Talk:Frisians

Frisians was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 20, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Ethnic groups B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Netherlands B‑class

	Netherlands portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Pre-Roman

Where did the Frisians come from? Do we know anything about them pre-roman? Redge(Talk) 14:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they came out of Denmark and moved along German wadden sea to friesland. but i i am not sure so dont put in article 81.69.203.77 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of this section, something happened in the C- and D-periods, but these periods have no introduction. When were they? Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 03:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danish?

According to this map, a small part of Frisia is in Denmark. Do these Frisians speak Frisian or Danish or both? --Khoikhoi 07:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking at the map again, I'm not really sure if that very tiny green spot in Denmark is actually significant. --Khoikhoi 07:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge (the best of it), the tiny portion of historic Frisia that extends into Denmark has no significant ethnic Frisian (including Frisian-speaking) population. This coastal strip and adjoining islands were under Prusso-German rule from 1864 to 1920, during which time both Frisian, Danish and Low Saxon speech was fiercely discouraged in all spheres of society (see Germanization). The map shows present Frisia; historic Frisia extends from northeast of Amsterdam to northeast of Esbjerg. //Big Adamsky 16:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ethnic Frisian population on both the North Sea islands of Germany and southern Jutland, however the number of Frisian speakers is unknown. Whether the peoples there speak mainly Frisian or not, it is safe to say there are peoples there who are descended from ethnic Frisians. Epf 05:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no frisian-speaking population in Denmark. Just a small number of towns between the german border and the town of Tønder has ethnic frisian population (around the Vidå). Bernd, 09:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

German!

The tiny minority in this tiny piece of Denmark isreally irrelevant; what is relevant is the fact that Frisian people cover the whole German Bight from the western end in Holland to the northern end on the Danish border. This surely makes the 85% majority of Frisians part of Germany and Frisians part of the ethnic people inhabiting Germany - it are also mostly German politicians who promote Frisian language and culture. (the remaining 15% are Dutch with 0.2% Danish)

What is you point? Krastain 12:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

I changed the Religion table to Diverse after someone changed it to "Athiest" Agnostic, et cetera. Greater Frisia covers a rather diverse area including parts of Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, et cetera, and it seems foolish to try to lump it all into one religious category. Besides, the ancient Frisian tribe would have been Norse pagan in orientation. Please provide consensus discussion. Athiest is not a religion anyway. Sandwich Eater 19:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the modern Frisians - the ancient Frisians are their ancestors. How does "Mostly Christianity" sound? Saying "diverse" is way to vague - how many Buddhist, Shinto, Rasta, and Muslim Frisians do you know? --Khoikhoi 01:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article goes way back to Tacitus and ancient times, and lists several somewhat ancient dukes/princes. Surely the scope of the articile goes well into pre-christian times. Perhaps something like "Traditionally Christian", or Culturally Christian but Diverse? I would just delete the religion category altogether but it seems to be a permanent part of the template. Sandwich Eater 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the text box is modern information - "current" population, the languages are those currently spoken in the region, etc. Therefore, I think the current "Religion" information is fine. People will just have to assume that the region was not Christian during the pre-Christian era; those users who have trouble with that should refer to the article Common sense.--Roland 17:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frisians BC?

"The people began to be a distinctive tribe in around 200 BC. They were displaced from their homeland to Flanders and Kent, England due to heavy flooding in 250s. Habitation of the area remained impossible for the next 150 years. When some of the Frisians returned in 400s there were already Saxons and Jutes settled there, and the Frisian people merged with them, maintaining the identity and traditions of the Frisian tribe." This part I think a bit strange. First, I'd like to see a source for the claim that they began to be a distinctive tribe around 200 BC. Second I'd like to know how the author knows that the people returning to Frisia were the descendants of the ones who left 150 years earlier. Third, how does he/she know that there even was something like a Frisian identity and traditions? Krastain 14:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have citations handy but my understanding is that there is an extensive archeological and linguistic record relating to the migrations back and forth between the friesland areas and the eastern UK, East Anglia, Kent et cetera. Further studies have also supported that with DNA evidence. Michael Weale and others in the UK have published their findings in peer reviewed journals (regarding the DNA) but others have published the linguistic and archeological data long before. I'll see what I can dig up on-line. Sandwich Eater 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the early Frisians moved around a bit in Western Europe, I doubt that 'they' came back to Frisia. Krastain 12:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This 200 BC sounds interesting and plausible. Please revert back towards visibility this phrase whenever you find some historical or archeological references showing indeed we are still talking about the same people. I hope you don't mind I changed the outspoken interpretation of some findings into a more generally accepted view. The theory of Frisians coming back from England to replace immigrants, or immigrants taking their name, could better be referred to as just another theory (although you could include a reference to this view) instead of unshakable scientific truth. The DNA evidence doesn't exclude Frisian participation to the Anglosaxon conquest as a possibility, it rather points out the historical sources are insufficient. We just don't know enough about this whole issue to tell anything with certaincy. Rokus01 21:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic People

Why isn't the fact that Frisians are a Germanic People mentioned? I added it at the beginning of the piece. Saxons, Franks, Angles, Jutes, Bavarians, Visigoths, etc. are all noted as being Germanic People. Surely it should be added in the article about Frisians as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abu Musab al-Suri (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sand and clay Frisians?

