Talk:Netherlands

See also Wikipedia:Netherlands for information on Wikipedia activities related to the Netherlands.

"Holland"

"The Netherlands is often called Holland. This is formally incorrect as North and South Holland in the western Netherlands are only two of the country's twelve provinces. For more on this and other naming issues see terminology of the Netherlands."

I don't think this is true. While it's indeed true that Holland refers to the two provinces north- and south-holland, officially it can also refer to the Netherlands. It says so on dictionary.com[1] as well as in the dutch dictionary[2]. The title of this article should have a reference to this widely used alternative name, and certainly not say that it's "formally incorrect". - PietervHuis (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

While you may have a point in daily language use (which is recorded in dictionaries) dictionaries are not recording the formal truth (notice the word "formally"). As far as I know Dutch law says the country is called "the Netherlands" not "Holland". The law is in the end the grounds for formal use. (notice that dictionary.com also lists the United States of America as a meaning of the word America, while the USA article states this use is colloquial i.e. non-formal).Arnoutf (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, also many Dutch people colloquially call their country Holland, being well aware of the widespread use of this name. Ad43 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

True but it is still "formally" incorrect. I am open for rephrasing, similar to the America USA article. Arnoutf (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor point but what the Dutch call their country in their own law has no bearing on the word for the Netherlands in English...after all we do not call Germany Deutchland or Spain Espan~a (bad spelling i know). 'Formally' even the Queen would know what Holland means.82.15.8.111 (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes and formally most people from the UK know that when a foreigned is talking about the English this (almost always) refers to the whole of the UK. Formal knowledge that something is being used erroneously does not make it less wrong.

But indeed, I agree that how the Dutch call their country has no relevance; what has relevance is how the English call the country in official/legal documents (ie international treaties and the likes) and I would be highly surprised when you found (active) international agreements where the Netherlands is referred to as Holland. Arnoutf (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Also true, but I suppose everyone agrees that The Netherlands is often referred to, both by many Dutch natives as well as people from other countries, as 'Holland', even though this may 'formally' be incorrect. Actually, this makes for an interesting subject or chapter in the article, or perhaps even a separate article. Mkruijff (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The censored part of dutch life expectancy figures.

I added some info to the Demographic / Life expectancy part of the article. Living to 77 (M) or 82 (F) years is only one side of the picture, first you have to survive birth and the the first year to do that. That is where Holland is LAST, highest birth death rate and most miscarriages in the whole civilized Europe. In fact there is the parlamentary comittee set up to investigate this ongoing tragedy and its findings include a totally inhumane medical system, which does not want to see the pregnant women in the first place and throws out new mothers just two hours after the act.

Of course like most countries do, Netherland still manages to create nice looking longevity figures, because they refuse to include babies who die before reaching their first birthday, so barebone maternity wards do not hinder the sunny picture.

[ In contrast, here in ex-communist Hungary the hospitals are often in bad shape with regards to renovation or amenities, but pregnant women spend about half of their 9 months waiting for a huge series of state-funded medical inspections and doctors usually treat the expecing women like military subordinates, they literally order them what they can and cannot do for the greater good of the baby. Giving birth is always administered by a doctor, not a nurse and they usually keep mother and baby locked up in the hospital for 3-5 days even if every check shows nominal. This is a burden on the national budget, yes, but our infant mortality figures are good.

Sorrowfully the current hungarian gov't is in the process of demolishing the state-run monolithic healthcare infrastructure and they often quote the dutch medical system as a desired example. Our current health minister Agnes "Malacka" Horvath is supposed to have spent a lot of time in Holland and adores what she saw. I also heard of other countries' governments verbosely point to the ducth medical system, when proposing their own hospital privatization "reforms".

