Talk:Dutch people/Archive 1

Loose comments moved from top of page
''Mainly because many Flemings fled to the safer and free North of the Low Countries during the Eighty Years' War. Dutch culture in turn has influenced Flemish culture ever since the 16th century.''

It is an anachronism to speak about Flemings and Flemish in these lines. In those days the term Flemish was used for inhabitants of the County of Flanders (the Belgian provinces West Flanders, East Flanders, the southern part of the Dutch province Zeeland and a region in Northern France). 84.193.165.47 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dutch has never been the dominant language around Cologne. The dialect of Cologne is Low Franconian, just like the neighbouring Dutch dialects. But in Cologne, they have always used German as a standard language. 84.193.165.47 09:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Flemish and Frisian people
I guess Flemish and Frisian people ARE etnically Dutch, just like the Swiss and Austrian peoples are Germans. The border between the Netherlands and Flanders is artificial.

Frisians are certainly not ethnically Dutch. As a Dutchman (from the southern part of the Netherlands) I should know. I think most Frisians would agree. The article about Frisians tells about the decline of Frisian because of Frankish and Saxon (Dutch) encroachment. They speak their own language, which is still spoken by even the young. The language enjoys widespread recognition in Friesland, where it is taught at elementary schools. It is also spoken by the Saterfrisians in Germany. Most Frisians, however, don't desire autonomy and feel very connected to the Dutch state.

As for the Flemish, they have undergone a lengthy struggle to preserve the Dutch language in Belgium. But if they felt Dutch they would eventually have joined the Netherlands. They didn't and a independent Flanders is a prevalent view amongst Flemish nationalists. If Flemings are asked what historical event sets them apart from other people then they would say that it is the Battle of the Golden Spurs and not the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. As I said, I'm from the south of the Netherlands and although people there share some cultural characteristics they aren't the same. The Flemish speak standard Dutch, but it sounds softer then the Dutch spoken in for example South Holland. The difference in pronounciation is immediately noticable if you cross the border. In this sense the border is clearly not artificial. It would be nice if Frisians or Flemings on Wikipedia would voice their opinion on this talk page. --84.26.109.69 07:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Frisians are ethnically not Dutch, though closely related. As stated above they do feel very connected to the Dutch state and most of them consider themselves both Frisian and Dutch. The Flemish are ethnically Dutch. The border between The Netherlands and Flanders was an artificial one at the time deviding Brabant and Limburg for instance. Centuries of seperation has created two related but non the less different cultures though. As stated above the way Dutch is spoken by the Dutch and the Flemish also differs. The current Dutch tongue is predominantly influenced by the dialects of Holland whereas those of Flanders is predominantly influenced by the dialects of Flanders and Brabant. In general you can say that the ethnically non-Dutch Frisians see themselves as Dutch, the ethnically Dutch Flemish don't.

Flemish people are not ethnically dutch!!


 * Before 1560, the low countries were seen as one region - though not one country. Dutch would have meant anyone from the low countries in this period. Most of this region was united by Burgundy and then brought under Spanish rule by the Habsburgs. After the Eighty Years War, the north and south separated and afterwards were artificially reunited only from 1815 to 1830. If the joint history before 1560 is seen as a reason for calling all these Dutch, then Wallonia and the north of France should also be called 'ethnically Dutch'. I don't think this would be correct. Piet 17:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Fresian people are not Dutch. They are descendents from Saxony in England/Viking times rather than from German expansion. The Flemish people, however, are ethnically the same as the Dutch. Afterall there is the Nederlands-Flaams Taal Unie (Dutch-Flemish Language Union) because they are basically the same. The difference between the groups was stated above: the 80 year liberation war where Belgium was not liberated with the rest of the low countries.--Wesley1610 3:17, 14 June 2006


 * Some points:


 * 1) Dutch is largely based on the dialects of Brabant, not Holland.
 * 2) Ethnicity is a rather vague concept. Certainly the borders of the Republic in 1648 were in no way ethnic borders, neither the border with the Southern Netherlands nor the borders with the various "German" states. But in the centuries after slowly a national identity developed. So, depending on your definition, you can speak of a different ethnicity. Differences are very minor though.--MWAK 11:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Then why are Limburgers ethnically Dutch? We (people from Limburg) have our own language, in many ways closer to German than Dutch. What then makes us Dutch? And Much of Limburg was formerly part of Prussia / Germany. Before I went to school and learned Standard Dutch (so around age 4 or 5) I could watch television shows in German and understand it equally well or even better than when watching television shows from Amsterdam. What makes Dutchmen and Germans different, and are Limburgers something inbetween? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.27.75 (talk • contribs)


 * The larger part of the area on which the Limburgish dialect is spoken is much closer to Dutch than German.Hence the Low Franconian classification, it is only in the deep south west of the province where a variant is spoken which is closer to (central) German.
 * Rex 18:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate when people say that about our language when they can't even speak it. People from Sittard, not south limburg,see our dialect much closer to German than Dutch. Only dialects from Venlo are closer to ABN (standard dutch). And the low franconian classification has been largely debated. I am not so in to languages.... but I speak Dutch German and Limburgisch all fluently, and think I am able to compare. And yes, people from the deep south have a dialect closer to High German but, our language is honestly very close to German. And, how is one to say we are Dutch or German? We border Germany, almost everybody I know has a parent / grandparent / or atleast cousin with a parent from Germany. It is not as though the ethnicity changes with the border, Aachen is 20 minutes away from my home. Would somebody from New York not marry someone Newark? After generations of such... we are honestly something inbetween. If one isn't a Limburger, he could never begin to classify us. I agree with the one who said our language is closer to German. Trust the natives

US Statistics
We must realize that the statistics in the US are especially downplayed due to the lengthy Dutch presence so rounding up is safe. Also there are 6 million native Afrikaans in South Africa, not 2 million. 68.215.50.233 09:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe the number is based on the number of Americans who self-identify as (partly) Dutch. According to the United States census of 2004, the number of Americans self-identifying as (partly) of Dutch heritage stands around 5,000,000. That is what ethnicity is all about. Maybe the number of Americans with Dutch ancestry is higher, yes. But that doesn't make them Dutch. The whole idea behind the so-called 5 million Dutch people in the United States is flawed anyway. I do not believe that all these 5 million Americans truly identify as being part of the Dutch nation. A better understanding of Dutch ethnicity and their numbers in the United States is by examining how many Dutch immigrants (Americans born in The Netherlands) are currently living in the United States, examining what their number of children is (who have a higher possibility of self-identifying as Dutch-American) and examining what number of Americans who do not fall into these two categories nevertheless strongly feel a connection to The Netherlands and the Dutch ethnic group (mostly to be found, my guess is, in historically Dutch communities in the states of Michigan and Iowa). I believe that gives a better picture of the 'real' Dutch-American.


