that its inhabitants are or were part of a Greater Dutch ethnic group. The article would wrongly present their views as fact if it said that "Dutch" inhabited northern France.Paul111 15:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Artios spoke flemish and was part of the 17 provinces (e.g. Atrecht=Arras), the first succession of the Holy Roman Empire and the French Crown by Charles V. IMHO enough reason to discuss this here. Arnoutf 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That does not make its inhabitants part of the Dutch people or Dutch ethnic group. Despite repeated requests, no reliable source has been provided for the claim that a Dutch people or ethnic group inhabited the '17 Provinces'. If you can not find an academic-historical source for this controversial claim, then please do not re-insert it. Please read the policy on exceptional claims.Paul111 11:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If the pragmatic sanction separating the 17 Netherlands is mentioned than Artois should also be mentioned. Anyway, Artois and Flanders are about equally Dutch (ie both are not), since they were both part of the 17 provinces but remained under Spanish control. I think the notion is worthy of mentioning in a single byline. I do not think this is a major issues though. Arnoutf 13:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Total of 30 million Dutch

I added a reliable source for the approximate numbers of Dutch people but it was deleted (without discussion). Here is the section in its original form:

In the 1950's (the peak of Dutch emigration) about 350 000 people left the Netherlands, mainly to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and South Africa. About one-fifth returned Since 1960 4,2 million immigrants entered the country. About one-quarter were returning Dutch migrants. The total amount of emigrants was 3,2 million, of these about half born in the Netherlands. [1] This is half of the total 6,5 million emigrants [2] since 1865.

The maximum emigrant stock for the 1950's is therefore about 300 000 (some have since died). The maximum emigrant stock (Dutch-born) for the period after 1960 is 1.6 million. Discounting pre-1950 emigrants (who would be about 85 or older), at most around 2 million people born in the Netherlands are now living outside the country. Combined with the 13 million autochtoon inhabitants, [3] there are about 15 million people who are Dutch, in a minimally accepted sense.

No source of any kind was given for the figure of 30 million. It is own research,in fact it is an unpublished synthesis of published material. Wikipedia policy says:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

There are millions of Flemings and Afrikaners, and there are statistics on how many, but simply combining then into "Dutch" is wrong and controversial. It is the view of a minority within a minority, an obscure variant of Greater Netherlands irredentism. Again this is an example of far-right views being presented as fact.Paul111 16:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here I agree, this needs cleansing. Arnoutf 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Google gives no hits for "30 million Dutch" except in combinations such as '30 million Dutch guilders'. Google gives 6 hits for "30 miljoen Nederlanders", all referring to either future population, or total past and present population. Google gives 4 occurrences of "25 miljoen Nederlanders, all referring to future population. Google gives 130 occurrences on 39 websites for "25 million Dutch" all of which are either combinations such as '25 million Dutch guilders', or part of the phrase '25 million Dutch speakers'. No source was given for the claimed "Anglo-Saxon definition" of Dutch, or for how many Dutch it includes.Paul111 12:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch Eurasians

The infobox table gave an untraceable report as source for a figure for what were claimed to be Dutch Eurasians. I found a reliable figure of 458 000 in a NIDI study, Demografie van de Indische Nederlanders, 1930–2001 (Gijs Beets, Evert van Imhoff en Corina Huisman). [14] However, it does not refer solely to 'Eurasians' but includes the children of Dutch expatriates who were born in the Dutch Indies. It gives detailed estimates to differentiate the groups, but it can not however be added to the CBS total for 'autochtonen' because of definition problems, see the article itself.Paul111 16:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting issue. IMHO all should be included into Dutch peoples, but our article on Dutch people should include a more elaborate section on Dutch from the colonies. I think explanation in a secion rather than deletion would be the way forward here. Arnoutf 01:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch in Australia

Again the deleted text is an example of original research because it

  • introduces an analysis or synthesis of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article. (What is original research?).

It does not say anywhere in the cited Australian report, that the tabulated census respondents are "Dutch" or belong to the Dutch people, or the Dutch ethnic group. It lists responses to an ancestry question, see the details at the cited paper.Paul111 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Some reference to recent emigration maybe of interest and should be discussed, but many of them are not longer Dutch Arnoutf 01:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch in New Zealand

The cited source refers to people with some Dutch ancestry, it does not say they are Dutch. There are Dutch people in New Zealand, but they are first-generation immigrants (from the 1950's onwards). The Dutch diaspora article is the proper place for this.Paul111 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Some reference to recent emigration maybe of interest and should be discussed, but many of them are not longer Dutch Arnoutf 01:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Figures for Dutch in France and Germany

The cited source is an evangelisation website, which does not quote any official source for its statistics. It is not a reliable source. Reliable statistics for Dutch nationals in border regions of Germany and Belgium are available at the Spatial Planning Bureau, [15], press release [16]. There are 59 000 Dutch nationals in the Belgian border region, see map at [[17]], and 41 000 in the German border areas. These figures should be used.Paul111 19:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, please use the correct numbers. Deletion while you have the correct figures is not very constructive. Just substitute with reference. Arnoutf 01:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Burgher people of Sri Lanka

Burgher people listed as Dutch, but cited source does not say they are Dutch, indeed specifically names them as "Dutch Burgher" and not as Dutch. Despite the name, burgher translates as 'citizen', they do not have Dutch citizenship, and do not qualify for it. Move to Dutch diaspora article.Paul111 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

some reference maybe suefull tough, although they are not Dutch Arnoutf 01:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Culturally connected Dutch

11,5 million people outside of the Netherlands consider themselves to have a considerable degree of Dutch heritage or ancestry and can hence be considered part of the Dutch ethnic group as they feel culturally connected. No source for this at all. This is simply own research, and again it is at best the view of a tiny minority who still adhere to the Whole-Netherlands ideology. There is no evidence whatsoever of 11 million ethnic Dutch living outside the Netherlands.Paul111 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this needs a source as it is highly speculative. If no source is provided it should be removed. BTW this goes for the next line I quote However, it is fairly uncommon in the Netherlands to see anyone beyond the second generation Dutch immigrants as fully Dutch.[citation needed] Hence there is somewhat of a gap between the "legally Dutch" and the people culturally attached to the Dutch. As well Arnoutf 01:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch-Belgian similarity

Again a source which is reliable in itself has been used to wrongly synthesise a claim that the Dutch and Flemings see each other as a related ethnic group or related people. The cited report does not use this terminology. It speaks of the "perception of similarity" [18] and says that the Dutch respondents saw the Belgians as the most similar people, the cited section does not use the word 'Fleming' or 'Flemish'. It certainly does not say that the perceived similarity is derived from a perceived shared ethnicity, and the Clingendael Institute would probably not publish any report which did.Paul111 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Euhm seeing and perceiving are more or less synonyms. Ok, perhaps Belgiium vs Fleming is not supported by the report; but I thin kthe perception is not a problem. Than next question: what was the item used. Belgium or Fleming? I agree if Beglium was asked for that is dissimilar from the conclusion. The solution would be a simple rephrasing (replace Fleming for Belgium) deletion is over the top. OF course Flemings maybe considered even closer but without a good source that claim should be tuned down. Arnoutf 01:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Flemings and Dutch see and/or perceive each other as similar. Quite correctly, because they are the only two Dutch-speaking societies in Europe. That does not mean that they think of themselves as "related ethnic groups", which is how user Rex Germanus put it. Shared language is almost certainly what makes the two groups feel similar (I did not however put that in the article, because the cited study says further research is needed).Paul111 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perception is part of thinking. Similarity and related (in the case of social groups) is a closely related term. Every scientific article asks for future research (ie Einstein theories probably asked for empirical evidence in future research). That is the way science works - you put the best possible evidence available, but acknowledges weaknesses in the theory that need to be explored further. Arnoutf 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch and Flemings are related, because a few hundreds of years ago Flanders wasn't a part of the Netherlands anymore. That's why they do speak Dutch. The Flemish are also more polite than the Dutch (though there are exceptions). They also got an accent and some words are different in Dutch and the Flemish dialect. Also, with Belgians are meant Dutch- and Frenchspeaking people from Belgium, although the Dutch commonly mean Flemish people if they say Belgians. Ajox 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Map of "Dutch" in present northern France

The caption and inclusion both suggest that 'Dutch people' formed the population of that area. Irredentist claim, no source for Dutch ethnic group in France at any time. A previous compromise on the caption was reverted.Paul111 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the map does not provide any information beyond the issue that Artois was once but no longer counted among the Netherlands, I agree the map should be deleted. Arnoutf 01:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The map (should) tell us that Dutch is spoken in those regions in the past. At the moment, no one really does speak Dutch anymore in that part of France, but you can study Dutch there. Ajox 16:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dietsland name for image

The image is an older version and retains the name of the article for which it was presumably created, but the linked article itself has been renamed from 'Dietsland' to Greater Netherlands. The image seems to be a version of an image circulating on (among others) the website of the irredentist Marcel Bas. The name is only in use on the far right, especially in Flanders.Paul111 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree; in this article the second part of the caption can be removed as thas adds nothing to the first wiki;ink in the caption. Arnoutf 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch before the Dutch revolt

Claims such as the (future) Dutch were led by Germanic chieftainsand the Dutch now answered to the East Frankish and later German King, which continued until the Dutch revolt. are pseudo-historical. Again no source has been provided, it is simply own research. Historically, there is no evidence that earlier forms of government determined post-16th-century government of the Netherlands. The present Netherlands constitution is a product of 19th-century liberalism.Paul111 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The phrase Dutch is even more modern (about 1930). The issue is whether we want to sketch some continuum since historice times (ie Roman times). Or do we want to refer to the Dutch only after the name Dutch was officially adopted (Ie delete everything prior to about 1930); or do we settle on something in between. I agree this is not an easy option, something that asks for discussion, agreement consensus. I.e. much too complex for a unilateral action. Arnoutf 01:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither the English word Dutch or the Dutch word Nederlanders date from the 1930's. There is no historic continuum of the Dutch people from Roman tines because the Dutch people did not exist in Roman times, or in the Frankish period. Again this is a fringe theory which does not have any reliable sources anyway.Paul111 11:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Of there is such a continuum, the Dutch language for example emerged during/just after the fall of rome from a west Germanic entity, spoken by Germanic tribes who invaded the empire. We all know you want this article to become a redirect, but get sources first. You want to make an ethnic dutch group pop out of thin air at the exact date of the Dutch revolt. That's preposterous. An ethnic group don't evolve or are created that way. Rex 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic groups do emerge at some point in time, since they have not existed for all time, see Ethnogenesis.Paul111 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes and that is easy if an unpopulated country is colonised. In any other situation the issues is more difficult (as the ethnogenesis article acknowledges) I think we all agree the stone age hunter gatherer should be included. I also think we agree that the post 1830 Dutch can be considered as fully fletched ethnic Dutch.
Hence The ethnogenesis is somewhere in between.
IMHO this has been a process that started with the great migration, that lead to Charlemagne, whose empire lead to the fiefdoms (countys duchies) that are still the Dutch provinces and the Holy Roman Empire, from which the Burgundian empire relations emerged, after which the provinces rebelled the Spanish crown, became de-facto separated from the HRE; became a federal union, became a centralised state, were conqured by the French. Pretty continuous line I think; so I would not arbitrarily put a line somewhere in the middle. Arnoutf 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source for this view, then you can edit the article accordingly, with a reference to that source. I don't know of any serious historical accounts that put the "Dutch people" that far back. As things stand no-one has cited any academic historical work to say there was a Dutch people or ethnic group before the late Middle Ages.Paul111 12:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, nobody cited an academic source that there is a Dutch ethnic group at all. Arnoutf 12:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a contested term and little used in the media, or in general speech in the Netherlands. That is one reason why the article should be renamed, back to 'Dutch people'.Paul111 14:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So is the Dutch nation. But I am ok with renaming it; we should not go into nation or ethnic group too much I think; I would like to give the Surinam, Indonesian and Moroccan Turk - Dutch culutre a bit more attention on this page. These people are not usually counted among the Dutch ethnic group; but they are also not part of the ancestors countries; so I would suggest including them here. The problem is that the wikiproject focusses on ethnic groups; so objections may arise. Arnoutf 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted yet another edit by Paul111

I reverted yet another edit by Paul111 because we are still debating his various suggestions and I do not think we should move on before we have reached at least some agreement.

That being said, I did make an edit to one of the footnotes about the Flemings being considered to be Dutch, pointing out that most Dutch and Flemish consider themselves to be separate groups, instead of just having it stating that this notion is widely shared by people who believe in the Greater Netherlands or even unification. After all, that is tantamount to saying that it is shared by people who share this notion, which adds absolutely nothing, and leaves it up to the reader to find out that this group is actually quite small. Unfortunately, although I know this to be true from daily experience (many Dutch don't even consider people who actually have the Dutch nationality to be Dutch), that can't serve as a source, so I think we should work on that. I think we could improve this article by finding some kind of scientific survey or study about how people think and feel about the Dutch. Although some references refer to studies that sound as if they are about such issues, I'd need to study them before being able to decide if they are actually scientific.