Therefore it is of great importance that wikipedia articles give both bright and dark side balanced information about the dutch life expectancy and healthcare situation, so net-surfing people of the world can evaluate themselves, if the often-quoted dutch role model of healthcare (or lack of, thereof) is really as desirable as currently advertised by many governments. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone already reverted my article edit, censorship is apparently going full steam. I think I will re-add my material in a few days and if it gets reverted I will make a lot of noise on the arbitrations request section. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what you've said, no information has been censored. I reverted your edit because you didn't cite a source for the information you added. All content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable by others. That is why you need to cite a reliable source to confirm what you add. Also keep in mind that it's not allowed to synthesize published material in order to advance a specific position; I'm not saying you have done so, it's just something to keep in mind. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also be aware that you won't get your way by threatening. Saying that you "will make a lot of noise on the arbitrations request section" won't get the information in, providing sources might. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is censorship in wikipedia, there is a big scandal right now, because the wikipedia founder, a former net-porn investor accepted bribe money to remove criticism from articles about politicial personalities. Wikipedia will fall apart because less than 50% of info on it is true and huge amount of info is excluded from it. The whole thing is totally biased towards the white, protestant anglo-saxon worldview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.16.185 (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these very unconstructive and uncivil comments. Providing good quality references is the only way to limit the problems you say are so huge. If you cannot come up with these yourself, your edits are fairly random and should be removed. Arnoutf (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Two map optional display

Hello Netherlands!!! I have something that may interest contributers for this page. In a nut shell, it allows the option to display two maps in your info box, one could be a close up of the Netherlands, and another would be the the Netherlands in a wider European or EU context. This is an example that was being discussed on Scotland's talk page (though I think they have rejected a two map option). Prior to now no one knew that you could have two maps displayed in the info box. For 'smallish' counties the benifits are easy to graps, an up-close view of the country, and a wider contextual visualisation of the country. Dydd da!!

PS: This is an example from the Scotland page, please do not be offended that I display the Scotland info box here. It is only ment as an example.

Nice idea, but imho the infobox is already way too big and adding a second map is going to make it only worse. So I don't see the advantage; but that is my opinion. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

New map

The new map is kinda wrong, someone updated it to include montenegro, but the colours changed, no big problem. However, this map doesn't even show Flevoland, which is also lacking on the map used to indicate other countries. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe

Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe 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. — Janneman (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The intro

I'm not sure if somebody has just added this as vandalism and it hasn't been dealt with yet, but to display this in the intro "the country is more recently known for its rather liberal policies toward recreational drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia". Seems to be an incredibly unfair overview of the entire country by portraying it all as some kind of Sodom and Gomorrah. Shouldn't this belong in the "politics" section rather than the intro of a serious article on a nation? - Gennarous (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well first of all that representation is in the eye of the beholder. You could also see it as an enlightened stance :-) I do however, agree that it may not be sufficiently relative to keep in the discussion, but that is something else. Arnoutf (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Change the map in the infobox

• 
• 

Violating WP: BOLD, I would like to make this proposition first here on the talk page. That is, substitute the left image by the right one. My motivation concerns primarily aesthetics. In terms of content, one might appreciate the fact that the right map displays, in a moderate way, more geographical features. Tomeasy_talk 00:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for not doing it the Bold way as this whole map issue has been an issue for heated debate on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. Actually the geographical details on the right one is one of its main problems for several reasons: It requires larger images, it will make it forever impossible to make an SVG out of it

Another problem which I think is more serious is the features that are depicted seem chosen to give a balanced aesthetic view rather then considering the importance of the details (e.g. count the rivers in the Netherlands (yup only 1 the Rhine) with the number and detail in e.g. Sweden (about 10 with many branches). I am pretty sure the different Rhine branches, as well as the Scheldt and the Meuse are all more important and larger than the rivers in nothern Sweden. So by putting up this "many featured" map you provide biased information on the actual geography of Europe.

In other words I think the level of detail is an argument against, rather than in favour of the orange map.