 * As for the 6 million native Afrikaans speakers in South Africa - this number includes whites (not only of Dutch, but also of other ancestral groups), as well as coloureds, Malays and blacks. Just as the Dutch language itself does not say anything about the number of Dutch people living on this planet, nor does Afrikaans tell us that. Rick86 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

American people often overrepresent ancestory. I would say that most of those 5 million are not direct Dutch and have been diluted quite a bit. For myself, three or four generations of separation is suffient to say that your ancestory is Dutch but you are not Dutch. Wesley1610 3:24, 14 June 2006

Afrikaans Statistics
Well, but you do know that Afrikaans are only partly of Dutch descent? There ancestry is actually pretty equally split between Dutch, French [Hugenots], Germans and Walloons. See Afrikaners. --Lucius1976 22:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the given number of 5 million people in South Africa being of Dutch descent is false - the number is indeed lower due to the prevalence of Hugenots, Germans, Walloons, Scandinavians and others included into the white Afrikaans-speaking population of South Africa. Rick86 10:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not even 5million Afrikaners in South Africa, there is about 2,9 million Afrikaners in South Africa and many of them are as staited before of different background such as French, Wallon and German. �Dr.Poison 11:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Netherlands statistics
13 million Dutch in the Netherlands, of 16 million, so 3 million people in the Netherlands are non-Dutch? That seems wrong. Piet 17:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the article is supposed to be about ethnically (and culturally) Dutch people, rather than Dutch nationals. Of course, there's no clear definition on what counts as 'ethnically Dutch', leading to problems such as illustrated by other comments on this page. Junes 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are about 3.1 million post war immigrants and descendants in The Netherlands, including the refugees from Indonesia.--MWAK 11:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Also included in the 3 million discrepency is the vast number of refugees let in each year. The Hague has a large Turkish population, for example.--Wesley1610 3:21, 14 June 2006 (EST)


 * Many asylum seekers are again expelled; the Turkish population of course largely exists of labour immigrants and their descendants.--MWAK 13:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand 10% of Dutch nationals (people who vote...) are first of second generation immigrants mostly from Morocco and Turkey, very many also from Surinam, Aruba, etc.. Considering the large number of people of Indonesian, Moluccan.. ancestry and the nowadays large number of "ex" Europeans, Anericans, South Americans, Chines,... I have no difficulty in believing that 3 million of us are not ethnic Dutch where I define that to mean: most of whose ancestors alive in 1900 were in the Netherlands. I think that roughly between 1800 and 1900 there hasn't been so much immigration as after (though I also know Dutch people whose ancestors were German puritans who didn't have enough money to take the boat from Rotterdam).Gill110951 08:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the numbers go with the CBS definition, where those who are Dutch are those both whose parents were born in the Netherlands (so that would include 3rd generation immigrants - as their grandparents, the original immigrants were born abroad). Arnoutf 08:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Spinoza and Anne Frank are not ethnically Dutch
I see that we have a new image, which includes Anne Frank and Spinoza. While both may be Dutch in the broader sense of the word, I think it's clear that this article is about ethnically Dutch people. This is of course a highly problematic subject to start with (as evidenced by the comments on this page), but if we stick to this topic then it should be clear that Spinoza and Anne Frank are not 'Dutch' in the sense of this article. I suggest we go back to the original image. Junes 15:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, this should not matter.One was born in the Netherlands, the other wasn't but spend most of her years (and best years) in the Netherlands, both spoke Dutch interacted with the "ethnic" Dutch and I even believe the latter had Dutch grandparents. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 17:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither of them were ethnically Dutch and Anne Frank did not have any Dutch ancestry, but possiblly some German. I really believe they should not be included here sincet his article is about ethnic Dutch, not merely citizens or nationals of the Netherlands. Epf 19:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Anne Franks mother was of Dutch ancestry, see Edith Frank-Holländer.

The ethnic part is hard to understand because who defines the line? When does a group of people become an ethnic group? When the country was formed?If that sets the curve then a lot of people who are thought of being German aren't german. Anne frank spoke Dutch fluently, it was far better than her 'native' german, she wasn't by far a bilingual.Afterall, she was only 5 when she arrived in the Netherlands. She once wrote down in her diary: "In die nacht wist ik eigenlijk dat ik sterven moest, ik wachtte op de politie, ik was bereid, bereid zoals de soldaten op het slagveld. Ik wou me graag opofferen voor het vaderland, maar nu, nu ik weer gered ben, nu is mijn eerste wens na de oorlog, maak me Nederlander!"

Spinoza is a Dutch, and not a Portuguese philosopher, he was born and died in the Netherlands, and his first language was Dutch as was his way of thinking.

These two people if it were possible, would answer they were Dutch if one asked them.And they have every right, as they created and/or were an important part of Dutch history.

And a final argument, both were included in the "Grootse Nederlander" contest. ending at place 21 (Spinoza) and 5 (anne frank). Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 19:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding definition: "An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1986). Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community." Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 20:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This link says that Spinoza's first language was actually Portuguese. I agree with you that there isn't a clear line when it comes to ethnicity. So I would suggest that we pick the more clear-cut cases, to minimize confusion. There are plenty of famous persons that are unquestionably Dutch (on the other hand, the whole idea of a Dutch people as separate from Germans is a pretty recent invention anyway). So why not stick with them? Junes 21:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea that Dutch people are separate from German people is some 650 years old.Do you call that recent? Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 21:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the Wilhelmus (1572) speaks of 'van Duytschen bloed', doesn't it? Things were much more fluid in those days. The whole idea of nation states is comparatively recent, yes. But anyway, what do you think about my other (on-topic) comments? Junes 08:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think they should stay, both as they belong to the Dutch herritage and, let's be honest, they were Dutch.I can't really believe Spinozas first language was Portuguese although it is of course possible that it was his "home language" when he was young.
 * Yes, they certainly belong to Dutch history. That does not necessarily make them ethnically Dutch, though. I don't feel very strongly about it, although to me it seems disinformative to place them here, especially when a good alternative image is available. I'll post a notice on the Notice board for topics related to the Netherlands to see what other people think. Junes 11:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Off topic; Yes, the idea is recent but the states aren't, just look the Netherlands one of the very first true nation states.The wilhelmus is a different story, Duytschen bloed does not refer to the Germans or his place of birth but to him being a man of the (Dutch) people. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 09:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but my point is that there was no clear distinction between a 'Dutch' and a 'German' people, like we make today. People identified first and foremost with their direct region. In a wider sense, they saw themselves part of a 'Diets/Duytsch' people, but I'm pretty sure that citizens of Nijmegen had a stronger affiliation with people from, say, Kleve, than with people from Amsterdam. Junes 11:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ehm, well that depends on what age we're talking about.Also, I believe they still speak Low Franconian dialects around Kleve? A big part of the Low Rhine area used to be Dutch speaking ... but I know what you mean, but it depends on the age... 14th century? Yes most probably but the 16th century?No I don't think so. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some may speak those dialects around Kleve, but they are still distinct from the languages/dialects spoken in the Netherlands. I also disagree that all people identified first and foremost with their region, and even the ones who did, they would still also strongly identify based on their ethnic origins/descent. Anne Frank apparently does have some small Dutch ancestry on her mother's side, but Spinoza did not and I'm positive Spinoza would identify ethnically as Portuguese (most Portuguese I know maintain strong connections with their homeland), even though he may have considered himself also Dutch in the sense he lived there and spoke the language. Overall, this article is for those Dutch of native/ethnic Dutch ancestry. Epf 19:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I meant to say in fact that Spinoza was a Portuguese-Jew, so he may not have had any Portuguese ancestry, but he was certainly Jewish and not of any Dutch descent. Epf 19:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is about an ethnic group called the Dutch.It takes the ethnic group in the broadest sense and in that sense both were Dutch. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 20:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

broadest sense ? it is about the dutch as an ethnic group, meaning those dutch who are of native dutch origins. If you include spinoza, you can include anyone who was born in the the Netherlands or who can speak Dutch. They are not descended from native inhabitants of the Netherlands. Epf 20:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but I was under the impression that the Netherlands is just a bunch of lines on a map and within those lines they speak Dutch.Could you tell me the objective difference between a person thinking and speaking Dutch but with parents born between those lines and a person without parent born between those lines?