I agree with Paul111 up to a point, this article should not be made to further the causes of right-wing people, it should be encyclopedic and as neutral as possible. But careful reading of the article makes it -very- clear that such notions are held by minorities and that although people descended from the Dutch may feel a connection with the Dutch, this does not conform with the view of the Dutch themselves. Moreover, the fact that right-wing politicians and such have ideas along these lines also makes it important enough for an encyclopedic article to refer to these notions in order to point out that these are not shared by many people but are in fact contrary to popular consensus. Otherwise people reading such claims may mistakenly believe that these are based in science or held by many other people. Moreover, there -is- a shared history between the Dutch and the Flemish and during 1815 and 1830 the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg were all part of the United Kingdom. We would do well to find a good, neutral approach.

Finally, I also feel we should make a clear distinction between ethnic Dutch (autochtoon), the Dutch as a nationality and the Dutch as a larger group of people including people of Dutch descent abroad or people with a shared common ancestry. It appears to me the terminology could be improved. Skeptic77 13:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sources for population

User Skeptic77 removed recent official figures from the infobox table, specificaly the figure of 59 000 Dutch in the Belgian border region and 41 000 in the German border areas. For both of these the source is tha Ruimtelijk Planbureau [[19]]

The user states at his own talk page, that it is not possible to change previous editors work, except by reverting all previous edits. This is not correct. The proper course of action is to go through the entire article, and edit only what is contested. This means more work, true, but that is not a reason to throw out reliable sources - wwhose instertion was requested by other users.Paul111 13:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul111 made multiple edits to the article, despite there being an ongoing discussion about various claims made by him. I reverted his edits, but I may have done so in an incorrect way. Mea Culpa. Will try to rectify that in a bit. If Paul111 would just stop editing the article until we can at least reach some consensus, then we won't have to revert everything every five minutes. This is called an edit war and it is -not- productive, it will only lead to annoyance. Skeptic77 13:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Both edits have now been corrected. Skeptic77 14:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of citation tag

User Skeptic77 removed a citation-needed tag from this claim:

Outside the Netherlands, the English-language exonym Dutch also refers to people who descend from the Dutch

In the first place this is an incorrect use of exonym, the correct term is demonym. More importantly, this is a controversial and disputed issue, about whether for instance Dutch-American are Dutch. It was right to ask for a citation. Addition of citation-needed tag is a normal part of Wikipedai editing, although they should not be left in place for ever. Their purpose is to give other editors a chance to provide a source for the disputed claim. Removal of the tags make it impossible to indicate which specific items are contentious, and it contributes to the edit wars which Skeptic77 deplores, since removal is the usual alternative.Paul111 13:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal is not the usual alternative. Just like accusing people of extreme right hidden agendas isn't a usual way of discussing matters.Rex 13:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The citation tag fell as a victim of the edit war going on here. I'm sorry if this or any other part of the article was deleted by mistake, but I think it doesn't help that Paul111 keeps editing the article on his own. I also feel my views are here incorrectly represented by Paul111 and I resent that. Skeptic77 13:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, how is this claim disputed? The term "Pennsylvania Dutch" is widely used, for one? This statement is -not- about people outside the Netherlands -being- Dutch, but about them being -called- Dutch, it says so very clearly. Skeptic77 14:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In any case, I've re-added the citation needed-tag. Skeptic77 14:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The example of the Pennsylvania Ducth illustrates the problem, they are German-speaking Americans, mostly Amish, with 'German' (Hessian) ancestry.Paul111 14:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The paragraphs is about explicitly the use of the English word Dutch abroad. It is explicitly not about ethnic Dutch. It elaborates on the confusion that the term Dutch may result in. My example just illustrates that the term Dutch is being used of people of Dutch descent and even of people believed to be of Dutch descent, albeit erroneously. The fact that that belief is mistaken does not make the claim of the word being used in this way incorrect. Check any good English language dictionary. An entry like this is valid IMHO, because it tells people to be careful when using this term. Skeptic77 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If you think demonym is the correct phrase, why do you not suggest to replace it, about as much work as putting the quotation tag and much more constructive. I think both demonym and exonym is not completely correct in the context. I would suggest the line Outside of the Netherlands, the English-language term Dutch also refers to people who descend from the Dutch; the Dutch people living in the Netherlands would not include them among the Netherlandic people. Or something like that Arnoutf 16:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The suggested text is wrong because, simply because the word Dutch is not used that way in English (Netherlandic is an art-history term). Tens of millions of people have at least one ancestor from the present territory of the Netherlands. That includes for instance, most of the Cape Coloured group in South Africa. They are not all called Dutch in English. The only people who are called (unqualified and unhyphenated) 'Dutch' in English are: ethnic Dutch from the Netherlands, the population of the Netherlands , and first-generation immigrants from there.Paul111 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you look up the word "Dutch" in a dictionary. Skeptic77 20:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually I provided dictionary references to provide exactly that information. I have no idea where they have gone. Anyway from Merriam-Webster [20] the following

Dutch Pronunciation: \ˈdəch\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English Duch, from Middle Dutch duutsch; akin to Old High German diutisc German, Old English thēod nation, Gothic thiudisko as a gentile, thiuda people, Oscan touto city Date: 14th century

1 archaic : of, relating to, or in any of the Germanic languages of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the Low Countries b: of, relating to, or in the Dutch of the Netherlands
2 archaic : of or relating to the Germanic peoples of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the Low Countries b: of or relating to the Netherlands or its inhabitants c: german
3: of or relating to the Pennsylvania Dutch or their language

Seems clear enough to me Arnoutf 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not say in that definition, that people who "descend from the Dutch" are Dutch. That is what is in dispute. If no source is provided then the claim should simply be removed.Paul111 13:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the intention of the definition was only to provide a bit of disambiguation: ie; where English Dutch included Pennsylvananian Dutch, these are not the same group as the Dutch of the Netherlands. In other words, instead of claiming there are ties, an explicit mentioning that although someone might imagine that based on word similarity there are actually no ties .Arnoutf 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul111 went too far: Mediation

The continous lieing and manipulating by Paul111 has to stop. His "march deletion list", containing even more lies than his previous unwikilike list, was the imediate trigger for this.

Everyone involved with this article is welcomed to join. A link to the mediation will follow soon.Rex 13:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dutch (ethnic group) Rex 13:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility.Paul111 13:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that mediation is a sensible stap, as we are again deadlocking in the same stalemates. PS Paul111, although I agree with your comment on Rex opening line, I think it is an example of the pot calling the kettle black Arnoutf 13:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you read them yourself too Paulll1, before you once again call me a nazi. When you constantly, despite numerous request, refuse to back up your disputed claims ... then they are lies. Rex 14:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The view that the Dutch are a Germanic people is currently rare in the Netherlands, and it is an indicator of right-wing political orientation. Public self-identification as "Germanic" is extremely rare, and found mainly in a neo-nazi context (websites, posters, song texts). This is, in itself, a reason why the article should avoid the description of the Dutch as Germanic, and it is necessary to raise that issue. Rex used a right-wing website as a source, so its relaiablility needs to be discussed. The fact that it presents a fringe view is relevant, because that is grounds for doubting it. Its political context (Dutch and Flemish far right) and content needs to be considered.Paul111 13:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems were mediation might help. Whatever comment is made on the edits by Paul111, he refers almost immediately to Germanic and rightwing allegations, this disqualifying all other comments. Of course this is also the result of his wholesale deletion list policy you can hide deletions that should not be done with one or two justified problems. If someone object you can now say; hey he is against my list, so he is against the justified edits, so he is pushing POV. In other words, putting up the combination of the lists and this immediate reference to right-wing sympathies togeter forms a very manipulative way of POV pushing; that is pretty disruptive to any normal discussion.
Note that the word Germanic is only used 6 times in 4 different contexts.
  1. in the introduction twice: The Dutch mainly descend from various Germanic tribes,[19] and are hence regarded to be a Germanic people.[20].
  2. in the history section about the period before the Carolingian empire After the Romans extended their empire to the Rhine river, the area was partially occupied by the Romans. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Netherlands were ruled by Germanic chieftains.
  3. in the choice of leadership section referring to prehistoric up to early medieval times In pre-christian times the (future) Dutch were led by Germanic chieftains who were both political and religious leaders. The chieftains were chosen, and could equally be deposed of. During the Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages the concept of Germanic Kings appeared.
  4. About the language Dutch is a West Germanic language spoken by around 22 million people, mainly in the Netherlands, Belgium and Surinam. The language was first attested around 470 AD
I think Paul111's objection is to the introduction only, as the rest treats either pre 1200-history (no longer relevant) or language (where Germanic is accepted jargon).
About the introduction; the words is used twice The Dutch mainly descend from various Germanic tribes. I agree this line may need some rephrasing; how about The furthest known historical roots of the Dutch are found in the various Germanic tribes who lived in the area from about 300 AD onwards. However, this section does not say the Dutch of today are Germanic; hence I guess this is not Paul111 problem
The second part is actually the only reference to the Dutch as Germanic people in the whole article. and are hence regarded to be a Germanic people.[20]. The source here is Encyc Britannica. Not a far right-wing source in my opinion. Arnoutf 14:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Germanic is a perfectly legitimate linguistic term. The Dutch language is a Germanic language. Germanic peoples is a legitimate historical and ethnographic term for ethnic groups that lived in Europe between the Iron Age and the early Middle Ages. Germanic is not a legitimate or generally accepted term for any modern ethnic group or their culture. Description of the Dutch people as a "Germanic people" is almost entirely confined to neo-fascist groups and individuals. No source was provided for the claim that the Dutch descend mainly from Germanic tribes. The Dutch are not a Germanic people and no source was given for that claim. The cited article does not say that the Dutch are a Germanic people. Inferring that from its contents is an unacceptable synthesis. If you want the article to say that the Dutch are a Germanic people then please provide a source that says that. Until then the claims should be removed from the article. The future Dutch were not led by anyone. Germanic tribes and peoples certainly had Germanic leaders, but they were not "Dutch". They were Germanic, and individual tribes and peoples had their own names, not including 'Nederlander'. Please keep further discussion of this issue in the section on Germanic: if you move your own comment above, you may move this one with it. Paul111 12:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll discuss furhter there. At least we agree it is about the use in the introduction only as the other references are strictly linguistic/history. That limits the discussion a lot. Arnoutf 21:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is not appropriate

Mediation is not intended for content disputes, an it only works when all parties agree to the mediation. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Common Reasons for Rejection makes the following points:

  • Requests such as "please stop this editor from making POV edits," "a mediator is needed to convince this editor he is wrong," ... are not appropriate issues for mediation.
  • Requests which seek to have a mediator help "prove" that one party is correct will be denied; if one or both of the parties come to mediation with the view that they are right and the other party is wrong, then mediation is not appropriate. All parties must come to mediation with the understanding that both sides will have to compromise to reach an agreement, and that neither side will "win."

That seems to be the case here, so I will not agree to mediation. The page also notes that parties engaging in personal attacksagainst other parties "fail to demonstrate good-faith interest".Paul111 14:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Effectively blocking mediation. So, what's up next? Skeptic77 14:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed paul111 (though he proposed it himself in the past) refuses to participate in dispute resolution. Rex 14:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
As I have stated again and again above, my problem is that some of Paul111 are good, but some just go too far. The editing approach of Paul1111, and his problems with my, and my with his arguments has in these instances lead to conflict. Hence I think mediation would be appropriate, I am willing to concede some of these points if there was only a reasonable argument from both sides. I have run into trouble keeping such discussion (mind you not debate) going, so IMHO a mediation attempt may truly help.
3 editors (mysef, Rex and Skepic77) have shown their willingness to be vulnerable. Advice of a mediator may mean we have to rethink some of our ideas of good editing. However, from Paul111 I conclude that Paul111 thinks all his remarks, his editing style, his assumptions of good faith, his deletion lists, etc are beyond any criticism and we can only yield to his views. Is that indeed your view Paul111? If so, I agree mediation is useless. Arnoutf 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is voluntary. Editors are not in any way obliged to participate. They may choose not to agree to it. Criticism of this choice could result in users being pressured to accept mediation, and that would undermine its voluntary nature.Paul111 19:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words you are not willing to allow your actions being scrutinised by an independent mediator.
That is your right but in this light it is my right to assume that you are not interested in dispute resolution. I am having very big problems assuming the good faith of someone who thinks a dispute needs not be resolved. Arnoutf 20:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It should perhaps be pointed out that Paul 111's views very much reflect scientific consensus, whereas the main point Rex tries to make — that there was a clearly seperate Dutch ethnic group before the 16th century — is simply untenable on scientific grounds. Also I am convinced of Paul 111's good faith and surprised by his patience in this matter.--MWAK 09:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Large part of the problem is that Paul111 in the past did not find the need to post his sources of that scientific consensus. However, I think that his recent edits and proposals are much more moderate and looking for consensus than before. Arnoutf 09:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Edited footnote about inclusion of the Flemish

Duplication from above, for clarity:

"I did make an edit to one of the footnotes about the Flemings being considered to be Dutch, pointing out that most Dutch and Flemish consider themselves to be separate groups, instead of just having it stating that this notion is widely shared by people who believe in the Greater Netherlands or even unification. After all, that is tantamount to saying that it is shared by people who share this notion, which adds absolutely nothing, and leaves it up to the reader to find out that this group is actually quite small. Unfortunately, although I know this to be true from daily experience (many Dutch don't even consider people who actually have the Dutch nationality to be Dutch), that can't serve as a source, so I think we should work on that. I think we could improve this article by finding some kind of scientific survey or study about how people think and feel about the Dutch. Although some references refer to studies that sound as if they are about such issues, I'd need to study them before being able to decide if they are actually scientific."