(BTW I agree the grey-green is not perfect, but to be honest I am not a fan of the orane colour scheme either) Arnoutf (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, even though it turns my proposition down. You have made clear many valid points that quite convince me. So I will not oppose you stance. Just one thing: I can very well imagine this map might have been drawn originally as a vector (even if it is not the case in this specific instance here). Why shouldn't it. Pay me two 8 hours working days and I make this map as an svg file. Moreover, you can even simply import this png in Adobe Illustrator and convert it to a vector, which you can then store as an svg. However, I have to admit that the quality of the pixel-vector conversion is not yet perfect. Do you really think (perhaps even know it) that User: David Liuzzo does not own vectors of all his maps? I imagined he just does not want to disclose them. Tomeasy_talk 10:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about David Liuzzo, but it is quite possible that the mountain and see-depth level shadings were made pixel based immediately. But you should ask David Liuzzo; who set these maps up about a year ago, and as far as I know stopped editing them by now. Arnoutf (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

May I just add that the green map is missing Flevoland, wich is just unexeptable. Also, I prefer the orange map overall, detail is the most important thing here IMO. --SelfQ (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In deed. This is an even bigger blunder. Unacceptable! It's sad to find out that both versions are so unprecise, but compared to the flaw of Sweden having too many rivers compared to the Netherlands, the missing province is certainly more disturbing. Tomeasy_talk 16:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, both maps are inaccurate (on the grey green maps the waddeneilanden and Goeree-Overflakkee are missing too - I posted a request to remedy this on the creators homepage). Clearly so we need even better maps. Nevertheless I would rather have a map with (at EU level) missing details (which Flevoland is on EU scale) than a map with unbalanced/biased choice of details. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with this. The map is to show the Netherlands, its location as well as its shape. Since the article is on the Netherlands and Flevoland is an an entity of the highest sub-national level (a province) its exclusion is a big flaw. I could understand your argumentation, if we were talking about a map for the EU. There, missing Flevoland might be excuseable. However, as it is important that a map on the EU does not exclude a member state, a map on the Netherlands should not excluded a province. Tomeasy_talk 18:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I think you misunderstood. I agree that both maps are flawed.

In any large scale map, some smaller entities need to be omitted, hence there will always some details be omitted (whether Flevoland, Goeree and the Waddeneilanden can be labelled a detail that can be omitted can be doubted). The green and grey map is rough in its details, probably to rough.

On the other hand the other map shows rivers of size comparable to Dommel or Drentsche Aa in Sweden. By doing that it sets a detail level at about that size river, and measured against that self-set level the omission of Scheldt, Meuse, Waal, IJssel, Noord-Willemsvaart, Lek, Noord, Hollandse IJssel, and indeed Dommel, Roer and Aa is just as unacceptable as the omission of Flevoland in the other map.