Could you tell me the difference in DNA or appearence between a Dutchman, Frisian,Fleming,Englishman, German or any European really? No you can't.

That means being Dutch has nothing to do with race and is not inheritable and thus means "being Dutch" is taught after birth.Anne Frank and Spinoza WERE DUTCH. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 20:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about race ? Just because ethnicity is largely based on descent and kinship obviously doesn't make it "race". In fact, there have been studies on Y-chromosome, MtDNA or other lineages showing differences between Dutch, Germans, English and other Europeans and I can tell you there are verying differences in appearance between many European groups (even if less noticeable then that between larger "racial" groupings) and I could point this out if you and I selected some photos.

Being "Dutch" is different from being "ethnically Dutch" and ethnicity is based largely on your heritage and varying traits which you inherit from such. Also, the Netherlands is not "just a bunch of lines drawn on a map" and that is an ignorant statement to the Dutch people and their history and culture. Political boundaries do not necessarily reflect ethnic boundaries. Look at the Frisians and the Basques for example, they don't even have a political entity with borders. The borders of the Netherlands reflect somewhat the territory thats long been occupied by the Dutch (and Frisian) people and their respective culture/language.

I dont know what "thinking" Dutch means, but there are varying degrees of differnce between those Dutch who long trace their descent to native Dutch people and those who are of non-native origins. Spinoza and Anne Frank were Dutch nationals and citizens, but they were not ethnic Dutch (Anne Frank is arguable though if she indeed was of Dutch descent), especially Spinoza who traced none of his family roots to the Netherlands or the native Dutch people and was in fact a Portuguese-Jew. Epf 21:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter how far this ancestry goes. Spinoza was on Dutch paper money and ANne Frank was one of the most important Dutch writers of the 20th century. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 21:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, what does that have to do with "ethnic Dutch" people ? They were both Dutch nationals and citizens who were part of Dutch history, but that does not mean they were ethnically Dutch and they are not considered as such by many, including themselves. Anne Frank was Jewish and so was Spinoza and they are just as much as part of Jewish history and culture as of the Netherlands. I don't know the details of Anne's parentage, but Spinoza was not of any Dutch heritage/descent. I am not speaking as much about how far back the ancestry goes, but who they trace their ancestry to. Spinoza traces all of his heritage to non-indigenous Dutch, (and in fact his parents weren't even from the Netherlands, being Portuguese-Jewish immigrants). Epf 22:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And I again ask you. What is Ethnic Dutch?! When did a Frank become a Dutchman? When did a Germanic people become the Franks and when did a bunch of indo europeans become the Germanic people? Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 22:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Again you ask me ? Umm, this is the first you've asked this question. Those divisions happened thousands of years ago, and the Dutch people are descended from a mixture of both Franks and earlier Celtic/pre-Celtic tribes (Belgae). I don't understand what this has to do with what we were discussing, but the culture and language of the Frankish tribes (with earlier regional influences) in what is now Holland is what largely became that of the "Dutch" peoples (i.e. including Flemings). Epf 23:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, exactly.

Those people laid the foundation for what was to become the culture and language of those people.But do you honestly every Dutch person has Frankish blood? I suppose the only thing that's really universally inherited from the Franks and that's language and culture and that's someone you can (and are) taught, not born with. Therefore A. Frank and B. Spinoza are Dutch. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 08:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

the Germanic and pre-Germanic people which became the Dutch created what would become the culture, language and identity of the Dutch people. Also, yes you can learn or be taught aspects of langauge and culture, but much is also something you gain from inheritance from your ancestors/family (socially). There are other ethnic traits than culture and language, including familial ties and traditions, behavioural traits, and of course phenotypic/genotypic traits. Also, I don't know how much the Dutch descend from the Frnaks, but yes ethnic Dutch do all trace most of their descent to either the Franks, or celtic/pre-celtic peoples (Belgae). Epf 00:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh please this article is about the native inhabitants of the Netherlands and the Dutch as an ethnic group in the broadest sense. Everything you said CAN and IS taught after birth, you do not inherited them before birth. It is complete nonsense that the Dutch have certain phenotypic/genotypic traits uniquely theirs, no ethnic group on earth can claim that. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 15:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is about the Dutch as an ethnic group and by how that term is defined. There are numerous personality traits which have been shown to be biologically inherited, but I do agree much is taught after birth (if not most) from those closest to you in your family, hence your ancestors (i.e. kinship and descent) and thus is inherited at varying degrees socially, not just biologically. The Dutch may not have traits which are uniquely theirs and few groups actually claim such, though there are some (eg. the bushmen and san of South Africa, or even many ethnic Basques in Europe). The Dutch do however have certain traits which are characteristic of all or most ethnic Dutch, which also may are in different combinations in other northern European ethnic groups or populations. There is much more to phenotypic diversity than simply pigmentation of skin, eyes or hair, there's also stature and body frame, as well as (and since being the least variable, the most important in physical anthro.) cranio-facial traits. Epf 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this article was about the people of the Netherlands. (You changed the intro a while ago)

But even if you were right, it's still is wrong in the modern sense as human populations became more mobile, another type of ethnic group arose, most closely associated with the evolution of the state ("country"), as the opportunity to procreate outside the old kinship systems presented itself. Invasion, migration, and pan-ethnic religions have contributed to a further evolution of new ethnic groups out of the mixture of older ethnic groups. At the same time, ethnic distinction can persist, even within the bounds of a single country as long as members of an ethnic group procreate primarily among themselves, for various reasons.

And in that sense, the 2 are Dutch and should be included. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 15:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Acutally, that merely justifies why they should not be included here. That type of ethnic group is not what the ethnic Dutch are, who are indigeonus to the Netherlands. The evolution of those ethnic groups still does not remove the fact that the groups which people like the ethnic Dutch descend from are still indigenous and not of foreign or separate descent, as is the case with Anne Frank and Spinoza. The type of ethnic group that arose with the country is rare and generally not seen in Europe, with the exception of Germany in the 20th cent. where one could only be a German citizen if he/she was an ethnic German also. However, even there now, the separation and distinction between ethnicity and nationality is being made. So, from your section above copied from the ethnic group article, the two are not ethnic Dutch and should not be included. Information on Dutch residents, nationals or citizens can be seen on demographics of the Netherlands. This article is and always has been about the Dutch ethnic group. Epf 18:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No the 2 came by migration, (although Spinoza was born here) and they mixed completely with the Dutch population which was a nation state even in Spinozas time.They are Dutch and should be included. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 20:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, they came by migration and are of foreign descent. They are Dutch nationals, but they are not ethnic Dutch and therefore should not be included on this page. Just because it was a natoin state, doesn't mean everyone there was ethnic Duch just because they were a citizen. It wasn't the same as what was seen in Germany. Also, they may have assimilated many aspects of Dutch culture and language, but they also had many non-Dutch ethnic traits from their own Jewish and Pourtuguese-Jewish ethnic origins, especially Spinoza. Epf 20:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey guys ths seems a senseless revert war. As the page is now I see four images. One of which is definitely NOT Dutch (William of Orange; born in Germany raised in Orange(France) and Brussels). As such Spinoza is more Duthc (born in Amsterdam from parents who came from antwerp - Portugal). You might want to doubt 'Dutchness' of van Gogh as he was more of a French impressionist, so I would not support him. But to be honest, although I thin that Anne Frank gave a very compelling view of a young inhabitant of the Netherlands in a war, I doubt whether we should put her up. If we put up a commander I would suggest Michiel de Ruyter (born in Flushing), for an artist I would think of Rembrandt van Rijn, or Johannes Vermeer, thanof van Gogh. There are 2 scientist up now (Lorentz and Huygens) which are both suitable; but to be honest, one scientist is enough (... ;-) this remark coming from one). So perhaps we can put up a statesman. Perhaps a contemporary would be nice, e.g. Wim Kok. That way we cover history as well as occupation. Is this a direction?? Arnoutf 21:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your direction, although I really think someone as famous as van Gogh should definitely remain and he was Dutch, born and raised in North Brabant and of Dutch descent. I also support a modern example and some examples from other professions. Johan Cruyff would be ideal for an athelete (best footballer ever in my opinion), and maybe an actor/actress, a military commander or a statesman as well. Epf 07:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Pelé was the best, but after him comes Johan. He is the best player Europe ever produced" -- Franz Beckenbauer