This edit was reverted by Rex Germanus because he held the view that this edited footnote was contradictory. However, in my view it isn't, see above for my take on things. Basically, if a small group agrees on something but a much larger one doesn't, then the majority disagrees with the smaller group and I edited the footnote to reflect that. So, can this footnote be edited along these lines, or should it stay the way it is? Skeptic77 13:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I did it because it is indeed not a common view (at least, not with the Dutch and flemish public, ethnologists might begg to differ) to see Flemish people as Dutch, but that is explained (thoroughly) in the article. I think its more logical to include in the reference the idiology/people who do think its correct. Rex 15:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well, I see your point. But don't you think we should also make it clear that his group who does see things differently is very small? Especially because it is such a contentious issue? Skeptic77 15:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That is explained (unless Paul111 removed it that is) in the article. (if its not clear enough we should explain it further) Thing is, I know of no study on this matter so I have no idea how large this minory, or how small this majority is. And of course the other matter is that seeing the flemish as an ethnic group is also debated, (many Belgian institutions before 1980 began with Dutch, rather than Flemish) the "Flemish community" was called "Dutchophone community" for quite some time. Rex 15:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is explained, but I'd like to edit the footnote, because now you really need to do most of the work yourself, while the addition of one or two lines could clear up the entire matter. Moreover, the claim that there is a group which agrees amongst itself that this kind of use is correct is in itself misleading. Skeptic77 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

At four places in the article the Flemish are described as Dutch. In the intro, where they are included in a population total of 30 million Dutch, in the infobox, where they are included in the population totals, and in the section on 'related ethnic groups' which states that they were historically seen as one people. None of these claims is correct. The Flemish are not Dutch, they are Flemish. The majority of Flemings do not see themselves as Dutch. The majority of Dutch do not see Flemings as Dutch. The footnote does not correct the claim that there are 30 million Dutch. The figure of 30 million is not backed by any source, and should simply be removed. There are not 30 million Dutch, or 25 million Dutch, period. There are people who believe that, and that is what the article should say, but not in the intro. There are statistics available on how small the minority is that supports a Greater Netherlands: parties supporting a unification of Flanders and the Netherlands got 0% of the votes in the last Dutch and Belgian elections. You would have to go back to the 1930's to find electoral support for it, in either country.Paul111 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Of course there are reasons to include the view that the Dutch and the Flemings as one group, at least under certain circumstances. This is an encyclopedic article, not a news site or a site about current opinions, so even a view which is now outdated should be covered. The same goes for a view which is now unpopular. WITH the added shatement that this view is now only held by a minority. But to say that it has never been seen that way is just incorrect or to want to make this article conform to some kind of politically correct view is just not what an encyclopedia is about. During the Dutch Revolt the Southern Netherlands were formally a part of the same rebellion. Before that they had belonged to an entity that shared a common governmental structure. Between 1815 and 1830 they were one. Even relatively recently (see Blok et al, Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden, where in the introduction they talk about the concept of the Greater Netherlands as having influenced history writing in the early Twentieth Century until it was discarded) the concept that these two groups were one held appeal and even today it is still held by some. Any such information is properly presented in a form which makes it clear that their are various ways of viewing it and what their merits are and we're working on it to make those distinctions even better. It doesn't help that "ethnic group" is a relatively vague term.
Instead of trying to rewrite this page in a way that conforms 100% with your view, you'd better start off by at least admitting there are various ways of viewing things and concentrating on the issues which are really important, rather than try to bury everyone under a stack of comments which is quickly becoming unmanagable and blocking every attempt to sort things out. The way things are working now is that you're blocking even modest rewrites which at least try to reach a compromise or explain things better. Skeptic77 19:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It proved impossible to reach a consensus on this article in the past because one editor insisted on it saying that the Dutch and Flemish are, or were, a single ethnic group, that they are both Germanic peoples, and so on (as listed above, several times). Skeptic77 insisted that I discuss each disputed point individually, and that is what I am doing. There is indeed a circular discussion going on, but that is because the editors can not agree on the content, and they probably never will. I would personally prefer that further discussion is abandoned, since it is a waste of everyone's time, but not participating in the discussion is interpreted by others as agreement to re-insertion of disputed material.Paul111 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

One way out of circular discussion is to ask an non-involved outsider to help getting things back in their proper dimensions. However someone objects to that option. Arnoutf 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That is what the Request for Comment is for, but only one third party responded. The RfC does not seem to work, other RfCs also fail for this reason, but mediation is not the way out either, because it assumes a common goal of reaching agrement. That simply is not present here.Paul111 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My goal is to get a good article; which I think should be seen as the common goal. However I think the means to achieve that goal is not by accepting everything Paul111 thinks should be done to it. I think you confuse goals and means (unless of course your goal is to force everyone into accepting that whatever Paul111 thinks is good as being good, then we do indeed have no common goal). Arnoutf 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
At least now there are some new people here, so maybe we can discuss matters and reach a new consensus. But you're not waiting to see the outcome, you unilaterally edit the article without waiting for our opinion. Moreover you accuse me of ignoring Wikipedia policy when all I did was make a minor mistake. Which, btw, I've corrected. So stop pushing so hard and give us time to work things out. Skeptic77 20:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not required for the removal of unsourced material. This misunderstanding has appeared many times, and it is an underlying cause of the editing disputes. The onus is on all editors to provide a reliable source for their own material. Even if 20 editors reach a consenus on unsourced claims, any other editor may remove that material. Time should be given to allow the other editors to provide sources, and here more than two months have been given. Several weeks, at least, were allowed to provide a page reference for the claimed passage in Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden which says they were one people, and none was given. The only other source given for the claim that the Dutch and Flemsih were seen as one people, or for their inclusion as Dutch in the population totals, is a personal website. Here is the Wikipedia policy on self-published sources:

  • A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.
  • A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable.

Marcel Bas' website Roepstem fails as a source on both these counts. If any other editor wants the article to say that the Dutch and Flemish are, or were, one people, or to include 5 or 6 million Flemings in the population totals for the Dutch people or Dutch ethnic group, then they should simply provide a reliable source for that claim. That is not a matter of consensus or agreement, it is a requirement of Wikipedia.Paul111 13:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No Paul111. Simply NO. If multiple sources reliable are provided for a claim, then it's referenced information. Just because you have your own definitions of words and your own opinion on website and their information doesn't mean the content is (correctly) disputed, but just you trying to implement your own biased (unreferenced) opinion hiding behind your manipulated version of "wikipedia policy".Rex 13:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You are misusing wiki guidelines (ie guidelines not rules) in trying to prove your point of view Paul111; your own edits are not as well sourced either. Arnoutf 14:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are not satisfied with the removal of material, then provide a reliable source. I will accept any academic-level peer-reviewed publication that says that the Dutch and Flemings form a single ethnic group as a reliable source, provided that any criticism from a comparable source (i.e. a reply or a review) is included in the reference.

The inline reference for the claim that Historically the modern Dutch and the people now known as Flemings were considered one people has been changed to say that:

  • Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden speaks of (Zuid)Nederlanders (Southern)Dutch.

I checked the book and it does not say that. Please provide a page reference where it uses the term "Zuid-Nederlanders" or where it uses the term "Nederlanders" to refer to both Flemish and Dutch. The inline reference also says that the book does not use the word "Flemish" in its modern meaning until referring the early 20th century. The book uses the term Flemish when describing the Battle of the Golden Spurs (1302). The book does not qualify its use of the term Flemish. Please provide a page reference for the use of the term "Flemish in its modern meaning" in the book. Note also that even if the Flemish people only existed since 1930, that still does not make the previous inhabitants of Flanders "Dutch".Paul111 13:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh really, what does it make them then Paul111? Belgians? Easterbunnies? Whatever it makes them it's closer to Dutch than either of those. You ideas of people appearing from thin air is great for a fantasy novel but not for a encyclopedic article. Rex 13:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As for the book you claim to have, the section that deals with the Belgian revolt for example it is there that the book speaks of Southern Dutch. Rex 13:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Civility and please provide the page references.Paul111 14:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:How to create a good article. I believe it concerned paragraph 6.3.Rex 16:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

New text on Flemings

I checked the text of Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden and it does not speak of Zuidnederlanders in the section on the Belgian Revolution. I added this to the section on Flemings to clarify the position, and to emphasise that it was the Belgians themselves (Flemings and Walloons) who seceded. The Flemish were not forced into a Francophone state, they left a Dutch-speaking state with which they apparently did not identify. And still don't.Paul111 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The relation between the Dutch and Flemings is a complicated one. By Napoleonic times, the inhabitants of the southern Netherlands (previous Austrian Netherlands) considered themselves to be 'Belgians'. [4] The existence of "Flemings" as an ethnic group, is itself debated, and the idea of a Flemish nation or ethnic group is itself fairly recent.[5]

The Belgian Revolution of 1830 followed an unusual alliance of ultramontanist Catholic clergy and the new liberal movement. Both opposed, for their own reasons, William I of the Netherlands and his policies in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. [6] The North and South had conflicting economic interests, the North was over-represented in public administration, and French speakers, including the Francophone Flemish elite, resented the introduction of Dutch as language of government. [7] After Belgian independence, the language problem was reversed: a Francophone state disadvantaged Dutch speakers, a major factor in the rise of the Flemish movement.

I like this version. However am not sure about the last line. It does not have a reference and gives a very strong opinion. I would make the line slightly different: After the Belgian independence, the governmental practice in the new state was mainly Francophone; which disadvantaged the speakers of Dutch. This became a major factor in the rise of the Flemish movement. Arnoutf 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed editing truce

I propose that the editors who signed the request for mediation withdraw from editing the disputed points for several days, say until 7th March, allows two working days. In that time, they can either find a source (for fully unsourced material), decide to agree to its removal, or formulate their reasons for using an already quoted but disputed source (such as the website Roepstem). Please indicate acceptance below, the proposal is pointless if not accepted by all those involved. If 7th March is too soon, then please suggest another date. Note that a truce will not resolve edit conflicts about whether X, Y or Z, should be in the article or not, it merely postpones them.Paul111 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I will never accept this nonsense. Nor will I allow you to delete anything from the article untill you bugger off with the lists and discuss (comment->reply->comment->reply->etc.) every matter in a separate section, instead of long repetetive lists with claims that are not in the article and your refusal to discuss. Rex 15:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the first part, an editing truce, is a good option. At this point, most editing we do is reverted or ends up with another debate. That obviously doesn't work.
But instead of one person forcing several others who disagree with him to find reasons for keeping things the way they are, despite the fact that this article is a work in progress and therefore no one really wants the article to stay this way, I think it would be a better option to just have a serious discussion of this article and which direction we're taking with it.
I also feel strongly that this article is not contentious because it is racist or whatever, but because it might possibly state a few things which are also stated by right-wing politicians. Which is another thing altogether and just means that we have to be a bit (more) careful. But the article already is pretty careful, so I don't see the big fuss about all of this. Skeptic77 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a weird request. I agree a truce would be ok, but you are more or less asking your critics to stop editing, while you reserve the right for yourself to continue. That is not a realistic request (something like suggesting a truce in a real war along the lines of - hey if you stop shooting at my soldiers for a few days that would be good for all; mind you I will continue to attack you position nevertheless. Please sign here.). A truce should preferably be bilateral; but if you think a truce is a good thing, nothing against stopping editing unilaterarly yourself (much like I did for 2 weeks in early February) Arnoutf 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

New population statistics

I added the country totals from DEMOS, 21, 4. Nederlanders over de grens, Han Nicholaas, Arno Sprangers. [21]. Joshua Project is not a reliable source, it is an evangelisation website which does not quote any official statistical sources for its figures.Paul111 12:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not the one who determines what is and what is not a reliable source.Rex 13:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Also your new "superior source" only seems to deal with post WWII migration, specifically, the numbers it provides concern people born in Netherlands. This article goes beyond that.Rex 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The claimed 1990 study by Statistics Netherlands can not be found and the figure seems to be taken from a personal website, where no source is given either. I had replaced it with a recent study which also explains the difficulty in definition. Flemings are not listed as Dutch in the CIA Factbook. The cited source for Afrikaners does not say they are Dutch, and is therefore not a source for listing them as Dutch. The cited source for Dutch in Australia makes it clear that the 2001 census question records only ancestry, even in cases where the respondent does not identify with the ancestry. The cited source for Dutch in New Zealand refers to people with some Dutch ancestry. The cited source for Dutch-Americans records Dutch ancestry and is not a source for the claim that 5 million ethnic Dutch live in the USA. The figures for France and Germany were from an evangelisation website, which does not quote any official source for its statistics. The cited source does not say that the Burgher people of Sri Lanka listed are Dutch.Paul111 13:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what Paul111, I'm getting really fedd up with you. I've explained to you numerous times what the figure of "flemings" represents, the info box has an excellent note of what it lists which concern Dutch americans and Afrikaners. Read it, and quite repeating yourself.Rex 15:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Civility.Paul111 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Population by country

Here are the statistics from official sources, in most cases for Dutch nationals, but only the Netherlands has official statistics on - or approximating to - Dutch ethnicity.