It is an issue of the level of detail you want to choose, but whatever level of detail is chosen, it must be followed through consistently. This is not the case in the orange map; and it is unlikely to be repaired (I have already request this a year ago to David Liuzzo). Arnoutf (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I understood you very well. You find that Luzzios limitation (to which I had already agreed) is more serious than the flaw of the original map (a flaw that you had already acknowledge). While I understand your reasoning, I do not share it. I find the omission of Flevoland the more crucial flaw when talking about a map on the Netherlands. Since I trust you understand my reasoning (without sharing it), may I suggest to wait and see what other users think about the two maps, their aesthetics, and limitations. Or bring in fresh lines of thought. Tomeasy_talk 19:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough; ust wanted to make sure the disagreement was not based on misunderstanding. One other argument, we should try to adopt a map that is consistent with other EU countries... but that is an undecided issue I think with 11 having Orange-Blue maps and 15 (+Netherlands) have the grey-green maps Arnoutf (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this would be ideal, but I do not see this in the near or even the far future. Funny that it is almost a draw recently. The orange maps are not there for as long as the green ones so I guess the trend goes to orange :-) Also, I had proposed the orange map on Germany and the UK and they were very well received in these locations, without a single objection. Well, I hope you will not reduce 11 states to 9 now, because it was already me influencing there ;-) Tomeasy_talk 19:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Euhm not quite. There used to be low quality grey green maps from the CIA factbook, which were replaced about 16 months ago with the Orange-Blue ones, leading to much protest, and the creation of the Grey-Green SVG versions. You can read the whole debate Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Archive8#Location_Maps_for_European_countries here and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive9 here, but take the time, it was a difficult and messy struggle and many have just given up on project level consensus. Arnoutf (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Too much to read completely, but interesting though. Tomeasy_talk 21:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I browsed through pages of discussion in the last days and saw hundreds of valid arguments for and against each version. I also saw other versions, like Solbergs svg maps, that apparently did not make it on one of the articles, although they had their advantages too. Having read all this, I conclude it is an illusion to achieve consistency for the whole of Europe. After all, it's a debate containing so many arguments that in the end it becomes simply a matter of choice and taste. So, I simply say that I like the orange map more. At the same time, I appreciate that there is no rationale to impose one or the other. That means, as long as I appear the only one with this feeling there is no further need for discussion and the existing version should just stay. @Arnoutf: Did you realize that the orange map is a Mercator projection--the same projection that you have been fighting for so perseveringly on EU? As a matter of consequence Sweden shows relatively large and therefore reveals more details ;-) Tomeasy_talk 13:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, the whole Mercator thing was part of the discussion earlier as well, although the alternatives were different. My problem is that enlarging Nothern Sweden (Mercator) in my opinion still does not validate the addition of the rivers but anyway. But ok, I think this is indeed a tough debate without satisfying final conclusions; I am sure it will re-emerge in a year time..... Arnoutf (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

An improvement with all the green maps would be that it actually included Flevoland! - PietervHuis (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I put back the old map, until an better version of the 'green' map is made. Using a map that misses an entire province is just not aceceptable. It is the same as arguing that a map that depicts the location of the USA but misses Florida is acceptable. MartV (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussion above, I support this move. However, if you change you should do it consistently, i.e., do not forget the legend and the explanation. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. It's fixed now. MartV (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead section: geography paragraph

I am quite unhappy with the paragraph on geography in the lead section. Currently we have:

The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying remarkably flat country. Hilly landscapes can be found only in the south–eastern tip of the country on the foothills of the Ardennes, the central part and where the glaciers pushed up several hilly ridges such as the Hondsrug in Drenthe, the stuwwallen (push moraines) near Arnhem and Nijmegen, Salland, Twente and the Utrechtse Heuvelrug.

Stylistically the second sentence is a nightmare and content wise it does not make much sense. Sure, flatness is remarkable. But why then do we talk endlessly about the exceptions to this flatness. And honestly, are those exceptions worth mention. I mean with a max altitude of <25m the Hondsrug does not even qualify for that.

Instead, I would propose to write about evidences for the flatness and geographical features apart from the topography. What do you think? Does anyone have concrete ideas what could be written? Tomeasy _{T C} 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is problematic, but part of the problem is in the first sentence. Low lying cannot be disputed (highest elevation about 300m. and that is in the extreme south, almost all of the country is at elevation <100m.). However the statement "remarkably flat" is somewhat weasel wordy, as remarkable can mean almost everything (or nothing). Flatness in itself has not much to do with elevation; some highland plains can be fairly flat (e.g. Meseta in Spain, or the plains in Mongolia).

There is something else about the central part hills, all of these (the listing is names the most well knowns and that does include the Hondsrug low as it may be) were created by ice-age glaciers, so that line is not correct.

I think we have to solves these lines in connection to eachother and would suggest something like:

The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country. Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills of the Ardennes in the far south–eastern part of the country (the most prominent hills) and several low hill-ranges in the central parts where ice-age glaciers created several ridges (in Dutch: rug), such as the Hondsrug in Drenthe, the stuwwallen (push moraines) near Arnhem and Nijmegen, the Sallandse Heuvelrug, and the Utrechtse Heuvelrug.