>>Exactly, they came by migration and are of foreign descent. They are Dutch nationals, but they are not ethnic Dutch and therefore should not be included on this page.<<

The Netherlands are a country in Europe.In Europe everybody migrated wether by war, famine or just for the sake of it for over 2000 years.From Franks to Jews to Bosnians.They intermix.The Netherlands were thé most open country when it came to migration in Europe during the 16th 17th and the 18th century.

So how on earth can you claim, there is 1 single Groups of Ethnic Dutch people? It's impossible. These people are Dutch. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 09:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Rex, you really do not know much about European history or ethnicity in general. "Everybody migrated" ? What does this mean ? Of course humans have migrated in history but what does this have to do with ethnic Dutch ? There has been verying degrees of intermingling between groups, but they still are from separate geographic regions and for the most part remain to be relatively endogomous populations. The creation of ethnic groups like the Dutch is a result in part of the merging of groups many centuries ago and the group has remained largely of this descent since that time. Recent migrations of non-indigenous groups have not had the same demographic impact or level of intermingling with the native population. There IS one group of ethnically Dutch people (with smaller regional identities) who trace a common ethnic origin to the time of the very basis of early Dutch identity and ethnicity. The fact you make such a claim as "its impossible" demonstrates to me that you don't know what you are talking about on this matter. Read up on what ethnicity, ethnic origin and kinship and descent are first. Spinoza and Anne Frank are Dutch, but they are not ethnic Dutch and did not consider themselves such, especially Spinoza. Epf 10:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you read this: ''In the modern sense as human populations became more mobile, another type of ethnic group arose, most closely associated with the evolution of the state ("country"), as the opportunity to procreate outside the old kinship systems presented itself. Invasion, migration, and pan-ethnic religions have contributed to a further evolution of new ethnic groups out of the mixture of older ethnic groups.'' Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 10:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Again though, you misunderstand what you read. It is speaking about how some ethnicities affiliated with the rise of the nation-state where in order to be a citizen of that country, like Germany in the 20th cent. you also had to be a member of that ethnic group (Japan is a current example). That explanation is quite ambiguous overall, but it is also referring to how older groups merged with newer incoming waves to form the basis for modern groups liek the Dutch who still descend from the merging of such groups (in the case of the Dutch, the pre-Celtic/Celtic Belgae and the Germanic Franks). In any case, that excerpt from the ethnic group article doesnt conflict with the definiton of ethnicity being based on common kinship and descent. The fact that many people born in the Netherlands who still consider themselves ethnic Arabs, Berbers, Portuguese, etc. or of non-Dutch ethnic origin as well as being Dutch proves my point. Epf 10:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And what do you think the Netherlands are? Some tribe with borders? The Netherlands were perhaps the first true nation state originating in the 16th century. What's the difference between Germans and Portueguese mixing with "the Dutch population" and Franks, Frisian,Batavians or what else mixing? Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 11:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Tribe" with borders ? How do you think that nation-states came into existing, just out of nowhere ? The political boundaries of most European nation states reflect in varying degrees the native habitat of the majority ethnic group in that region. Frisians mixing with the Dutch population is still the same mixing of non-Dutch as Germans or Portuguese, except that they are obviously more cloesly related to the Dutch. You misunderstand my discourse above though, especially with regards to the Franks and Batavians (i.e. Dutch) since the Franks are part of the original ancestors of ethnic Dutch, along with the celtic/-pre-celtic Belgae people. These two groups merged many centuries ago, long before the independence of the United Netherlands to form the basis for Dutch identity and culture as well as the ethnic Dutch people. Epf 08:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You evaded the question.Besides that, it doesn't matter if some ancestor of yours was a frank 1000 years ago.That's isn't going to make you more Dutch than someone who had a Saxon or Gothic ancestor some 1000 years ago.Being Dutch is tought to you, not inherited. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 09:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, again, you misread what is right in front of you. How did I evade the question ? I pointed out that your question itself didnt make any sense and you just proved that again by speaking of so-called "Gothic" and "Saxon" ancestors who did not form Dutch ethnic origins. Your simply incorrect here, again, with "Being Dutch is tought to you, not inherited." Having aspects of being Dutch is in part because of your surrounding environment and community of residence, but being ethnic Dutch isnt. Being ethnically Dutch IS inherited, whether through biologically inherited traits such as phenotypes and genotypes, or socially inherited traits from your familial ancestors like family traditons, behavioural/personality traits, and cultural traits associated with family/upbringing. These have been passed down through families from generation to generation. Ethnic Dutch are primarily descended from a mixture of pre-celtic/celtic Belgae peoples and Franks and that distinct indigenous descent does differentiate ethnic Dutch people from Dutch people of non-native descent. You are beginning to make a pointless argument. Hopefully this article is unlocked soon. Epf 11:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Dutch genotype.But watch now:

Anne Franks mother had Dutch herritage, the Frank family had lived in Frankfurt for generations, Frankfurt (the name says it) was an area inhabited by mostly Franks. Now, Dutch people are mainly of Frankish decend, and the people there are too. The only difference being the difference in culture, like language and values but Anne Frank had both as she grew up in the Netherlands.According to you, this makes here ethnicly Dutch doesn't it? Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 11:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no such thing as a uniquely "Dutch" genotype/phenotype, but there is a combination of genotypes and phenotypes characteristic of indigenous ethnic Dutch. I do not know the history of her mothers origins, but I believe she was also Jewish and therefore not native to Germany (unless she had German descent, which I think is the case). I really don't know how much ethnic German descent Anne Frank or her mother had, but they could be considered ethnic Germans as well as ethnic Jews (although I'm sure many Germans would disagree with me on that). The Dutch people are again a mixture of Franks and celtic/pre-celtic Belgae peoples (the original inhabitants of the area known as Belgium). Germans, especially those in Frankfurt do descend in part from Franks, but also from other groups separate from the Dutch (the native Germans of Frankfurt for example do not descend at all from the Belgae). The differences in ancestry/origins of the regions reflects in part the difference in culture, which again is acquired through family inheritance as well as from the surrounding community/society. Epf 12:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to like to repeat "a mixture of Franks and celtic/pre-celtic Belgae ", one time is enough Epf, I'm not a retard. Celtic and pre celtic tribes inhabited the area around Frankfurt, actually the whole of middle and southern Germany was.It's more than possible Celt lived in frankfurt, perhaps even Belgea. You did not answer my question Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 12:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't answer a question that is inaccurate and doesnn't make sense, prehaps if you were nice enough to re-word it. Also, celtic tribes did inhabit the area around Frankfurt, but not for as long as in the Low countries and not the same tribes as the Belgae. Also, pre-celtc peoples of the Low countries who mixed with invading Celts to become the Belgae, were not the same as those in Frankfurt or most other areas of Germany. Also remember the Franks themselves were a broad group of peoples and also that other Germanic peoples inhabited the area of Frankfurt, long before Germanic peoples conquered the territory of the Belgae. Epf 12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but are you aware of the position of the Netherlands? Because when Julius ceasar conquered the belgea there were already Germanic people in the Netherlands. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 13:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Trying to summarise....