  • Belgium. 121,489, of which 59 000 in border region. Belgian migrational statistics, [22] and Ruimtelijk Planbureau [[23]]
  • Germany: 114 087, of which 41 000 in border areas. Resident foreigners at end 2004, by Dutch nationality. Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales Ausländische Bevölkerung nach ausgewählten Nationalitäten. [24]. Ruimtelijk Planbureau [[25]]
  • Canada. 120 000. 210 000 emigrants since the Second World War, after return migration there were 120 000 Netherlands-born residents in Canada in 2001. DEMOS, 21, 4. Nederlanders over de grens, Han Nicholaas, Arno Sprangers. [26]
  • USA. 110 000, Dutch-born, 2001, Figure 3 in DEMOS, 21, 4.
  • UK. 40 000, DEMOS, 21, 4.
  • Australia, circa 85 000, DEMOS, 21, 4.
  • South Africa. 40 000 to 45 000, Dutch nationality, 2004 estimate of the Netherlands embassy in South Africa, quoted in DEMOS, 21, 4.
  • New Zealand. Circa 25 000, DEMOS, 21, 4.
  • France. Circa 30 000, DEMOS, 21, 4.
  • Switzerland. 16 143. Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, Bundesamt für Migration. Ständige ausländische Wohnbevölkerung nach Staatsangehörigkeit, 12/2006. [27].

Paul111 20:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As said before, your sources only speak of Dutch people abroad, who were born in the Netherlands. They are incomplete for this article. Rex 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
A further issue: the source appears to be (from the provided link) to be non-English language. Non-English language sources are discouraged on the English Wikipedia, particularly if an equally reliable English language source exists. -Fsotrain09 02:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
In general I agree however, not all official Dutch government numbers are provided in another language than Dutch. These are the most reliable numbers around, so for these kind of articles (ie articles related to a country that is not English speaking), inevitably non-English sources will be quoted. As implied in you statemetn, the quality of the information goes beyond the preference for English . Arnoutf 08:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The only overview articles seem to be in Dutch, as you would expect. There must be some official Australian, Canadian and US figures on number of resident Dutch nationals, but possibly not online or easily available. No country, so far as I know, classifies resident aliens by ethnicity.Paul111 11:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of citation-needed tags

User Rex Germanus removed {{Fact}} tags from the following points:

  • The main difference between the modern Dutch and Flemings is their political development and situation since the Belgian Revolt. There were substantial differences before that, that is one reason why there was a Belgian Revolution. Claim is biased and needs a source.
  • There was little political contact between the Dutch and Belgian governments until the Second World War. Very strange claim, needs a very good source. (During the First World War, up to one million refugees from Belgium lived in the neutral Netherlands).
  • the Dutch now answered to the East Frankish and later German King. Existence of "the Dutch" at that time needs a source, see section on 'Dutch before the Dutch revolt', above.
  • sports which are most likely invented by the Dutch. Dubious claim, as such claims often are, needs a source and not just a link to another Wikipedia article.Paul111 13:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

2007 Fact list

As a counterweight against Paul111s inaccurate and repetitive "deletion lists", this list will attempt to gather facts from the article to prevent the current state of contineous repeating of information caused by Paul111s unwillingness to cooperate in dispute resolution and accepting references.Rex 15:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Matters

Allegedly claiming Flemings, Afrikaners, Dutch Americans, etc. are (full) ethnic Dutch

Though often suggested by Paul111, these claims, or anything similar, are not found in the article. The articles infobox makes it very clear that, and I qoute: "the figures below do not always differentiate between full Dutch ethnicity, descent or heritage.". So unless Paul111 is going to deny (with sources naturally) that Afrikaners, Dutch Americans, etc. have no Dutch herritage or ancestry then this should be considered solved. The case of the Flemings is somewhat more complicated, though not very much. If you read the article and look at the info box you'll see that it explains the Flemish situation and the info box includes them as "Flemings", not "Dutch people living in Belgium" which should give most readers (except the ones who purposely blind themselves) an indication that it's a special case.Rex 15:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Infobox describes the listed populations as Dutch. If the infobox sub-text is amended to say clearly that it includes populations which are not part of the Dutch ethnic group and not part of the Dutch people, then the problem could in theory be resolved, but then the infobox would contradict itself. Additionally, the infobox total as it now stands, includes all or most of the populations listed. In other words, they are being all being treated as Dutch, and there is no source for the claim that Afrikaners, for instance, are Dutch. The figure is therefore inflated, by a factor of 100 in South Africa, where the netherlnds embassy estimates 40-45 thousand Dutch residents. The Dutch diaspora article is the proper place for content on groups with Dutch ancestry. This figure must give the actual number of Dutch, with no inclusion of non-Dutch Dutch-descent groups.Paul111 19:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got time for semantics with you Paul111. The info box is very clear, no matter what you say.Rex 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Alledged CIA source for Flemings being Dutch

It was suggested by Paul111 that a link to the CIA worldfactbook was mis-used to claim that the Flemish are Dutch. This is incorrect, as (and this has been explained to Paull111 many times before) the CIA source is used solely to determine the number of Flemish living in Belgium. Reasons why some people include them and the Dutch in the same ethnic group can be found elsewhere in the article.Rex 15:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The infobox lists the Dutch ethnic group, and if it says otherwise it would contradict itself, see item above.Paul111 19:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You know exactly what the info box lists. This section concerned manipulative behaviour on your part.Rex 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sports invented by the Dutch

The two sports that are aimed at here are Golf and Ice Hockey, which are likely (and the first one most likely) to be invented by Dutch.

The origin of golf is open to debate as to being Chinese, Dutch or Scottish. A game similar to Golf was first mentioned in Dongxuan Records (Chinese:東軒錄), a Chinese book of 11th Century. It was also mentioned in February 26 in the year 1297 in the Netherlands in a city called Loenen aan de Vecht. Here the Dutch played a game with a stick and leather ball. Whoever hit the ball in a target several hundreds of meters away the least number of times, won. The Scots however regard golf to be a Scottish invention, as the game was supposedly mentioned in two 15th-century laws prohibiting the playing of the game of "gowf". Scholars, however, suggest that this refers to another game which is much akin to shinty or hurling, or to modern field hockey rather than golf. They point out that a game of putting a small ball in a hole in the ground using golf clubs was played in 17th-century Netherlands rather than Scotland. This is backed up by the fact that the term golf is an alteration of Dutch "kolf" meaning "stick, "club" and "bat"[5] (see: Kolven).

Golf


The etymology of the word hockey is uncertain. It may derive from the Old French word hoquet, shepherd's crook, or from the Middle Dutch word hokkie, meaning shack or doghouse, which in popular use meant goal. Many of these games were developed for fields, though where conditions allowed they were also played on ice. 16th-century Dutch paintings show townsfolk playing a hockey-like game on a frozen canal. European immigrants brought various versions of hockey-like games to North America.

Hockey

Rex 16:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source for itself, see Wikipedia:Attribution. Golf is claimed to be a Scottich invention and hockey is attributed to "the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Irish, the Scots and the Indians of South America". [28] Such claims are often no more than trivia. A reliable source is needed.Paul111 20:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Rex 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Germanic origin of the Dutch, Frankish ancestry

This source says the following about the earliest Dutch people:

De ontwikkeling van een Nederlands volk begon met de vestiging van Germanen in het noorden en ging in de 3de en 4de eeuw na het vertrek van de Romeinen door met de komst van de Franken.
(English:The developement of the Dutch people started with the arrival of Germanic tribes in the 3rd and 4th century, after the retreat of the Romans due to the arrival of the Franks.)

It then continues:

Pas in de loop van de 7de eeuw vestigden vooral Frankische nieuwkomers zich hier in permanente nederzettingen. Het Nederlandse volk stamt min of meer van deze immigranten af.
(English:In the course of the 7th century mostly Frankish immigrants establish permanent settlements. The Dutch people more or less decend from these immigrants.)

Rex 17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the website of an infotainment programm presented by nl:Jan Douwe Kroeske and featuring nl:Ron Brandsteder, nl:Astrid Joosten and nl:Patrick Lodiers.Paul111 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and you're a Belgian. It's a separate page on "20 centuries Netherlands", and is owned by the Teleac/NOT, the Dutch public educative broadcaster.Rex 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Teleac/NOT is a trustworthy source; is paid by Dutch government (ie no commercial interest) but has its own editorial freedom (ie it is not state television in the sense that is broadcasting state views. The network provides both schooltelevision as well as high quality education broadcasts to the larger public. They consciously choose to use well-know presenters not be known as a stuffy history channel. The choice of presenters sais nothing about program quality, but about the broadcasting strategy. Arnoutf 21:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Ethnic group beta

Template:Infobox Ethnic group beta has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Paul111 11:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How about a truce?

I would like to revisit the proposal of a truce in this edit-war. I feel that it is the best way to work things out. We can just -discuss- things and only edit after we've (hopefully) reached an agreement.

I think it is stupid to just keep editing each other's work, revert, etc. In the end, it makes it harder to accomplish anything, because people keep blocking other people's work, new people can't contribute, because they see their work is being undone anyway, so we end up with a page which just is not satisfactory to anyone.

Why don't we try this for a week or two and then evaluate how that goes. Perhaps we can work out some kind of compromise. Skeptic77 13:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your contributions. If you want to propose a compromise text, then why not do just that?Paul111 10:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it is signed now.

Of course, you could've just responded to the proposal.

I'already tried to work on a compromise text, but it seems useless when all you do is edit whatever you wish until your work is reverted, someone else creates a new version of your text and then you revert that.

So I suggest we just try to work on some kind of compromise. Otherwise it'll be a royal pain in the ass to work on this page. Skeptic77 13:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If nothing is proposed, then there is nothing to talk about. However, the issues have been discussed for months now without any sign of a compromise version, and you are correct to assume that it is unlikely.Paul111 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Total numbers, emigrants and immigrants

I restored the statistic for the minimum total numbers, with sources. The sections had been edited in a way that confused emigrant and immigrant. These terms are not interchangeable. Every emigrant becomes an immigrant at destination, but that does not mean that figures can simply be swopped. The sections now read:

In the 1950's (the peak of Dutch emigration) about 350 000 people left the Netherlands, mainly to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and South Africa. About one-fifth returned Since 1960 4,2 million immigrants entered the country. About one-quarter were returning Dutch migrants. The total amount of emigrants was 3,2 million, of these about half born in the Netherlands. [8] This is half of the total 6,5 million emigrants [9] since 1865.

The maximum emigrant stock for the 1950's is therefore about 300 000 (some have since died). The maximum emigrant stock (Dutch-born) for the period after 1960 is 1.6 million. Discounting pre-1950 emigrants (who would be about 85 or older), at most around 2 million people born in the Netherlands are now living outside the country. Combined with the 13 million autochtoon inhabitants, [10] there are about 15 million people who are Dutch, in a minimally accepted sense.

and the edited parts of the section on terminology outside the Netherlands read:

The Dutch language term Nederlanders may refer to "ethnic Dutch" or to the entire population of the Netherlands, depending on context. Outside the Netherlands, the English-language demonym 'Dutch' may refer to both of these, and also to people with Dutch ancestry....

First-generation emigrants with Dutch-nationality are officially treated as Dutch resident overseas. The children of two Dutch-born emigrant parents are defined by Statistics Netherlands as "autochtoon". This means that the children of the Dutch emmigrants to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, who left the Netherlands after the Second World War (often while still in their twenties) are considered autochthone, even if they do not have Dutch nationality.