Arnoutf (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. What I find extremely remarkable is that the country lies very low, and then its flatness. The several ridges are less remarkable and do not qualify for the lead IMO. So I would change your proposition to:

The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country, with two third of its surface below sea level. Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills of the Ardennes in the far south–east and several low hill-ranges in the central parts where ice-age glaciers created several ridges. [Certainly talk about polders, and probably about rivers, dams and dikes (which can then be removed from the curiosity paragraph)].

What do you think? Tomeasy _{T C} 12:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Agree we have to find a reference for the two thirds. Perhaps move the polder line (polders cannot exist with dams and dikes) immediately after the below sea level. Rivers may need to go somewhere else - perhaps too much detail for the lead; the remarkable thing for the Netherlands in my opinion is that "Much of the Netherlands is formed by the estuary of three important European rivers, which together with their distributaries form the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta"

About polders, perhaps something like "The Netherlands are this low-lying because much of the land is the result of land-reclamation, and is being kept dry through an elaborate systems of polders and dikes".

If I would assemble this it would be something like.

The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country, with two third of its surface below sea level. The Netherlands are this low-lying because much of the land is the result of land-reclamation, and is being kept dry through an elaborate systems of polders and dikes. Much of the Netherlands is formed by the estuary of three important European rivers, which together with their distributaries form the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta. Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills of the Ardennes in the far south–east and several low hill-ranges in the central parts where ice-age glaciers created several ridges.

- It is adraft of course, so feel free to comment. Arnoutf (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Great draft, I would say. I just fill in the citation, adjust the statement accordingly, and cut some (redundant) parts of the following and the last sentence:

The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country, with about 60% of its population living below sea level. These areas are gained through land reclamation and preserved through an elaborate systems of polders and dikes. Much of the Netherlands is formed by the estuary of three important European rivers, which together with their distributaries form the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta. Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills of the Ardennes in the far south–east and several low-hill ranges in the central parts created by ice-age glaciers.

I hope the reference qualifies for usage. Searching for a reference, I found that the reported fraction below sea level can vary quite significantly so I think we are on the safer (and more impressive) side with a statement on the population fraction. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, I am fine if it goes in like this. (Do note however that the sub-sea level is mainly in the Holland provinces, which are by far the most populated provinces too; hence your impressive number ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I know ;;-)) And thanks for your collaboration. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Tomeasy's draft is excellent. Two points though: 1. I'm not sure about.com qualifies as a reliable source. 2. Not all of the area below sea level has been created through land reclamation. which the current wording suggests. Some parts were already there and didn't need to be reclaimed. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

About the source: I was also not 100% satisfied with the credibility of this website. On the other hand, the specific claim we are reporting seems realistic to me. As I looked for a good reference I found that the area-below-sea-level-fraction varies widely (from 1/8 to 1/2) and the 27% stated on about.com seems to be well in the range. Keeping in mind that, as Arnoutf mentioned, this incorporates most of Randstad and more, 60% also appears reasonable to me. Moreover, due to the population concentration in the low-area the population-below-sea-level-fraction is expected to fluctuate less among different estimates than the area-below-sea-level-fraction. Anyway, I will try to find something more reliable and substitute if possible.

I will try to fix the second point immediately by rewording. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Aecis - Indeed not all lands below sea level are reclamation (many are) although protection with polders and dikes is the same for natural low lying and reclaimed areas; So we might need to rephrase to avoid confusion. Arnoutf (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just spend a long time looking for references. The spread of data is wide. I will post a small selection of links that are interesting, either for content or quality of the source. In order to screen them, do a search for the word below and you will always quickly find the phrase of interest.

• 50% area claimed on a university website.
• 50% area claimed by the Utrecht Sommer School.
• 50% area in National geographic.
• 27% area in Britannica.
• 60% area in a brochure of a Masters course in "environmental management", in close collaboration with key universities.
• 67% pop. claimed by some news page.
• 60% pop. claimed by some news page in interviews with university scholars.
• 50% pop. in 2030 in a scientific publication to the subject.
• 60% area in a scientific publication to the subject in Nature (not free downloadable).