The debate seem to center about the issue whether being typically Dutch is Both have their point in favour AND set-backs. Adopting the first line of reasoning, indeed Anne Frank and Spinoza should not be listed as Dutch. BUT neither should William of Orange (German). Probably even the currenct Queen would not qualify (father-German, grandmother-(mothers'side) also German); so she is (at most) 1/4 Dutch. Her children only 1/8. Following this argument strictly the royal family SHOULD be excluded. Strictly adopting the second line of reasoning may also have some strange results. Kalou (although he has given up now) may have become Dutch; as he wanted to be Dutch to paticipate in the FIFA worldcup with the Netherlands. A lot of nationalised mediteranean immigants do also qualify. The argument does go the other way around as well. Persons that have distanced themselves from Dutch birth should no longer be counted Dutch. This might include Van Gogh (to France), Hugo Grotius, Erasmus (who was more of a pan-european and not very proud of his Dutch birthplace). As a compormise to overcome the stalemet, I would suggest a definition following the lines of the Netherlands government that states that to be ethnically Dutch you both your parents were born in the Netherlands; (and you yourself have the Dutch nationality, otherwise there is no point). Note that this does exclude Spinoza and Anne Frank, but allows 3rd generation immigrants (grandparents migrate, parents born in Nl). Arnoutf 14:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ethnically hereditary (possibly going back to the Franks)
 * Can be adopted voluntarily (after migration).

Even if Anne Frank and Spinoza aren't "Ethnically Dutch" or as Epf would say of "Frankish and/or celtic/pre-celtic (Belgae) descend".They are still considered to be Dutch by the overall majority of the population.Spinoza was a Dutch citizen and Anne Frank wanted to become one. I'm willing to compromise by adding an explanation to the image, but no further. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 14:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to offer ways out of this obivous stalemate. I am afraid adding a line to the photo's might not be enough of a 'compromise' to some of the others. I think we have to decide what we consider Dutch on this page FIRST, without going into the (evidently) senstivie issue of photo choice. After we have reached consensus on that issue we can compare the choice of photo's against that definition. So I would ask people discussing here (including myself) to stop referencing to the currecnt photo choice. For now I would like to suggest the following definition: Arnoutf 15:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * People are considered Dutch, if they are a citizen of the Netherlands and both their parents were born in the Netherlands.


 * That is what characterizes Dutch nationals or how to obtain Dutch citizenship, not the ethnic Dutch. See, I do not agree that Frank and Spinoza are considered "Dutch" by the majority of the population, and even if it was the case most would be speaking in terms of nationality and/or place of residence or birth, not ethnicity since its widely known Frank was a German-Jew and Spinoza was of only Portuguese-Jewish heritage (and parents who were not from the Netherlands). Read the article, it has barely anything to do with Dutch nationals or citizens, but rather native Dutch culture and peoples origins. Also, yes at the time of Caesar, there were Germanic tribes in Belgica, but the people prior to their arrival were still celtic/pre-celtic. Epf 21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity has beyond birth a lot to do with membership in a cultural group, unless you are on a eugenics path. Point is, most people outside Netherlands equate at least Anne Frank as being representative of the Dutch culture, and is perceived (outside NL) as representing the very best qualities of 'Dutch'. Spinoza also considered as a Dutch philosopher. Yes, 'ethnic' is a birth/nature thing, but it is also a cultural/nurture thing. To quible about two people who happen to be part Jewish when as stated above the Queen gets to stay in spite of being half German seems to me to be cavilling at best, nationalism at worst. In terms of the historical boundaries and origins of nation states in the area, Davis' 'History of Medieval Europe' is not a bad primer. Bridesmill 22:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A remark to Epf - That both parents were born in the Netherlands is the current definition of the Dutch statistics agency (CBS) of autochtoon (local Dutch) and has nothing to do with achieving citizenship. The focus on judaism by many parties in this debate seems both irrelevant and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. That Spinoza was from portugese descent (and Anne Frank German) may be relevant; whether they were jew is (IMHO) not. The franko-typical definition of ethnic Dutch proposed earlier clearly does not work. In my opinion for two reasons (I overstate to make the point): I agree with Bridesmill that ethnicity is both a birth and a cultural thing. My suggested definition (People are considered Dutch, if they are a citizen of the Netherlands and both their parents were born in the Netherlands) has parts of both (birth through parents and culture through the choice to get or maintain Dutch citizenship) in it. But if anyone else can come up with a clear alternative that is reasonable to all parties in this debate I would be the first to agree. So please come up with another reasonable idea. Arnoutf 17:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st This is not limited to Dutch people; e.g. France and Germany and Danes might also qualify as ehtnic Dutch.
 * 2nd Descendant of Roman settlers/pre celtic Germanic tribes would not qualify even if they can trace their lineage back to about 0 AD.


 * I agree with Epf that ethnicity is largely a descent thing and the traits associated or passed down with such. Living in a culture or being born in a certain area does not make you automatically the same culturally as others living there or of the same ethnic origins/descentas the others. Also, I really do think the Dutch (and of course us Flemish) are the only people who can claim to be descended from Franks and the celtic Belgae. The Danish are "100% Germanic", descended from Iron Age Germanic invaders and those few peoples who inhabited the area before their arrival. 69.157.126.241 00:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ghum, excuse me when I say "100% Germanic" sounds somewhat odd. Rex 00:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean that in the sense they trace all their heritage (in terms of culture and language) to the original Iron Age Germanic peoples. 69.157.126.241 00:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Right ...
 * Rex 00:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just stating the facts. Their language is Germanic, their culture is Germanic and they trace their history and heritage solely to those Germanic Iron Age invaders of the Halstatt culture. 69.157.126.241 01:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the 21st century, there is no such thing as 100% Germanic culture or language (let alone people) the migration period is gone. I don't know what you believe or what you want to believe but this is quite sick. Rex 01:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mankind is basicaly one race, I doubt whether you would find a single Dutch person who can trace all his/her ancestors to the Germanic-Belgae iron age (i.e. never any interbreeding with Romans, Saxons or other Vikings, Southern European (traders, minstrels, missionaries), German-Habsburg-French or other soldiers, Indonesion (or other former colonies), etc, etc, etc. In any case the Dutch royal family is not Dutch according to your definitions. Such a rigorous definition (tracing back to Iron Age) may fly (although I seriously doubt it) for an isolated tribe, but I don't think it will work for an internationally oriented culture such as the Dutch. Arnoutf 07:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Imagine how the danes would look if what you say was true ... after 3000 years of inbreeding. Rex 13:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Error in the page
It's a pitty this page is protected, because I just wanted to fix a grammatical mistake but can't:


 * Dutch people were forced to work together to rebuilt their country, which was almost completely destroyed and without resources around mid 1945.