On terminology, the sentence When reading the article, the most common meanings of Dutch refer to after the rise of the nation states in the late 19th; early 20th century is ambiguous and needs clarification.Paul111 10:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I like your opening line In the 1950's (the peak of Dutch emigration) about 350 000 people left the Netherlands as that is clear, regardless of e-im-migrant use. However two lines down this is less clear Since 1960 4,2 million immigrants entered the country. I would suggest something like Since 1960 4,2 million moved to the country. clear without the possible migrant confusion
The next line The total amount of emigrants was 3,2 million, of these about half born in the Netherlands. is unclear. What do you mean, people leaving Nl, or people re-entering it. I reckon thef you mean the first it has to be moved up to immediately after Canada, the United States and South Africa in line 2.
Next section the whole stock discussion comes across as very awkward; do we really need this?
For the sentence to rephrase I would say In this article Dutch only explcitly refers to Dutch as an ethnic group for the period after the rise of the nation states in the late 19th century. References to the Dutch prior to the era are less concise and may refer to neighbouring population groups. Pre 1830 references to the Dutch should not be interpreted as if a single ethnic group in the modern sense of the word is aimed at. Arnoutf 16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Which 'neighbouring population groups' do they refer to? Your suggested version implies that a Dutch ethnic group once existed, which inhabited territory outside the current Netherlands.Paul111 11:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean that prior to the Batavian Republic talking about the Dutch may even be a bit over the top. The Neighbouring Groups (from about 1600-1795) would be the Zeelanders, Hollanders, Stichters (Utrecht), Guelders (or even smaller Veluwe, Betuwe, Twente); Frisians, Groningers, Limburgians and Brabant people (I think West Frisian was no longer a separate entity in Holland, Overijssel mainly part of Guelders and Drente hardly populated).
From 1550 to 1600 (the 17 provinces) this would also include Flanders and Artois.
Before 1550 it would refer to the same groups but even more loosely tied e.g. by language similarity and literature (Reinaert etc.). Arnoutf 12:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The terms Dutch and Nederlanders do not refer to the inhabitants of the 17 Provinces, or to any group before 1550. The Sticht as temporal entity disappeared before the Dutch Revolt. And if the groups you list for the period 1600-1795 are the neighbours of the Dutch, then where did the Dutch live?Paul111 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the whole section reworked to avoid the issue entirely:Paul111 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch language term Nederlanders may refer to "ethnic Dutch" or to the entire population of the Netherlands, depending on context. Outside the Netherlands, the English-language demonym 'Dutch' may refer to both of these, and also to people with Dutch ancestry. The English-language exonym The Netherlands is used for both the present Netherlands, but in historical contexts for a larger area which approximates to the present Benelux countries. The English term Low Countries has no official status, is used in both historical and modern contexts, and also approximates to the Benelux. In Dutch, the terminology is clearer: the modern state is referred to as Nederland (singular) while Nederlanden (plural) refers to the historical Low Countries.

First-generation emigrants with Dutch nationality are officially treated as Dutch, resident overseas. The children of two Dutch-born emigrant parents are defined by Statistics Netherlands as "autochtoon". This means that the children of the Dutch emmigrants to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, who left the Netherlands after the Second World War (often while still in their twenties) are considered autochthone, even if they do not have Dutch nationality (they may qualify for it).

I agree, that is a much better way of stating it. One issue: does the CBS definition include non-Dutch nationals born from 2 Dutch parents as autochtone. We should look that up for the last sentence, to be sure. Some suggestions for copyedit in the version below. Arnoutf 18:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch language term Nederlanders may refer to "ethnic Dutch" or to the entire population of the Netherlands, depending on context. Outside the Netherlands, the English-language demonym 'Dutch' may refer to both of these, and also to people with Dutch ancestry. The English-language term The Netherlands is used for both the present Netherlands, and, only in historical contexts, for a larger area which approximates the present Benelux countries. The English term Low Countries is not an official term. Low Countries refers to an area approximately spanning the Benelux and is used in both historical and modern contexts. In Dutch, the terminology is less ambiguous: the modern state is referred to as Nederland (singular) while Nederlanden (plural) can only refer to the historical Low Countries.

First-generation emigrants with Dutch nationality are officially treated as Dutch residents overseas. The children of two Dutch-born emigrant parents are defined by Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics as "autochtoon". This means that the children of the Dutch emmigrants to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, who left the Netherlands after the Second World War are considered autochthone, even if they do not have Dutch nationality.

Germanic roots of the Dutch

I added a section on this issue and the political connonations. The cited report lists more background material on the German Westforschung. The added text is as follows:Paul111 10:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Identification of the Dutch or Flemings, or their ancestry, as 'Germanic' is associated with 19th-centuty Pan-Germanisme, which saw Flanders and the Netherlands as kin-related and sought their political association Germany. [11] During the First World War Germany sought to identify the Flemish as a related Germanic people, to facilitate the furure annexation of Flanders. [12] Similarly, the Kulturraumforschung in Nazi Germany was aimed at the future annexation of territory in north-western Europe into the Reich. [13] Dutch ethnography adopted similar views, and before the Second World War, identification of the Dutch as part of the "Germanic race" and as descendants of Germanic tribes was common. [14] After the Second World war, Dutch ethnography dropped the references to Germanic and pan-Germanic unity, although often opportunistically. [15]

Germanic is cultural and linguistic term, as said by our provided references. German romantisism is not to be even mentioned, the same goes for nazism.Rex 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Han Nicolaas. Nederland: van immigratie- naar emigratieland? Central Bureau voor de Statistiek, [1]
  2. ^ NIDI Atlas [2]
  3. ^ Autochtone population at 01 january 2006, Central Statistics Bureau, Integratiekaart 2006, (external link)
  4. ^ Han van der Horst, 2000. Nederland: de vaderlandse geschiedenis van de prehistorie tot nu. Amsterdam: Prometheus. Page 297: "De bewoners van de Zuidelijke Nederlanden duidden zich in die dagen al aan als Belgen."
  5. ^ 'Ons volk bestaat niet' (Our people doesn't exist) in Dutch.
  6. ^ Han van der Horst, 2000. Nederland: de vaderlandse geschiedenis van de prehistorie tot nu. Amsterdam: Prometheus. Page 308-309.
  7. ^ Blom et al, Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden, p 251-254.
  8. ^ Han Nicolaas. Nederland: van immigratie- naar emigratieland? Central Bureau voor de Statistiek, [3]
  9. ^ NIDI Atlas [4]
  10. ^ Autochtone population at 01 january 2006, Central Statistics Bureau, Integratiekaart 2006, (external link)
  11. ^ Bevindingen over P.JJ. Meertens op grond van literatuur en geraadpleegde bronnen, Rapport van de Commissie van Drie, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, 2006. "In Duitsland had de romantische versmelting van het taalcriterium met het volksaard- of rascriterium tot een pangermanisme geleid waarbij het accent werd gelegd op een natuurlijke eenheid van alle Germaanse stammen. Gegeven de centrale ligging en macht van Duitsland kon dat pangermanisme zowel een cultureel als een politiek expansiestreven legitimeren. Vlaanderen en Nederland golden in die theorie als stamverwant; een nauwere politieke aansluiting bij Duitsland werd als natuurlijk beschouwd....Ze werden als een eigen ruimte van verwante Nederduitse dialecten en cultuur tot voorbeeld van Germanendom uitgeroepenl."
  12. ^ Bevindingen over P.JJ. Meertens op grond van literatuur en geraadpleegde bronnen, Rapport van de Commissie van Drie, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, 2006. "Tijdens de Eerste Wereldoorlog werd de bezetting van België zeer bewust vanuit machtspolitieke en strategische oogmerken gebruikt om Vlaanderen als Germaans broedervolk nauwer aan het rijk te binden met een toekomstige annexatie en integratie als einddoel."
  13. ^ Bevindingen over P.JJ. Meertens op grond van literatuur en geraadpleegde bronnen, Rapport van de Commissie van Drie, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, 2006. "Onder de noemer van Kulturraumforschung werd onderzoek gedaan naar een gezamenlijke Noordwest-Europese cultuur Kulturraum, die in de oorlog kon dienen als rechtvaardiging van de integratie van deze gebieden in het Duitse Rijk."
  14. ^ Bevindingen over P.JJ. Meertens op grond van literatuur en geraadpleegde bronnen, Rapport van de Commissie van Drie, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, 2006. "Het lag voor de hand dat de prille Nederlandse volkskunde aansluiting zocht bij de verder gevorderde Duitse en ook Belgisch-Vlaamse volkskunde. Dat Nederlanders tot het Germaanse ras behoorden en erfgenamen waren van Franken, Friezen en Saksische stammen stond in elk hand- en schoolboek, wat men dan ook verder met die kennis deed."
  15. ^ Bevindingen over P.JJ. Meertens op grond van literatuur en geraadpleegde bronnen, Rapport van de Commissie van Drie, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, 2006. "De oude theorieën over ruimtelijke eenheden op grond van een Germaans etnisch-racistische saamhorigheid in dienst van de Duitse expansie, werden met weglating van het racistische en expansionistische element snel omgebouwd in dienst van een nieuw samengaan onder de vlag van de Europese eenheid. Het bleek dat het ruimteparadigma op zeer uiteenlopende wijze konworden gepolitiseerd: ter ondersteuning van Duitse machtsexpansie; als pleidooi voor een regionalisme binnen de gevestigde staten; maar ook als ideologische ondersteuning van bovennationale verbanden."

History section

The previous version (of about 6 weeks ago), a copy-edited version, should be restored, the replacement has many errors. I mean this version:Paul111 16:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The history of the Dutch, as of most European peoples, is complex and intertwined through migrations and shifting empires. In this section, a short overview of these issues in relation to the approximate area of the current Netherlands is sketched.

In the Roman Empire, the imperial boundary ran east-west through the present Netherlands, along the Rhine. Within the empire, tribal groups included the Belgae (whose name was adopted in 1830 for the new Kingdom of Belgium), and the Batavii (whose name was adopted for the Dutch Batavian Republic). After the Fall of the Roman Empire, by the end of the Migration Period, the Low Countries were inhabited by Frisians, Saxons and the Franks, a Germanic people first recorded living in Pannonia. Of these three groups, the Franks were most dominant,[1] and would in fact conquer large areas of Europe in the subsequent centuries. In 843, the Treaty of Verdun divided the (Frankish) Carolingian Empire into three kingdoms for the three sons of Louis the Pious. The Low Countries became part of Middle Francia under Emperor Lothair I.

In 962, the Holy Roman Empire was established with the coronation of Otto the Great, extending from the Low Countries to Italy. The Holy Roman empire was a largely decentralised state and its authority within the low countries was never very strong. Later, semi-independent fiefdoms formed in the Low Countries; the most powerful being Brabant, Flanders, Guelders, Holland and Luxembourg. The first steps towards political unification of the Low Countries took place under the dukes of Burgundy (until 1473). The Pragmatic Sanction of 1549, issued by Charles V, established the Low Countries as an independent entity, the Seventeen Provinces with boundaries approximating to the present Benelux, as an entity separate from the Holy Roman Empire and France.

Although the Seventeen Provinces had become a political unity, there were still great regional differences. The eastern (e.g., Guelders and Liege) and southern provinces (Artois) were less densely populated and agrarian. These provinces were also partially oriented towards their (German or French) neighbours. A division between North and South was not foreseeable at the time. The primary contrast was between the rich urbanised coastal provinces (Flanders, Zealand and Holland), and the less developed peripheral domains.[2]

As the Reformation gained influence in Europe, Calvinism became very influential in the Seventeen Provinces, including Artesia and Flanders, the base of the Spanish governors. When Catholic Habsburg Spain turned to repressive policies, this added to general dissatisfaction in the Seventeen Provinces. In 1566, a wave of iconoclastic attacks on Catholic churches began what is now known as the Dutch Revolt. During the succeeding rebellion, the Spanish forces managed to re-establish their power in the southern provinces. In the north, the Dutch Republic emerged, defining for the first time an independent Dutch nation. The economic golden age, and spread of Calvinism, redefined "the Dutchman" across Europe a "Hollander" rather than a "Fleming" as had previously been the case.[3]

As the Spanish forces reconquered the Southern cities (in present-day Belgium), of which the fall of Antwerp in 1585 was most notable, many Calvinists, including much of the local economic and cultural elites, fled north. The Southern Netherlands remained under Spanish rule, and remained almost entirely Catholic. In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia recognised the de facto geopolitical division of the former Seventeen provinces. The Dutch Republic prospered and created the trade-based Dutch Empire overseas, while the Southern Netherlands had lost their leading economic role in Europe. In the 18th century, the power of the Dutch republic started to diminish.

After a short lived existence as the Batavian Republic supported by French revolutionaries, and as the vassal state Kingdom of Holland, the Low Countries were for a short time (1810-1813), annexed by the French Empire. At this time, the English occupied the Dutch colonial possessions. Except for the Cape Colony (South Africa) and Ceylon (Sri Lanka), the colonial possessions were returned after Napoleon had been defeated. The lasting division between the Dutch and the Boers (who were Dutch settlers in South Africa) started here. When France was defeated in 1814 and again after the Hundred Days Campaign in 1815, the winning coalition, created the United Kingdom of the Netherlands comprising of the Northern and the Southern Netherlands at the Congress of Vienna. The new state, intended to act as a semi-buffer state between France and Prussia, proved to be unworkable; not only did it include different ethnic and linguistic groups (Walloons, Germans and Dutch), the state was also divided by cultural, religious, and internal economic differences. In 1830, the southern provinces declared their independence in the Belgian revolution. In 1839, the independence of Belgium was recognised by the northern Kingdom of the Netherlands. With the resolution of the status of Luxembourg in 1890, the three states acquired most of their present boundaries.

There has been some call for a "Greater Netherlands", combining the Dutch-speaking regions in Belgium with the Netherlands, since the late 19th century. This wish was voiced by Dutch, and especially Belgian, fascists during the 1930's, but the occupation of Belgium and the Netherlands by Nazi Germany brought no major border changes. Today, support for a state that would unify all Dutch speakers mainly, but not exclusively, comes from the political right, especially on the fringes of the Flemish movement.