So, what do you think of all this. Honestly, I find the 27% area, 60% population the most reasonable, but that would be original research. Taking the most credible source we might be more off. But what is credible when different good sources report very different data? Tomeasy _{T C} 13:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Going through the sources
AREA

• Not very usable as a source, as it mentions it in between lines and does not source *50% area claimed on a university website.
• The same, is not intended as publication, note it reports "about a quarter of the country is below sea level" ie 25% not 50 *50% area claimed by the Utrecht Sommer School.
• Mentions half the area, but only in the passing without reference *50% area in National geographic.
• Mentions 27% in one of its lines, no source *27% area in Britannica.
• Mentions 60%, not that the course is by a professional organisation, in other words, the universities may not have been heavily involved in the writing 60% area in a brochure of a Masters course in "environmental management", in close collaboration with key universities.
  

POPULATION

• Not useful, as river flooding can be a threat in higher areas too, where it is about the difference between river water level and land, not sea-water. 67% pop. claimed by some news page.
• Sourcing and checks miss. Note that the inverviewed people tend to be flooding experts from government offices, not academia 60% pop. claimed by some news page in interviews with university scholars.
• Difficult to interpret as this article explores scenario studies as explorations into the future and effect of government or societal actions (if this, this and this happens then this will happen)50% pop. in 2030 in a scientific publication to the subject.
• Seems to be ok; but does it reflect AREA or POPULATION? the departments have the relevant expertises to make these claims; but have no home access. In any case, source quality has preference over free access. 60% area in a scientific publication to the subject in Nature (not free downloadable).
  

Taken together I would take Britannica for area and the Nature one for population (if that is what they report). Arnoutf (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Britannica and Nature claim 27% and 60% area fraction, respectively. That is quite a range! Do you think we should cite both and state something like 27--60% of the Netherlands lie below sea level^[1][2]? Tomeasy _{T C} 13:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Weird, one of them has to be wrong. I will have to read the nature article (have access tomorrow from university IP) to make sure there is not some hidden qualifier. The 0 sea level-line disects the country north-south basically through Utrecht; with parts of Frisia and Groningen being below as well; and the Flevoland polders. Whether that adds up to 60% area.... I am not sure (South Holland 2800Km2 N. Holland 2700Km2 Zeeland 1800Km2 Flevoland 1400Km2 Friesland 3300Km2 and Groningen 2300Km2 - If I add these up (rough as not all of these provinces are below, but then again some parts of the others are below in parts - I arrive at 14300Km2 with a total land area of the Netherlands at about 41000Km2 - So this calculation - not to be used as Origial research and Synthesis seems to direct towards something close to 30%). BTW good work digging up so many sources Arnoutf (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Perhaps here somewhere [3]
  • Or perhaps illustrative here [4]
  • Interactive tool to determine height in relation to sea level based on postal codes [5]
  • Dutch Wikipedia nl:Geografie van Nederland reports 40% area below sea level to add to the confusion
  • Netherlands info seems to struggle with the two numbers as well [6], stating that 25% is below, and 50% will flood (at high tides I guess) unless protected. Arnoutf (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do not really see how these mostly interactive links can help us. Even if we assume they are reliable, it would still take original research to derive a percentage. Dutch wiki does not qualify anyway and rather reflects that the issue is not glass clear. The last reference adds to a long list of already collected references with different figures.

I have downloaded the nature article and there is no hidden qualifyer. The passage says:

Sixty percent of the Netherlands territory is located below sea level and 70% of the gross national product is earned in these floodprone areas. So it is quite likely that the Netherlands will be confronted with several effects of climate change, including increased risk of flooding and more frequent summer droughts.

Since the article is a publication on the topic in the most renowned scientific journal, I think we are on very safe grounds using it, even though I personally think that the figure is too high. So, I will change the text according to the nature article, if you agree. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

NASA satellite images with height information are in the public domain. Deriving the percentage of land below sea level from these would fall under the "clear mathematical deduction" exemption to WP:OR. User:Krator (t c) 11:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the "clear mathematical deduction" exemption?