When it should be


 * Dutch people were forced to work together to rebuild their country, which was almost completely destroyed and without resources around mid 1945

Kyle sb 14:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, as this is a housekeeping task, not changing the content. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Religion of the Dutch
Hi all, I saw some recent reverts on the religion of the Dutch people. I think we all agree that Chirsitanity is important. However the majority seems not to actively belief in God so this group should alsobe mentioned. The current phrase Atheism may however be a bit confusing as this may indicate the narrow sense of atheism (an active disbelief in god). Perhaps the phrase nontheism (although a less well known term) captures the dominant religion in the Netherlands better. So I suggest to replace atheism by nontheism. If no one object I'll do that in about a week. Arnoutf 12:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a real problem with putting nontheism as one of the "beliefs" of the Dutch ethnic group. However ... the article on nontheism describes nontheism as follows: " ... is the absence of belief in both the existence and non-existence of a deity (or deities, or other numinous phenomena)..." Saying that a majority of the Dutch ethnic group is nontheistic because they do not belong to a church (although I am primary talking about those Dutch living in The Netherlands) might not be true. Not so long ago I read somewhere in a Dutch newspaper that many Dutch who are not affiliated to a church nevertheless do have a bond with spirituality and the supernatural (especially among the younger generations), or with Christianity on a whole. So people who do not appear in the Dutch census as being part of a church, do not have to be nontheistic either. But as I said at the start of my comment, I do not have a problem with putting nontheism as one of the "beliefs" in the Netherlands. But it must be clear that not being affiliated to a church does not make people automatically nontheistic. Rick86 14:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand: being affliated to a church does not make people automatically theistic. People are already automatically registered as being related to a church when at least one of the parents is baptized as a baby. In the Dutch Reformed Church for example a lot of people don't even know that they are still registered as being a member. SietskeEN 15:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's entirely true as well. I myself am a lapsed Catholic - I'm Catholic because I was baptised as a Catholic when I was a baby, but I am far from religious. Same goes for probably a lot of Catholics in the Netherlands. Rick86 20:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Does nontheism work to describe it? I wouldn't say that we don't believe. Most people (or younger people like myself) that I affiliate with believe in some sort of higher power but what for one... no body bothers to care or knows for sure. Would we not then be agnostic?

question
i would like to see more in this article about dutch people such as the culture, population density, diversity within the country etc

That's not a question, just a remark. Nevertheless I'm sure it will be fixed soon. You could even do it yourself. Rex 11:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

lol how very right you are :P

Question to User:Ulritz
What's the problem User:Ulritz? Why are you making those changes? What drives you? Rex 22:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead of solving the apparent problem on the talk page User:Ulritz has instead chosen to ignore the talk page discussion and continue edit warring, from what I've seen and experienced personally this is his standard procedure.


 * Nevertheless, he removed a perfectly fine picture (Why?!) and removed important information on certain ethnic groups speaking a Germanic language. And all of this was explained as followed:
 * "yeah, conventions, look around and stop acting up, stray info removed"


 * Conventions.


 * Which?


 * Rex 22:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This article doesnt deal with Gaels/Celts and is irrelevant.
 * Show me another article with 12 people squished in.


 * Wonder how many people gave up reasoning with you after such a wholesale load of trolling? Ulritz 22:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Again User:Ulritz has reverted, again without consulting the talk page, not showing any intend of solving this matter in a civil manor. This is sadly proven by his edit summary: "rv troll". Rex 22:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In general I think it is way to harsh to accuse Rex of trolling; I am convinced he is making the best possible edits ad actively tries to improve Wikipedia articles. On the other hand Rex takes changes to edits sometimes very personally and sometimes reacts a bit overaggressive; which may (understandably) lead to overreactions from others. Sadly such reactions will not help improving the articles, and may even lead to a worse article (rev wars; temporarily blocks on editing for the article etc.) So please (both of you) try to solve this a bit more politely and diplomaticly. Thanks Arnoutf 07:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ulritz needs to learn that what he says has concequenses, not only the offensive things, but also his "explanatory" edit summaries. Let me tell you this, there is not a single "convention" or wikipedia policy on how many people in a picture is the limit. Therefore removing the picture saying "conventions" is ridiculous. Removing it again, when knowing a talk page discussion awaits who has just shown that there are no "conventions", while calling someone a troll is just plain crap. Also, would he like to explain why he removed some extremely important information of the Irish?! I doubt it. Rex 10:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say I have no idea why you might think it important that the article on the Dutch should contain general information about the Irish or Welsh. It seems completely pointless. On similar grounds, you could insist on mentioning the fact that the Yakuts qualify as a Turkic tribe and the Fula people belong to the Atlantic-Congo phylum. That said, you should both avoid edit-warring and name-calling. dab (&#5839;) 11:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * there should also be no talk of "feelings of association" unless a sociological study can be unambiguously cited. Otherwise you seem just to be airing your own feelings, which needless to say won't do. dab (&#5839;) 11:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If those people aren't a "Germanic people" thenshould be allowed to say this. But the main problem for me is him removing an image with the most lame edit summary I've ever seen. Rex 12:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we add that the dutch are supposed to be the world's tallest people on average?
or would this be considered trivial information? it would be nice though and it is well documented around the web.
 * It is under Demographics on the Netherlands page. Gaviidae 08:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What is an ethnic group
As the discussion (especially on Anne Frank and Spinoza) has re-emerged I copy here the Wikipedia definition of ethnic group. ''An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1986). Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community.''

In other words the core of this definition is that it is about a human population whose members identify with each other. The presumed common genealogy is not given as a prerequisite but as an often used idea. Thus following this definition to the letter both Anne Frank (who lived and felt a Dutch girl) and Spinoza (who was more Dutch than anything else) are both Dutch. Even more so than e.g. Erasmus who did not identify with his Dutch roots. So this definition does support Anne Frank and Spinoza as Dutch. Arnoutf 20:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you.
 * Rex 20:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The common genealogy which is presumed, and in the vast majority of cases actual, IS a prerequisitie in ethnic identification. Along with other shared socio-cultural traditions, it is one of the main defining factors in ethnicity and to debate this is simply ludicrous. Anne Frank lived and felt a "dutch girl" ? Spinoza was more Dutch than anything else ? What do you mean by this ? What references do you have to claim this ? Did you know them personally ? You are saying they both frowned on their Jewish heritage ? Thats simply ignorant and unfounded. Erasmus did not identify with his Dutch roots ? I have never heard of such a claim, but even if he did in part, being Dutch is still part of who he is and where he comes from and that isnt changed simply on a whim because of ones feelings. The definition of an ethnic group (i.e. the classical one which is also contemporary, not everyone supports assimilationism or ethnic nihilism like you Rex) would in fact not support Anne Frank or Spinoza to be included as part of indigenous ethnic Dutch. They are Dutch nationals, but not ethnic Dutch. Since they are of non-Dutch origins/heritage, they also would have many traditions, traits and cultural aspects that would distinguish them from indigenous ethnic Dutch in The Netherlands. I'm not going to violate the 3RR, but they will be removed from the article tomorrow. I also was not shouting at "you" Rex, but I merely pointed out it was in fact you who needed to look more into what constitues ethnicity. Ciao, Epf 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It may well be that following some accounts the shared genealogy IS a prerequisite. However if you read the definition from Wikipedia carefully (provided by me above), this specific definition does not!
 * On your further accounts, I am not happy at all that you use a religious group membership as a possible argument against Ethnic Group. Do you argue that as the Netherlands have always been either protestant or catholic we should also say all atheists cannot be ethnic Dutch? Furhtermore
 * Anne Frank had Dutch friends, spoke and wrote in Dutch and hoped to stay in the Netherlands. I interpret this as interpretation of a Dutch identity
 * Spinoza cam from portugese jewish lineage. However, he himself was raised in the Netherlands, and did not plan to go abroad. His philosophy created alot of problems with the Jew society. But in the 16th/17th century for Dutch as a culture it is not easy to give a unified definition. Groningers, Frisians??
 * Erasmus has complained in several letters (for example written to Thomas Moore) how he did not want to identify with the small village mentality in Holland.
 * Summarising - using the Wikipedia definition of ethnic group; Spinoza and Anne Frank are not necessarily excluded. Please provide a full, referenced, definition on this page and argue why this supports your point before removing them. Arnoutf 09:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can tell you now already that if you remove them again, I will revert your edits. I added a note, which according to the definition isn't even necessary, and frankly that's going to be it.
 * As we go ... It is pretty well known that Erasmus viewed himself as a "world citizen" rather than a Dutchman, in fact he looked down upon his origin. Spinoza didn't have that problem, and who could blame him? He was living in the worlds most liberal and prosporous country. As for Anne Frank, well she makes it quite clear in her diary who she likes and dislikes; and let me tell you that her countrymen (germans) weren't exactly at the top of her list.
 * Rex 09:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First and foremost: Arnoutf, the Wikipedia definition of ethnic group does require common descent (obviously) along with other factors so I don't know what you are talking about with regards to my definition not meeting "Wikipedia's definition of an ethnic group" (the academic definition is what is needed, not the POV of users like you and Rex). Also, I am not speaking about being Jewish merely on the grounds of Judaism, but in terms of Jewish ethnicity. For example, Einstein was an ethnic Jew, but himself did not adhere to Judaism.
 * Anne Frank may have enjoyed living in the Netherlands and spoke Dutch, but that does not mean she is ethnic Dutch since she is not of Dutch descent and therefore did not have many traits associated with such descent.