Sounds fine with me, I thought you were the person who most actively objected to above version. Arnoutf 16:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

'Choice of leadership' section=

As far as this section refers to the period before the Dutch Revolt, it is cobtroversial and needs to be supported by reliable sources. There are two related issues. First the section decribes groups being led by Germanic chieftains, and later by Germanic Kings. Specifically, it describes people being ruled by Frankish kings, the East Frankish king and the 'German King'.

Who were these people who were being ruled? were they 'Dutch'? If so, then a reliable source should be provided for that very controversial claim. There probably is none: it is pseudohistory to see these people as 'Dutch'.

If they are included in the article because their traditions had an influence on later forms of government, then that needs a source too. There are hundreds of publications about the Dutch style of politics and government, the consensus tradition, the verzuiling, and so so. Does any of them attribute all that to the Franks?Paul111 10:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the problems would be solved if we renamed the section to something like Leadership in the Netherlandic area over the ages; and copyedit the text accordingly Arnoutf 12:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about leadership in geographical areas. Paul111 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That is true. Just to summarise. I think the following should be in; not necessarily in those terms or these years, just to start talking about a historical cut-off date - Constitutional Monarchy (+/-1850-now); foreign occupation (1940-45); Centralist Monarchy (1815-1850); Imperial France (1812?-1815); French Vasal Kingdom (18xx-18xx); Centralised Republic (1795-18xx); Federal Republic (1586-1795); Personal Union under king of Spain (1550-1586); Personal Union of fiefdoms under Burgundian Duke (14xx-1560); Semi-independent fiefdoms (Duke, Count, Bishop) under Holy Roman Emperor (+/-1000-+/-14xx); Holy Roman Emperor (+/-900-+/-1000); Merovingian Emperor (+/-800); Tribal Chieftains (+/-300-+/-800); Pax Romana (+/-50-+/-300).
SO in historic order: Pax Romana - Tribal Chieftains - Frankish Imperial - Holy Roman Emperor - Lower nobility - Burgundian Emperor (personal union)- Spanish King (personal union) - Federal Republic - Centralised republic - French Vasal Kingdom - French Empire - Absolute Monarchy - Constitutional Monarchy - Nazi Occupation - Const Monarchy
This way I more or less deconstructed the history section with a type of leadership for every (r)evolution. I think it is a very interesting set of leaders. Different types of kings, emperors, lower nobility, republics. I can imagine pushing it back all the way to the romans is overdoing it. Perhaps start with the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire? Or the personal unions under the Burgundian dukes (that is the firts political unification of the Netherlands after the HRE). Arnoutf 16:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That all belongs in the History of the Netherlands. How are all these developments linked to a specific presently existing population group, as opposed to a territory or a state?Paul111 10:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is something anti-authoritarian/egalitarian in the independence of lower nobility in the medieval times; something of the same in the Republic where nobility was not a prerequisite for a function. That still seems to be ingrained in the Dutch people's nature (doe maar gewoon dan doe je al gek genoeg). As far as that is reflected in Dutch leadership over the ages I think it is a contribution here. Arnoutf 11:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, there is a considerable literature on Dutch political traditions, and that needs to be cited. Most of it has nothing to say about the Franks and their kings, however.Paul111 11:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That may indeed be the way out, using the Dutch political tradition insights to replace the choice of leadership section. Arnoutf 12:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Section on Flemings

I removed the items on the position of the Dutch language in Belgium, Belgian troops in the First World War, and the IJzerbedevaart. They belong in the articles on Belgium and Flanders, not here. No source was provided for the claims that

  • There was little political contact between the Dutch and Belgian governments until the Second World War.
  • Currently the ratio between the Dutch and the second largest ethnic group is 33 to 1, in Belgium it's 1,8 to 1.
  • Historically this meant that the Flemings experienced a great deal of ethnic/cultural awareness, while being separated from their closest related group of people.
  • Many Flemings hold to the stereotype that the Dutch, opposed to themselves, are mostly Protestants.

Historical content in the section on Flemings is duplicated in the History section. That is the proper place for it, the Flemings section shoul refer to the History section for historical backrgound.Paul111 10:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Shorter intro text

This current version is shorter and more neutral, the figures are backed by statistical sources, the overseas Dutch issie is moved to a spearate article, and the rest of the discussion on 'who is Dutch' can go in the Terminology section.Paul111 11:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch people (Dutch: Nederlanders. Literal translation: 'Lowlanders') are an ethnic group who form the majority of the population in the Netherlands (13 million in 2006).[4]

Today the term can have different meanings depending on context and definition. The number of Dutch people today for example can range from 13 million to 17 or 18 million (including overseas population), depending on context. Most Dutch people live in the Netherlands: for the Dutch overseas and groups of partial Dutch descent, see Dutch diaspora.


I am not sure that as short as it is now, it is still sufficiently informative. Wikipedia:Lead section advices 3 to 4 paragraphs in the into, these are only two very brief ones.
Line by line comments: First line no comments, neutral and to the point.
Second line suggestion to add Dutch to disambiguate: 'Today the term Dutch can have different meanings depending on context and definition.'
3rd line rephrase for better reading; also not an example but the whole point: 'Depending on context the number of Dutch people today can range from 13 million to 17 or 18 million (including overseas population).'
4th line I have some problems here. Reference to Dutch diaspora article in intro does seem out of place. Something like adding a line in between like so you don't need the diaspora explcitily 'The differences in counts can be explained from the decision whehter to count Dutch people who migrated from the Netherlands, and groups of people outside the Netherlands of partial Dutch descent as Dutch, or not. Regardless of the definition, the vast majority of the Dutch people live within the Netherlands'.
I also would like to add a line about immigrants; the section about allochtones is speaking about the issue. Something like 'There is currently some tension in the Netherlands when migrants from former colonies, and more general in what cases migrants in general could be counted as Dutch people.'

If we want to add another section we might say something about 'The evolution of the Dutch to a (more or less) coherent ethnic group is relatively recent.'; and/or something like 'The Dutch are typically associated with windmills, cheese, tulips, and clogs.' and/or 'Dutch cultural icons include the painters Rembrandt, Vermeer and Van Gogh; where scientific and literary icons include Erasmus, Spinoza, Hugo Grotius, and Anne Frank.' (Althoug here we might end up in messy nationalism as Spinoza and Anne Frank have been edit warred out earlier as not being full-blooded dutch (not by me or Rex btw, but by a german nationalist). Arnoutf 11:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The point about immigrants was in the intro, it should indeed go back. Because there is no evidence that all Dutch-descent groups are Dutch, the intro should not suggest that. A reference to another article is the best way to avoid such an implicit suggestion. I see no need for the clogs, or for Spinoza, in the intro. (Anne Frank was certainly not Dutch and that controversy is best avoided in an intro).Paul111 11:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I wikilinked migrated from the Netherlands to Dutch diaspora. I think the phrase for more see: XX is a bit awkward in an introduction.
Briefly for clarification, do you mean clogs and Spinoza as specific examples, or do you mean no need for mentioning any example (ie also no need for Rembrandt) or do you mean you see no need for a reference to culture altogether. (I cna live with all 3 options but don't know which you mean) Arnoutf 12:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The new shorter intro is not more neutral. It uses false/misinterpreted numbers, and we don't want it shorter. At the last article review it was suggested to make it larger.Rex 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Symmetry of relations

Hi all, I noticed the current Dutch people infobox only mentions Frisian people as a related group. There is no problem there, as the Frisians name the Dutch (a.o.) as a related group. Here we have symmetrical relation (i.e. both are related, hence they refer to each other). However, looking at Flemish people I notice that the Dutch are mentioned there, while the Flemish are not in the Dutch infobox. That is asymmetrical, and thus imho weird. I would suggest we add the Flemish to the related groups (or convince the Flemish to delete the Dutch), only to restore consistency.
On a more general point I, do you think it would be a good thing to discuss this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups to make into a guideline that only symmetric relations should be entered. Ie, add X people as related in box of Y, then also add Y as related in the box of X. Or would that lead to POV forks (to sound that out I put it up here first). Arnoutf 12:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not asymmetrical, but just bias by Paul111. He's infact contradicting himself as he does claim the Dutch and Flemish see themselves as the most closely related. I've hence adapted this. Rex 16:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there is no mal intent, just something weird and inconsistent. Arnoutf 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the listing of the Dutch as a 'related ethnic group' at Flemish people. The relationship is above all linguistic, no-one else in Europe speaks Dutch.Paul111 19:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As you know I disagree; besides language other relations exist: culinary (beer / chips), cultural [-especially literary (well yes linked to language but still) but also painting]. But then again, what is a relation? But I can live with it this way, just hope that if another consensus will develop e.g. on the Flemish people page, you will accept the relation here as well Arnoutf 14:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
PS. From your action I gather that you agree with the symmetry argument.

Culinary is not ethnic. Literary is not ethnic. Cultural similarity is not ethnic. The infobox implies an ethnic relationship: where is the evidence of that foir the Dutch and Flemings? (In terms of ancestry, the greatest overlap is between Flemings and Wallons, because of internal migration within Belgium). The simplest option is to leave out the 'related' line in the infobox, and cover culture in the text.Paul111 11:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument goes back to the narrow genealogical definition of Ethnic Group. And even there there will be some relationsships between the Dutch and the Flemings, probably similar as between Dutch and Germans. But I agree this will be not as close as Fleming-Wallon. I think a weak relation would suffice (i.e. I would accept relations with English, German, Fleming, anish, Norwegian, Swedish but also if these are separate Afrikaner, Surinam, Indonesian, Antillean (ie. the former Dutch colonies)). But that is a matter of defintion. As stated above; I can live with the narrow definition (for now); but my personal favourite would be a broader definition. I just hope that if in the future the consensus goes that way, you will accept that. Arnoutf 12:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul111s POV

The "new" version of this article by Paul111 was not acceptable. I would have thought the article wouldn't change much in the time I "was away" but I was wrong, and Paul111 took full advantage of the situation. His new version was crammed with POV, wrongly used sources and a lack of the latter in some places.Rex 16:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rex, I reverted your wholesale edit for much the same reason I reverted Paul111's edits a bit earlier on. These issues are discussed separately, the edits should be made separately with an adequate talk page argument and relevant edit summary. If this goes for Paul111, so it goes for you. Arnoutf 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If some people would cease to make this talkpage an unclear hell of words I would have seen this discussions. Nevertheless, we'll do it your way, but I guarantee you we'll end up pretty much the same ...Rex 18:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

incorrect, needless and unacademic statement removed

Dear All, as Arnoutf recommended me to do so, I would like to explain at the talk page in more detail why I have removed the following allegation:

"Dutch antipathy towards Germans goes back to the early 15th century when Germans were seen as uneducated, grumpy, rude peasants who served as cheap labour to the wealthier Dutch.[64][65] Entire stories were published in which Germans were portrayed as inferior barbarians."

1) as for source 64: engelfriet.net (please take a look at the webside) is not a citable source but a family homepage => such source does hardly comply with the standard for the prove of facts on Wikipedia

2) as for source 65: my Dutch is rather bad but if I unstood it right the source refers not to Germans or Germany but to the historic origins of the word "mof" (actually used for people coming from Amsterdam). It is definitively undisputed that the word "mof" is used for Germans nowadays but that has actually nothing to do with the 15th century. By the way, in the early 15th century Germany does not even exist as a nation state as we know it now but was rather a religous conglomerate and, hence, nobody spoke of "Germans" in theses days but if at all about "Emsländer", "Bavarians", "Frisians", etc.

3) besides the fact that the sources are not citable respectively do not prove the allegation, please take a look on the wording ("grumpy", "rude", "served as", "inferior") and judge by yourself whether it complies with the standard tone of an encyclopaedia.

4) However, I think that the remaining two paragraphs refering to the relations between Dutchs and Germans do sufficiently and moderately descripe the situation:

"For many years, most recently since WWII, a strong animosity existed towards Germans. They were said to be rude, arrogant, noisy and intolerant and in fact most other antonyms of characteristics the Dutch pride themselves on. For many Dutch people it is not a question of "why" they dislike Germans, they just do. According to "The Xenophobe's Guide to the Dutch", "Telling a Dutch person that their language seems very similar to German is unlikely to benefit your relationship." It humorously adds: "Remarking that the two nations are similar in many ways will probably get you thrown out of the house."

Perhaps strangely, Germans are generally unaware of the fact that they are disliked by their neighbours and often think it is merely a soccer phenomenon, as this is when the anti-German feelings are most visible. The Dutch and Germans have had fierce soccer rivalry ever since the Second World War, even though the post war rivalry on Germany's side is actually a reaction on the behaviour displayed by the Dutch.[63]"

Please feel free to discuss!