In any case, I do not agree that the task we would have to perform is mathematically clear. Different people might easily end of with 5% difference using the same map.

Are you opposing the use of the nature article as a source? Tomeasy _{T C} 12:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, opposing that (it reads 60% area right?) on the account of it being clear nonsense. See this map (made by the Dutch government) for example. Clearly less than 50%, probably the 27% figure found somewhere was closer. Finding a source that gives the correct percentage in a text will be difficult. Perhaps we should find a public domain map and include it, instead of writing down a percentage? As I said, NASA satellite imagery is public domain, it wouldn't be to difficult to distil something useful out if it. User:Krator (t c) 12:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC) PS: the Bosatlas has just about the same area under NAP. And NAP is slightly higher than sea level. User:Krator (t c) 12:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Tomeasy, I share your doubts about the Nature article; note that even nature publishes some faulty things, and the amount of land below water was not the topic of the article, but merely mentioned as example, and as such may have been written and reviewed less rigorously. Re Krator - 27% is from Britannica online

I do share doubts about the use of the NASA data as a height imprecision of about 10-20 cm and use of NAP vs sea leve etc. may already lead to a large deviation in conclusions (which may be far more than 5%; if you consider the flatness of the involved landscape - ie 10 cm may shift the sea-level line kilometers at once). Arnoutf (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I am convinced that the 27% area 60% pop. fraction reported by the source which is currently cited are very good estimates. However, the quality of the source is challenged and I agree to this challenge. Now, what to do?

Arnoutf has nicely pointed out how arguable working on a topographical map would be. I would like to add that any conclusion derived from this can be at best as reliable as the producer of the map. Moreover, whoever came up with numbers in the various sources either copied them from somewhere or used exactly this method with more or less precision. Since we are talking about the lead section, I do not see the possibility of including an image.

Krator, can you provide a link to your claimed "clear mathematical deduction" exemption guideline, or did I interpret too much into this statement?

The scientists who wrote the nature article work on this subject and they have surely thought about the number before they used it. Even though I also consider this number to be off, I think it cannot be dismissed as easily as you do, Krator. If someone relies on this reference, we would not create much impact by the argument of it being clear nonsense. I am sure these scientist dealt more with it then we did in the last three days.

I think we have to find a good mix of reliable sources and what we think is realistic. We should not start deducing the value ourselves from other images as it only adds another layer of uncertainty. My proposition is to add the 27% area figure and the Britannica reference to the 60% pop. fraction and the about.com reference. Both references accord reasonably with each other, stating exactly the same area fraction while the pop. fraction reported by only one of the two seems to be in line with it. This way we have both good sources and interesting content. What do you think? Tomeasy _{T C} 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Britannica is a fair reference to use. (Re: Scientists and examples, don't overestimate the precision scientists have when thinking up examples, they are only humans as well.) Arnoutf (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But so are we. Hence, I do not want to overestimate our two days research expertise on this issue either :-) Tomeasy _{T C} 14:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but anything in an article that is not the topic of the research, but mentioned as context as in the case in the nature article - where the topic was how a low-lying country like the Netherlands should deal with climate change - should be interpreted very carefully.

Our own 2-days of literature research shows these numbers are not easily located ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it is OK now? We mention two references Britannica and about.com, both report 27% and so do we. We also mention 60% pop. as about.com does so in addition to the 27%. It seems realistic to me and the pop. fraction is arguably the more important figure. It also adds interesting context, such as the location of the population concentration. That's why I would prefer not to throw out the about.com content. Can we leave it like this? Tomeasy _{T C} 15:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the math exemption thingy anymore. I guess some real asshole will show up at Riemann zeta function sooner or later and start demanding sources for the deductions :). The 27% area and 60% population figure sounds about right. 27% area could well be the exact figure anyway, it's close to what it seems on the map. User:Krator (t c) 13:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Krator, I was asking for the guideline in order to check how far it might be applicable to the proposed deduction of a percentage from a contour map.