 * Spinoza was born in the Netherlands, but was a first generation Portuguese Jew and obviously had many cultural traits of this heritage not shared by indigenous ethnic Dutch in the Netherlands. Also, by the 16th/17th century, Dutch culture was fairly unified, epsecially since it was at this time that the Dutch Republic itself had emerged as a fully independent state. You shoud also remember that Frisians are obviously a separate ethnic entity from the Dutch and have been so since long before the 16th century.


 * Just because Erasmus did not identify with the "small village mentality" in Holland never meant he refused to acknowledge is Dutch heritage or ethnic origins.

I do not need to provide any more references than that which is provided in the definiton of an ethnic group here on Wikipedia. We are speaking in terms of ethnicity here, not being born in or raised in a certain national or regoinal culture. Just because you are born somewhere or raised in a certain national culture or region, it does not negate your own familial ethnic heritage and culture which may be distinct from it.


 * Rex: I've never read anywhere that Erasmus looked down upon his family heritage or ethnic origins, but even if he did "look down" upon it, he never denied it as part of who he was and where he came from. As for Anne Frank, of course she disliked the Germans in WW2, since any ethnic Jew in Europe understandably would have. Epf 21:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced that the Wiki definiation requires common descent; actually these words do not at all appear at the ethnic group article. So I stick with my question/demand to you (Epf) to come up with a clear and generally accepted definition that supports your point of view; or at least explain to me how you interpret Wikipedia definitions. As you are evidently sure the academic definition will support your point of view; please provide it to me; with an unambiguous and fair explanation, so I can either agree or disagree. Currently I still read the wiki definition as "An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other" - Full stop (the rest is usually etc.). Thus anyone who feels Dutch may be included. By the way, yes the Frisians can be considered are a distinct group, but how about the Limburgers, Groningers, Drenten, Guelder, Stichters, Flanders, Zeeuwen etc. Do you mean to say that when you aim at Dutch, you actually mean Holland?? Arnoutf 09:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Dietsland really important after all?
Under the image with 'The Greater Netherlands, also called Dietsland', I added the explanation that this is not an actual country, but just the area where Dutch is the official language. This explanation was almost immediately removed by Rex Germanus, although both terms are explained nowhere. I really think the image is very confusing for people who do not know the geographical location of The Netherlands or Belgium. Worse, I have never heard of these terms 'Greater Netherlands' or 'Dietsland' even though I'm Dutch myself. The corresponding Groot-Nederland-article on the Dutch Wikipedia has an oversized and controversial smell, too; the subject has hardly got any attention in the Dutch media in the past years, afaik. I fear this is going to be an edit war, but I really think it is best to either explain the image much better, or leave it completely away and not cause confusion. Stonehead 9 september 2006, 20:48 (CEST)


 * I really trust that people have some idea where Belgium and the Netherlands are positioned and that they can see that Dietsland is spelled differently. Of course Dietsland isn't a county, it's a concept. I'm Dutch too and I have heard of this, and I'm sure people who are interested (thus click on the link) will be properly informed.
 * Rex 20:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, they do not. Most citizens of the USA have no idea of all these countries in Europe (my personal opinion; I could probably prove it if I had the time to Google). For quick readers, I find it misleading to introduce the little-known Dietsland-'concept' in a geographical picture at this very general and real Dutch people-article. If there should be any map at all, it should do justice to all of these 'Dutch' groups listed. For the Dietsland-article, the picture is great, but please, only refer to this 'concept' in a link here. Stonehead 10 september 2006, 12:57 (CEST)

I think you've heard too much stereotypes, the average American might not know where Moldavia lies, but I'm quite sure (based on my own experiences) that they know where the Netherlands and Belgium are. Rex 11:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a bit more explanation of the Dietsland concept may be in place if we want to use the term. The concept is relatively little known; and of course as an encyclopdia, wiki should be directed at the interested general public. Arnoutf 11:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should ask some Flemish people about their opinion on the relevance of the concept. On nl.wikipedia I saw various Flemish people using the term "Groot Nederland" (Greater Netherlands), but the term is hardly known among the Dutch. Probably the term Dietsland is also more familiar to the Flemish than to the Dutch. SietskeEN 15:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (edited on 09:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC))


 * Wiki English is aimed at the AngloSaxon world (and the world in general) so the familiarity of these phrases to the Dutch or Flemish is not really relevant; we should try to estimate whether it can reasonably expected from the target (UK, US, rest of world) audience to know these phrases. Arnoutf 18:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There he is
Rex: There are two issues which clearly we need to sort out: 1) your insistence of (incorrectly) including Spinoza and Anne Frank on the Dutch ethnic group article and 2) your refusal to include Austrians and Swiss Germans under the numbers box on the German people article. I have decided to leave the "ethnic box" on the Austrians article stay for now since they are a sub-group of Germans in the same way that Galicians and Catalans have their own articles, but are ALSO included under the broader Spanish people article. I have never heard any Swiss German or Austrian who would not also consider themselves part of the larger grouop of ethnic Germans. As for the Anne Frank and Spinoza dispute, I only have so much time to argue on that right now because of other commitments (I just moved back to Toronto for school), but I simply can't see why they should be included. They were Dutch nationals or citizens but they aren't considered ethnic Dutch by pretty much anyone and they themselves did not consider themselves as such and had many aspects of non-Dutch heritage (including descent and culture). Maybe I should just add something under their names for now stating this, but im going to continue to push for their removal from that article. In the meantime, I really suggest that we find some references for the current form of the Dutch people article since right now, it really appears as original research (barely anything is sourced outside of the numbers really) and thats not acceptable for Wikipedia, and I really don't want to see the article turned into a mockery like the French people article. Anyways I'm out for now, ciao. Epf 05:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you ever read Spinozas work or read Annes diary, but if you do you'll find 2 things; Spinoza thought more "Dutch" than the Dutch themselves and was proud to be considered one of them and Anne Frank had a deep urge to become a Dutch citizen, spoke and wrote Dutch and had lived in the Netherlands for the bigger part of her life.