Kind regards, (194.9.5.10 14:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

More general name

I propose to change the name to Dutch (people) or something very similar. The name was unilaterally changed by one editor in the past, and that was one of the reasons for the edit disputes at this page. However, the main reason for the change is simply that it is a better name, and meets Wikipedia guidelines ("use the most general term"). The Dutch are both a nation and an ethnic group. The degree to which these overlap - the ethnic core of national identity - is disputed in the Netherlands. With a more general name, the article can cover that dispute, as it should. Please indicate your views below.Paul111 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support
  • Oppose
  • Comment

The ethnic group specialisation was in my memory created because of the problem of distinguishing between nation and ethnic. But I agree, the rename in the past has not helped solving the issue. Arnoutf 15:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate content in Culture and Identity

I suggest moving this out of Culture and Identity, since it duplicates material in the History section. Any non-redundant points can be pasted there.Paul111 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch and the Flemish share the same language: Dutch. The present state border between the Netherlands and the Flemish part of Belgium does not coincide with any linguistic or dialectal boundary. In the Province of Limburg, the Netherlands border with Wallonia coincides, in places, with the Dutch-French linguistic boundary.

After the Dutch Revolt and the Peace of Westphalia, the Dutch and Flemings (who live in Northern Belgium) were not generally seen as one single people or nation, despite the unification during the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.[5] Nevertheless they share a sense of being closely related, as the only two Dutch-speaking societies in Europe. They share a language and have a similar culture in some respects. There are some differences: although Calvinism was originally strongest in Flanders, it remained under Spanish control after the Dutch Revolt, and remained overwhelmingly Catholic. (So did the southern part of the modern Netherlands, which was incorporated later into the Dutch Republic, but its culture was not dominant within the Netherlands).

The Belgian revolution, domination by a Francophone elite, and structural disadvantage for Dutch-speaking Belgians, led at the end of the 19th century to an oppositional Flemish cultural movement, which soon politicised. It revived interest in the idea of reunification - at present in the form of unity between the Netherlands and Flanders, rather than a recreation of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. Support for the idea has varied: at present no political party represented in the Dutch parliament actively supports it. (In Flanders, the supporters of the idea are found mainly among Flemish separatists. The main separatist party, Vlaams Belang, generally seen as belonging to the extreme right,[6] supports an independent Flanders).

Etnic group and Nation

The recent addition of nation needs explanation in the article (or has to be reverted), for several reasons.
First. The title of the article is Dutch (ethnic group). Hence to state that it is about both ethnic group AND nation is weird. The article should first be renamed to Dutch people or to Dutch (ethnic group and nation).(notice there is no consensus on this, but that is another issue). Otherwise the addition is outright weird.
Second. The added line The 'Dutch ethnic group' and the 'Dutch nation' are synonomous for some people, but different for others. There is no consensus on this issue. holds no sensical content, because (a) it is not referenced; and (b) without any of the arguments or definitions by the unnamed some people / others there is no way to interpret the meaning of the line. Hence this line needs more explanation and a reference. Please provide this. Arnoutf 15:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A nation in this case means 'ethnic nation', the only other meaning it could carry is that of a Dutch nation, that is the Netherlands. I don't see what the fuss is. --Joffeloff 02:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a (agreed small) difference between nation and ethnic group. The Habsbrug empire (state) for example contained many ethnic groups that we not necessarily all nations. IMHO both terms are often hihg-jacked by the far right wing politics; with ethnic group (as far as I know) being more often linked to racial issues, and nation more to nationalist issue. Both rejectable but clearly distinct. Arnoutf 08:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Page renamed

I moved the page to an unused title, similar but not identical to its former title. The previous change, limiting the scope of the article to ethnic group, was unilateral, and intended to give an advantage to one interpretation of Dutch and Flemish history. The article has been mis-titled for months, even though most people in the Netherlands never use the term "ethnic group" to describe themselves, it is in academic use only. Hopefully, the present title will allow editing to move forward, and to cover the prominent issue of national identity.Paul111 16:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right in saying it is the only way forward, although there was no consensus on this move. I have strutured the terminology section into a more rigid definition section as (IMHO) that section is very important under this broader name. Arnoutf 17:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There was indeed no consensus and will hence try to revert the move. As I have said many times before, this article has always been, regardless of title) on the Dutch as an Ethnic group. Nation and ethnicity are similar, just like humans and chimps, but they are not the same.Rex 15:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean just like chimps and humans 99.7% similar I hope. I doubt whether in the long run two articles will solve this. Arnoutf 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The page was not listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves and no discussion template was created. If these procedures are not followed, then I suggest the tag should be removed.Paul111 15:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That is a non-argument at this time. You might have objected with that argument when it first occurred, several months ago; but as you did not, you apparently agreed. You cannot come with this now anymore. Arnoutf 18:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch ethnicity

No source was provided for the claim that the Dutch are united as an ethnic group through the definition of AD Smith. (No book title was provided either). No definition or context was provided for the limits of 'Dutch' in this context.

There is no source given, and probably none available, for the claim that the cultural impact of christianity unites the Dutch into an ethnic group. Nor is the Dutch language the first language of all residents of the Netherlands, including many who self-identify as Dutch. European culture, by definition, is not the same as Dutch culture and can not in itself serve as a marker for a Dutch ethnic group. There is no source for the claim that a single Dutch culture exists, or that it is a unifying factor for the ethnic group. Thre is no evidence that Dutch customs and etiquette play any fundamental role in Dutch identity, and no source was provided for that claim.

No source was provided for the claim that emergence of the Dutch is difficult to determine. Most historians date the Dutch people to the time of the Dutch revolt. No source was provided for the claim that the Dutch language was spoken around 450, or that it emerged from Old Frankish. Old Frankish was extinct long before modern Dutch was spoken. There is no evidence that anyone in 450 spoke Dutch.Paul111 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you suddenly talking about? Above section makes no sense whatsoever Arnoutf 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch spoken in 450?

The source given for the claim that Dutch was spoken in 450 is the forum at Onze Taal. The relevant item does not say that Dutch was spoken at that time and identifies the language group of the inscription in question as Germanic or West-Germanic.Paul111 16:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Over wad: dat is misschien het oudste inheemse woord met betrekking tot de latere Nederlanden, maar het komt uit een periode dat het Germaans of in ieder geval het West-Germaans nog ongedeeld was. Als je dat als criterium zou nemen, zou men de runeninscriptie op de zwaardschede van Bergakker (ca. 450) als het oudste Nederlands kunnen beschouwen. Het enige woord met lexicologische waarde daarop is ann, de verleden tijd van unnan 'gunnen', dat daarmee het oudste Nederlandse woord zou zijn.

Sallic Law itself is the proof. As is the website Onze taal.Rex 17:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The existence of Salic law does not prove that Dutch was spoken in 450. The website of Onze Taal does not say that either.Paul111 17:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It does exactly that. The Sallic law proves that (Old) Dutch was written around 450, so unless you suggest the future Dutch were only able to write, but not speak (please source that though) stop this ridiculous behavior.Rex 18:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should settle on Old Dutch somewhere in that period. No it is not modern Dutch, but neither is the 1930's Dutch. Language is an evolving thing. PS is there any evidence Dutch is spoken in 2007? Arnoutf 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Salic Law does not prove that Dutch was either written or spoken in 450, and it is not in Dutch. Using exact and accurate terms is necessary here, to avoid any implication that a "Dutch" people, nation, or ethnic group existed at that time. For the use of Dutch in 2007 there are numerous reliable sources such as the official Taalunie and academic publications. There is no comparison between that claim, and an unsourced inference about a controversial theory.Paul111 19:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no theory here. Old Dutch is Dutch nevertheless and it was first written in the Sallic law. End of discussion. Rex 20:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Leo Belgicus

No source was provided for the claim that Leo Belgicus can be translated as Dutch lion. Wikipedia is not a source for itself, and I removed that claim from the other article anyway.Paul111 16:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Source has been provided.Rex 17:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The cited source does not say that Leo Belgicus can be translated as Dutch Lion, and it explicitly refers to a geographic unit, de Nederlanden, which can not be accurately translated as Dutch. What's more, it confirms the other source in identifying the use of Belgium for the then Austrian Netherlands with the Napoleonic period.Paul111 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nijhoffs Geschiedenis Lexicon. 1981 ‘s Gravenhage vermeld onder België: "In de 16de eeuw hebben de Humanisten de naam (Belgae,Belgium) weer doen herleven ter aanduiding van De Nederlanden. Na 1790 beperkt tot de Zuidelijke Nederlanden."

In other words Leo Belgicus translates to Netherlandic Lion. As Netherlandic is a synonym for Dutch it translates to Dutch Lion. Anyway, this is completely irrelevant here. Arnoutf 18:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, near completely irrelevant, as it does prove Belgian meant Dutch.Rex 18:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No source was provided for the claim that Leo Belgicus can be translated into Dutch Lion, or for the inference that the population of the ex-Austrian Netherlands identified as "Dutch" in the Napoleonic period. They didn't. This is pseudo-history written from an entirely anachronistic perspective. The population of the southern Netherlands was near 100% Catholic, and they didn't identify with the agressively Protestant north. Most Flemings still don't. The idea of a "Dutch" majority in Flanders, longing for centuries to be reunited with the fatherland, is complete fiction.Paul111 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We already provided sources for that. Nederlandse Cultuur gemeenschap remember? On the other hand, when did anyone here see sources for your personal view? That Flemings and Dutch people were never one?!Rex 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Nederlandse Cultuurgemeenschap (1971 - 1980) was the predecessor of the present Flemish Community in Belgium. It does not appear in the cited sources at this article.Paul111 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm sure I included it so someone must have removed it. Maybe it was the same person who removed Flemings from the related peoples list?Rex 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Simply put, Leo Belgicus was first drawn in 1581, during the DUTCH revolt when the (now) Belgium provinces were revolting as part of that, so at that time these provinces were part of the DUTCH revolt, and hence DUTCH provinces. Anyway, this is still irrelevant for this article. Arnoutf 22:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Afrikaans and Dutch in the Germanic group

No reliable source was provided for the claim that there are 50 Germanic languages and that only Afrikaans (a Dutch semi-creol) is mutually intelligble with Dutch. Adding a further comment in a reference is not a source, and the cited website is a personal website, apparently intended to promote the association between the two languages. (If they are indeed fully mutually intellibible then they would, by definition, not be separate languages).Paul111 17:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source is ethnologue. Website on Dutch and Afrikaans suffices.Rex 17:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If Ethnologue says that Afrikaans and Dutch are fully mutually intelligble - which I doubt - then please provide a url for the Ethnologue page where it says that. Claims on third-party (personal) websites that a source says something, can not substitute for citing that source itself.Paul111 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnologue speaks of about 50 sep. Germanic language. The 2 links on Afrikaans provide the references for MI.Rex 18:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnologue does not say anywhere on its Afrikaans and Dutch pages that Afrikaans is mutually intelligble with Dutch. It says there are 53 Germanic languages. It also says clearly that both 'Vlaams' and 'Zeeuws' are separate languages from Dutch. It says clearly that Achterhoeks, Drents, Gronings, Sallands, Stellingwerfs, Twents and Veluws are not dialects of Dutch but separate languages, part of the Low Saxon grouping. It says clearly that Limburgish is a Middle German language, all of which data are significant for this article.Paul111 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnologue is a christian website (you didn't trust does now did you?) and I as a linguist would never use it as a source, and what it considers separate languages is insignificant. I also never said ethnologue claimed A en D were MI. On the contrary, I specifically told you that the 2 other websites did that. Rex 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a URL for the two websites, and please list cited sources directly and not via intermediary websites.Paul111 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They are already in the article. Do it yourself, and while you're at it, try to translate your sources or they'll be gone tomorrow. Rex 20:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The only websites cited as source on this issue are afrikaans.nu. A personal website is not a reliable source for a controversial claim that Afrikaans and Dutch are fully mutually intelligble. (They aren't).Paul111 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch = 1, Afrikaans = 0.99162 does that answer your question?Rex 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Germanic ancestry of the Dutch

No relaible source was provided for the claim that The Dutch mainly decend from various indigenous and migratory Germanic tribes, who arrived in the low countries during the migration period. The cited source does not say that, it says:

Pas in de loop van de 7de eeuw vestigden vooral Frankische nieuwkomers zich hier in permanente nederzettingen. Het Nederlandse volk stamt min of meer van deze immigranten af.

It is in any case not a reliable source (popularised TV course website) for controversial claims. There is no doubt that Germanic peoples lived in the area of the present Netherlands, and that they are a substantial component in the ancestry of the present population. There is however no one-to-one relationship between the Germanic peoples and the modern Dutch in terms of ancestry, and the article should not even imply that. The modern Dutch people even narrowly defined, have non-Germanic, pre-Germanic and post-Germanic ancestors, and the neighbouring countries all had a Germanic presence too.Paul111 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat what is already said on this matter/source:
It's a separate page on "20 centuries Netherlands", and is owned by the Teleac/NOT, the Dutch public educative broadcaster.Rex 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC) (Rex 17:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC))
Teleac/NOT is a trustworthy source; is paid by Dutch government (ie no commercial interest) but has its own editorial freedom (ie it is not state television in the sense that is broadcasting state views. The network provides both schooltelevision as well as high quality education broadcasts to the larger public. They consciously choose to use well-know presenters not be known as a stuffy history channel. The choice of presenters sais nothing about program quality, but about the broadcasting strategy. Arnoutf 21:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC) (Rex 17:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC))
Conclusion: It is a reliable reference. Rex 17:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul111s untranslated sources.