Arnoutf, would you also agree that we close this debate at this point? Tomeasy _{T C} 13:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, no further suggestions from me. Arnoutf (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Population density

According to Wikipedia: "Population density refers to the number of individuals per square kilometer of land area." Further: "arithmetic density is the most common way of measuring population density"

The actual population density would thereby actually approximately 485 people per square kilometer, once the 18.41% of water area has been deducted from the total area. The Netherlands would move from the 25th to 22nd position in terms of population density. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.106.129 (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Modern"

"The country is known for its rathers modern, liberal policies towards..." The word Modern is almost certainly POV. Aussie.power (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What's Modern to you might not seem so to me

Late modern? Postmodern? Where is the boundary?

So sure it seems to lack specificity

Best leave that debate to sociology.

Rhyme & Reason (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree modern is likely to be a POV fork; and a social construct besides. Arnoutf (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

archive

How to archive material? This talk page might qualify for the procedure. Tomeasy _{T C} 13:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:ARCHIVE Arnoutf (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Was that correct? Tomeasy _{T C} 08:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice it, so yeah it was fine ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic Relations of the Netherlands

Main article: Diplomatic Relations of the Netherlands

Shouldn't there be another part of this article with this headline and a paragraph on the foreign relations of the Netherlands? The Dutch military section has an applicable size. Mkruijff (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Danish

Could somebody please permanently add the danish-dutch misconception ? For example, if I'm not mistaken, US states officials have publicly mistaken the Dutch army for the Danish army in the Iraq conflict.81.207.97.6 (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The words Dutch, Diets, Duits, Deutsch are related to each other, but not to Danish. If we'd always have to mention all the words that sound somewhat similar wikipedia becomes a rimebook rather than a serious encyclopedia.--Hooiwind (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Inflation

The inflation number is outdated. Current inflation in the Netherlands is 2.5%. Source is Statistics Netherlands[7], official statistics body of the Dutch government. A recent publication about inflation in the Netherlands can be found here [8] 85.145.53.27 (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Help!

I'm doing a report on the Netherlands, and I don't get the article. Can someone make it simpler for me? It's due on Monday, December 8th. That's tomorrow! And I haven't even finished researching. So I need (need!) help!!!

99.156.95.35 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Anonymous

Euhm, you probably should have gone to a library instead, as most professors (myself included) will not accept Wikipedia as a source for school reports ........ We are not a service organisation. Arnoutf (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

mentioning the Ardennes in the article

Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills of the Ardennes in the far south–east and several low-hill ranges in the central parts created by ice-age glaciers.

This is a mistake: The Ardennes are largely in Belgium, but this area certainly does not extend into The Netherlands. There are hills though in the province of Limburg in the far south-east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.200.174 (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

1) Nobody disagrees the Ardennes are in Belgium

2) With the term "foothills" it is acknowledged the proper Ardennes do not extend into the Netherlans

3) By use of the phrase foothill it is indicated the Dutch Limburgian hills are part of the same geographical formation as the Ardennes. Arnoutf (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Netherland Coinage History

The Netherlands being a part of the ancient Roman Empire did not establish its first coinage mint until around the 600's A.D. Maastricht was home to an important mint, and coins issued under the authority of nations that controlled Netherlands were struck there and at other Dutch mints for many centuries. When the Dutch established an overseas empire in the 1500's, Dutch coins were among the most widely accepted around the world. The Gulden became the denomination when the Kingdom of the Netherlands was established in 1815, and remained the unit of currency until January 1, 2002, when the nation adopted the Euro.

The front of each Euro coin from the Netherlands depicts a portrait of Queen Beatrix encircled by 12 stars and the words "Beatrix Koningen Der Netherland". Born in 1938, Beatrix became queen on April 30, 1980 when 71-year-old Queen Juliana abdicated in favor of her daughter. The back of each coin is identical to the Euros from other nations, which are valid in all nations that use the Euros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiders1034 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)