The article says the difference between the major and minor Frisians is the type of soil they till. In wich work does Tacitus mentions this? Krastain 12:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I fail to see why a picture of a descendant of Grutte Pier should be added to this page. This page is about an ethnic group and its contents should be restricted to that. A picture of a descendant of one of its historical figures is in my opinion not to the point. I suggest it will be removed from this page. Pmviersen 10:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tribename

"Of the many tribes mentioned, the name 'Frisii' is the only one that is still used"

Suebi or suevi derived from the protogermanic swēbaz, where their name survives in the historic region of Schwabia. Mentioned in paragraph 38 of Tacitus' Germania.

I suppose reference is made to the survival of Frisii as an independent ethnic group. "Being used" are lots of other Germanic names, from Andalucia (Vandals) to France (Franks), and even Schwabia does not boast an independent ethnical identity derived straightforward from their "Suebi" ancestors.Rokus01 23:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it seems that only the Frisians are capable of such gullible ideas ;)Krastain (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description

"They are mostly tall, light-haired people, women aswell as men, and they have a rich history and folklore." Is that a proper decription on the looks of ordinary Frisian folks? 82.73.79.82 14:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

religion

User:Bloodofox put in this

rels= Indigenously Germanic paganism, later forcefully Christianized into Protestant Christian

This is too much detail for the info box, and they were probably converted into catholicism not Protestantism, only later changing, not necessarily by force! Graeme Bartlett 23:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right. Btw, thanks for refering the statement, whoever might have done that. -The Bold Guy- 12:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coon reference

Some people here want to cite a book (published 1939) by Carleton Coon as a valid source. He may have been a reputable anthropologist for some while, but was very much proven wrong on every point in his later day. (see his article) With that in mind and given that the source is over 65 years old, yet wants to portray the claim as fully up to date ... I really think we should drop it.Rex (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just drop sourced information. You could try to prove a statement wrong by finding sources that forward another view, for instance saying Frisians have always been predominantly short of statue and dark. Or you could try to find other research to support the statement. Whatever the current anthropological status of Coon, he was contemporary to Frisians and as such counts as a historical source. The source was inserted because somebody once contested the Frisians to be of this specific physical description, and whether or not you might agree this was a silly thing to do, please don't invalidate the statement by recurring to a personal point of view concerning the validity of this particular observation of Coon. He might have been wrong in other approaches, this is a far way though from the invalidity of his empirical observations. The description of Frisians being tall and blond go back to Roman times. You might come forward with superior modern sources, or dedicate a new seccion to contrary views, however, I repeat, there is no reason to drop sourced information. Morover, this would be vandalism. Rokus01 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The man who wrote it also said the 'white race' was a mix of neantherthals and Homo sapients" This discussion is not at all out of date. Please discuss this in the Neanderthal article. Rokus01 (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I dropping sourced information? I don't think the information is sourced at all. Nor do I see, in any way, how this is vandalism. The book is far to out of date to be presented as fact today. Also, linking the Roman 'Frisii' to today is also quite daring don't you think?Rex (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to push your personal point of view. Coon is a reputable anthropologists and his work is valuable, no matter what your POV would be. This is getting very boring. If you want to make a statement, please come up with sourced evidence. To start with, anybody that know Frisia would know the statement does not have to be sourced at all. Obviously you don't know Frisia and still you don't bother sources to refresh your opinions. Rokus01 (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you get it. Coon is dead, and on many fronts discredited. Recap for a moment. A reference from 1939. Get real.Rex (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to get that all of this is your personal view. Please check WP:NPOV and WP:Verify before we go any further on this. Rokus01 (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me who discredited Coon. You seem so obsesses with NPOV, but really, with this source I wonder who's most trustworthy. Antropology in the early 20th century isn't generally counted among the most objective literature of the field. (That's sarcasm btw). Anyway, if you are unwilling to comply in any way, then I see no other option then to take this matter to other wikipedia institutions.Rex (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to my research you are on probation concerning Germanic issues: Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive14#Rex_Germanus.C2.A0 Rokus01 (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-failed "good article" nomination

Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA process, any article with cleanup or expansion banners - such as the one in Friesland in the Middle Ages - must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please address any issues brought up by such banners and remove them before renominating. There also seems to be an on-going content dispute (above thread). Please note that instability is also a quick-fail issue. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky ^Talk 18:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]