I hereby ask paul111 to translate his mentioned sources to English, which is required here on the English wikipedia. I will remove all untranslated "qoutes" with 24 hours if Paul111 does not comply.Rex 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of citation-neded tags

User Rex Germanus removed citation-needed tags relating to the claims that the Dutch ethnic group is united by Christianity (it certainly is not), and by Dutch culture, and Dutch customs and etiquette (the last is very dubious). Citation-needed tags are intended to indicate to the inserting editor - in this case Rex Germanus himslef - that a reliable source is needed.Paul111 17:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice the "united by common" part. Dutch culture obviously makes people feel connected, hence it's called "Dutch" culture and most of the Dutch share (and historically definately) a common religion: Christianity. This all is so obvious it does not need a reference, as the information is merely stated and doesn't claim anything. Rex 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This goes pretty far, I dare you Paul111 to provide an ethnic Dutch relationship. We all agree DNA is not it, if you exclude culture, history, customs and religion then there is nothing left and we can only conclude there are no Dutch people whatsoever. Of course, the same can go for about 90% of I think even you will agree that it is over the top to demand 90% of all ethnic people articles. Arnoutf 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a 'Dutch people'. Whether there is a "Dutch ethnic group" is debatable. As Arnoutf pointed out earlier, no source was ever provided for its existence. The "Dutch people" are primarily a nation, very specifically associated with a nation-state and its territory, as nationalism theorists have noted. Their self-definition is indeed extremely ethnic (excluding immigrants). There is however no evidence that a separate Dutch ethnic group exists, in the sense that ethnic Magyars exist separately from Hungary, distinct from the national territory. And then claiming this ethnic group is held together by Christianity is absurd, given the degree of secularisation.Paul111 19:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does the article claim "this ethnic group is held together by Christianity "? Those kind of claims are indeed absurd, but don't forget to mention you made them up Paul111.Rex 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Aaah, this goes back to this. Now I start to understand you much better Paul. If you state there is only a Dutch nation but not a Dutch ethnic group; I agree with all your very narrow definitions, and problems with the Flemish. However, I do not agree that there is only a nation; actually I have more problems with a nation compared with an ethnic group. Arnoutf 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by Rex Germanus

This user has re-inserted a number of disputed claims, most of which had been removed earlier or reworded due to lack of sources, in total perhaps 20 separate points. Some text qualifying his earlier edits was also removed or modified. Most of this relates to the disputed claims that the Flemings and Dutch constitute a single people, that this single "Dutch" people existed before the Dutch Revolt undetr that name, and that there has been a "Dutch" ethnic group or language since the early Middle Ages. No recent historical work takes such claims seriously. I therefore suggest a revert of all these edits (themsleves reverts) without replicating the long discussion on each point (see above on this talk page). The new section on ethnicity, can be retained, but without the disputed points from earlier versions of this article, which he moved there.Paul111 11:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of controversial claims

Most of the controversy concerns the description of the Dutch and Flemings as a single people, with an alleged "Germanic" character, claims for the early (pre-1550) existence of this "Dutch" people, and inflated population figures and totals. Reason for removal is simply that no reliable source is provided.

  • The Dutch are an Indo-European people: no source, cited source does not say this.
  • They predominatly descend from various Germanic tribes: one cited source does say their ancestry is Frankish but is a heavily popularised web-page, other is personal website of the inserting editor and not a reliable source. Suggest move to section on Germanic roots, including material on connotations of 'Germanic', and qualify by saying that not all ancestors were Germanic or Frankish.
  • speak a Germanic language: Dutch. Hence they regarded to be a Germanic people. No source for this logic, cited source does not say this.
  • 25 million Dutch: no source
  • Historically the Dutch chiefly lived in ... Northern France : no source for this controversial claim.
  • since the 12th century they have spread all over the world: no source for controversial claim that "Dutch" existed in 12th century
  • listing of Christianity as unifyng trait of Dutch, no longer true, no source
  • United by common ancestry from various indigenous and migratory Germanic tribes: no source, Germanic ancestry plays no role in current Dutch identity.
  • the Dutch language was spoken around 450 / The people who spoke the language did speak Dutch: no source, linguistically 100% inaccurate, no Dutch language at that time
  • Of the about 50 separate Germanic languages today, only Afrikaans (a Dutch semi-creol) is mutually intelligble with Dutch: no source for this claim as such, source for the "50 Germanic languages" is Ethnologue, which includes others much more mutually intelligibale than Afrikaans, not clear anyway why this point is included here.
  • Dutch ethnography ... do still consider the Dutch to be a Germanic people. Cited source says exactly the opposite. Remove this later addition, then the sentence is correct.
  • this article only concerns the Dutch as an ethnic group and Dutch ethnicity. Not an attributable claim anyway, simply an editors view on the limits of the article.
  • In a broader sense the number of Dutch people is much higher. This is when for example people who are claiming or reporting Dutch ancestry are included. This way the total number of Dutch totals at around 25 million people. No source for the total, or for the inclusion of any non-Dutch group as "Dutch".
  • 'Belgians' is contemporary Latin meaning 'Dutch': no source, cited source does not say this, or imply it.
  • Linguistically the dialects of Dutch spoken in Belgium are all cross-border dialects which means that these dialects are also spoken in the Netherlands: no source, West Flemish dialects not all spoken in the Netherlands
  • Limburgish listed as Dutch dialect: no source (it is Middle German). Undue weight to Flanders-Netherlands cross-border dialects, same applies to Netherlands-German border.
  • Afrikaans, is mutually inteligeble with Dutch: no source, probably no more so than German. Undue weight to white Afrikaners here, since other minorites in South African also have Dutch ancestry and also speak Afrikaans.
  • population total of 25 million in infobox: no source
  • 472.600 Dutch Eurasians: figure and claimed source ("1990 study") are untraceable, no title, author or url provided, cited source does not use this term Dutch Eurasian.
  • inclusion of reported Dutch ancestry (green figures) as Dutch in infobox: none of the cited sources say these people are 'Dutch'.
  • 5,000,000 Dutch in South Africa: cited source does not say this, official source (embassy) says 45 000
  • 270,000 Dutch in Australia, cited source does not say this, official source says about 85 000
  • 100,000 Dutch in New Zealand, cited source does not say this, official source says about 25 000
  • 83,000 Dutch in France, cited source is unreliable, official source gives about 30 000.
  • Dutch in Malaysia: no source, footnote is empty, figure does not seem exaggerated, but a source is needed.
  • Afrikaners and Flemings listed as related ethnic groups in infobox: no source. Afrikaners are no longer seen in the Netherlands as related by ethnicity, relationship to Flemings is not 'ethnic' in character but cultural and linguistic.

Reverted to version of two days ago, before the spate of re-insertions, but kept a section on Dutch ethnicity, renamed to more accurate and neutral Dutch identity.Paul111 18:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted you paul111. For all the reasons Rex G gave, and because his version was more referenced than yours was. I also want to say that it is a shame you tried and succeded in backstabbing him.213.125.116.112 10:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch image section

The section dealing with the English habit to negatively depict the Dutch in their language is quite one-sided methinks. Demonising other nationalities is a typical English habit for starters, but the demonisation of the Dutch occurred to compensate for the English humiliation after losing the Second Anglo-Dutch War to the Dutch. Basically the Dutch got under the English skin and negatively depicting them was their reaction. It tells more about the sad little ing-er-land-er attitude of the English than is says about the Dutch really. I think this ought to be mentioned in the article. Also, the section is poorly and biased referenced. Wanttoedittoo 02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

i found it funny to read. I can honestly say the Dutch do exactly the same. AFAIK the information was taken from specialised books.213.125.116.112 10:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't think it's relevant if the Dutch demonise others (I'm sure other nationalities do too, although the English do champion this habit) or if you think the section is funny or not. The reason behind the negative depiction of the Dutch by the English (losing a war, bitterness) should be mentioned to give an objective view.
And citing non-scientific (which you call specialised) books is never a good idea for wikipedia. Wanttoedittoo 13:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch ethnicity

Anonymous user:213.125.116.112 changed/reverted several edits dramatically. However, (s)he also reverted a section largely written by me, to an earlier version in which I also made substantial contribution. The edit summary was adressing Paul111. However the change in that section were made by myself, and I think these should not have been reverted. Reverted changes were:

  • addition of a source about religion in the Netherlands
  • deletion of the number of Dutch speaking people, and that Dutch is a West Germanic language. Both are true and indisputed and very interesting in the language section or the Dutch language article. But are irrelevant here. For reasons of readability and parsimony only they should be deleted here.
  • deletion of blonde hair / blue eyes. I checked the source (admitted Xenofobe's, but I think that may actually be an aceeptable in this case as we are talking stereotypes here, and that's what the guide is based upon), and could find no explicit reference to hair and eyes; as this is not essential for the subsequent argument, and not sourced I deleted it.
  • In the Ethnogenesis section, I added a few lines that with the emergence of the Dutch nation midst 19th century, the process of Ethnogenesis has reached its end. I think this is obvious to all, but I am willing to discuss. My argument for addition is that.
  • I agree with Paul111 that stating that the Dutch existed in 450 is ridiculous. so if we come to a compromise and give a time span in which Ethnogenesis occurred. We need a final date after which we can say without doubt that the Dutch etnic group has formed. I think 1830 would be a good date for that; as we all agree since then there has been more or less a status quo.
  • If we agree on a fairly late final, I think it would be a fair compromise also to adopt the first possible starting date of this process. In this case, the reference to 'the first roots'. The first language identified as Dutch (old Dutch) in 450, would then be a first possible starting point.
  • If we write it like this we no longer say anything about Dutch prior to Dutch revolt, suddenly being there in 1584 or whatever. The section then states: Somewhere between 450CE and 1830CE the Dutch as an ethnic group emerged in the area. I think that is a fair compromise text.

As all these edits were reverted with a ref to Paul111 (together with many more that were made by Paul111 but I stayed aways from those). I (blanket) reverted this section to my personal last version. Arnoutf 08:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry Arnout but I (and Im a he btw) want to see Rex version expanded. Not Pauls one. Do not think of me as biased, but I compared the too versions and think Rexs (and yours) is more referenced. I believe rex when he says that Paul makes up claims that aren't in the article and found it very sad that he had to backstabb (no need for euphemisms) that guy only to get his own version. I support the current version (an expanded version of rexs) and apologise for the revertion.213.125.116.112 10:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem, cheers. Arnoutf 10:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arnoutf, although I am not interested in the subject matter as such, I am fairly suprised that you (partly) accept the changes of 213 whereas you have reverted mine by alleging I am a sockpuppet (what I am not as you know now). However, I have the impression that the latest block of Rex and the instant appearence of 213 might at least give reason to presume that 213 is a sockpuppet of Rex if not even Rex himself. Regards, (194.9.5.10 10:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

I first edited Wikipedia when I looked up something on the aztecs. The I got interested if wikipedia had something on the Dutch, and they did, and I read the talkpage. Just because I agree with the Rex dude, doesn't mean I'm his "sockpuppet". DutchBloke 11:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I just got an account.DutchBloke 11:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi DutchBloke, I said "might give reason to presume" and, hence, I have not alleged that you are Rex. Furthermore, the comment was not aimed at you and your statements but rather at Arnoutf who seems to tend to apply double standards. However, (both, you and Arnoutf) please do not take it personnally! Cheers, (194.9.5.12 11:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

Hi 194.9.5.10. You correcting me for calling you a sockpuppet made me much more carefull about that. To be honest, at first I though 213 might be a sockpuppet of Rex as well, but as his edit summaries where much more polite than any I have seen of Rex, I did not act upon that suspicion. Apparently my care was justified. Let's call my calling you a sockpuppet a mistake, from which I have learned. So no offense or double standard meant. Cheers. Arnoutf 13:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thx for the explanation! Just for the avoidance of any doubt: my comment was not meant to criticize or discredit you in any way. As one can easily see from your manner to edit and discuss, you are a prudent and reasonable man. To be honest, I just inserted the comment because I imagined what would Rex have probably said in case 213/DutchBloke had reverted his comments back to Paul`s (=EARTHQUAKE!). However, I actually know that you do not apply double standards. Cheers, (194.9.5.12 13:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

  1. ^ Map of Frankish kingdoms, (image)
  2. ^ J. H. C. Blom et al. Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden (First edition), p. 107).
  3. ^ In J. H. C. Blom et al. Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden. (First edition. p 118).
  4. ^ 13 186 600, autochtone population at 01 January 2006, Central Statistics Bureau, Integratiekaart 2006, (external link)
  5. ^ A. Th. van Deursen in J. H. C. Blom et al., Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden, p. 118, quoted above.
  6. ^ "Far-right party suffers rebuff in Antwerp" (HTML). The Washington Times. 2006-10-10. Retrieved 2006-10-14.