 * With this in mind and the concept of "ethnic group" in the 21th century, they are Dutch.


 * Austrians and Swiss people have their own culture, dialects and customs and feel a band, this alone is enough to consider them separate ethnic groups.
 * Rex 12:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know where your coming up with this ridiculous and ignorant POV that is not in line with the accepted definiton of an ethnic group. Even if you think its correct, its still your own, widely unaccepted opinon that simply can not be the only one present in these articles. The concept of "ethnic group" in the 21st century ? What are you talking about ? The concept is still the same and it hasnt changed just because you have some sort of nihilistic and assmilationist agenda. Austrians and Swiss ARE also Germans and they are by no means completely distinct from other Germans. Dialects do not warrant separate ethnicity, and although they have their own unique regional customs and culture, they also share most of that with other Germans in which they have more in common with than any other people from any other country. Most importantly, they also share common descent with Germans and they do feel they are Germans as well as being distinctly Austrians and Swiss. Why do you think in Switzerland they differentiate people and cultures betrween Swiss German, Swiss French, and Italians ? I tried to be undertstanding, but you are being ignorant and I will bring it with regards to this issue and also challenge your unreferenced non-sense you put in these articles. I don't mean to come across as being arrogant, but I am sick of all this extreme leftist, ethnic nihilist, assimilationist rubbish that a few users like you are trying to push in these articles and its not acceptable to put such foolishness on Wikipedia. Let the editing begin. Epf 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * These 'ethnic group' qualifications seem to cause misunderstandings: the actual ethnicity in a racial sense of Austrians, whatever language they speak, and such of French or Dutch people, is hardly different or would exclude most of these countries' individuals. The differences are their cultures as inherited (like genes are inherited), thus ethnicity in a figurative sense. This differenciates those articles with strict population or citizenship counts that include recent or for some groups not so recent immigrants who did not yet assimilate the historical 'native' culture. Interpreting 'ethnic' as belonging to an ethnical race makes no sense in a European context. Anne Frank and Spinoza can not be excluded from the culture they did not inherit genetically (no-one does), but acquired (as all of us) and, fully deserve to be acknowleged, in their case, as Dutch. [Not exactly something I could be jealous about, Rex ;-) ] — SomeHuman 21 Sep2006 01:03 (UTC)


 * Many aspects of culture are learned from your surrounding environment and community, and this includes those in your own local community which in many cases is distinct from that of the national one you may be living in. However, many aspects of culture are also inherited from your family, obviously since they are the ones who you learn so much of your personality and identitiy from. Many aspects of culture, whether it be language, traditions and customs, history, cuisine, community, etc. is passed down to us by each generation and not simply what we get from our area or region of residence. This is why ethnicity, is in a large part based on descent, which besides such cultural traits which may or may not be passed down, includes other inherited natural/biological (ancestral) traits and socio-behavioural ones which are inherited through nurture (i.e. from those who we spend most of our life around in the years in which we grow and develop, most importantly our family but also close friends in the local community). Anne Frank and Spinoza were Dutch nationals and were Dutch persons in that sense, but they weren't ethnic Dutch. They inherited and were passed down many of their familial ethno-cultural traits which were Jewish or non-Dutch. They had NO Dutch ancestry whatsoever and if that is the case, then they are not ethnic Dutch, and even with that said, Anne Frank was born in Germany and spent time growing up there before coming to Holland. Just because you are born or live somewhere, doesnt mean you automatically become the same as the indigenous pupulation living there. I can tell you now you're discussing this issue with someone who has spent most of my time sutdying and on Wikipedia focusing on ethnic groups, anthropology and the importance of descent in ethnicity. It is ridiculous to say we simply "acquire" culture and/or ethnic ideneity form just simply living or being born somewhere or because we want to. You would have to change all elements of who you are and where you come from for that to be the case and ethnic identity is not something gained or lost on a whim. Epf 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Taken from User talk:Rex Germanus

Revert of recent revisions
I have reverted three recent revision by Epf. I will shortly motivate here why I reverted the first and third (the second being a minor textual change). The first revision that I reverted was (again) the removal of Anne Frank and Spinoza from the section Contribution to Humantiy. Eopf gave the following edit summary ''Contribution to humanity - i have gone over this again and again and we still havent resolved it, view my comments on Rex' talk page. If you include them, you can include anyone anywhere''. I agree that Epf has gone over this again and again and that we still have not solved the issue; which centers largely on the definition of an ethnic group (see a lot of debate on the Dutch people talk page). In my opinion text should not be changed before the issue is solved. This is my main reason for the reversion. Furthermore the comments of Epf on Rex' talk page are completely irrelevant. If Epf thinks there is a good argument to be made, he should make it on the talk page of the articale, not on the personal page of one of the editors. - But I see now he did; although very lengthy.... I will have to have a look....

The other revision was the addition of the banner. Although I agree that this article could benefit from good cites, I still deleted the banner as I cannot exclude that Epf added the banner to shed doubt on the quality of the article more out of frustration for not getting his point of view accepted by other editors; than because of a jsutified concern for the quality of the article. No offense meant if I am wrong. As the unreferenced issue has no history for this page, the more decent way to introduce this would have been through a topic on this talk page. Or if you really can not live with a specific bold claim in the text the addition of in text calls for reference using the template; which helps subsequent editors to improve the text much better than a vague overall lack of reference banner. Arnoutf 07:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited

 * To incrase the quality of the artcily and to do justice to Epf's remark on citations, I went through the text and marked instance where I thought a bold claim was made with the uncited tag. This does not mean that I disagree with these phrases, only that for the current text to sport these bold claims, external sources should be cited. I am pretty sure some editors have them ready to fill out. In my opinion addition of such sources would be a huge step forward in improving this (sometimes heavily) debated article towards a generally accepted good article. Arnoutf 15:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfounded and assimlationist POV of Arnoutf and Rex
Stop pushing your own POV and political agenda on this article and disrespecting and discarding the traditional and accepted defintion of an ethnic group. You keep claiming that the defintion of an ethnic group has "changed" or that the aspects of descent have all of a sudden mysteriously gone away. Where do you think we coem from ? Are we genetically created from a test tube ? You dont just get phenotypic and genotypic ethnic traits from your familial descent, you also get many cultural and psycho-behavioural traits. They raised you and taught you your first langauge(s) and your family is your gateway to your surrounding cultural community and they are who you spend most of your developing years around (notably including the very important infant years pior to the age of 5). You cant just decide to disregard one of the main pillars in ethnic identification, descent/genealogy, simply because you have some political agenda. Your cultural identification comes from both your community (local, regional and national) and your descent (family and ancestry). Ethnic identifcation, as is provided by the referenced definitions of ethnic group on ethnic group article includes common descent and traits which are and are not resultant of it. The descent part of ethnic identification is obviously still one of the main factors in the vast majority of cases (including the Dutch), even in our modern, globalizing world (where people are in fact finding it easier to connect with their roots because of the effects of globalization). Just because the Netherlands in some aspects, is a small geographic area does not negate the importance of descent whatsoever. The Dutch international outlook and empire as well as "long and muddled" European history don't make the factor of descent in ethnic Dutch identification "hard to uphold" whatsoever. Ethnic Dutch (i.e. those who have Dutch ethnic origins) still retain the predominant pre-celtic/celtic (Belgae) and Germanic (Franks) descent/origins which have characterized the people ever since the existence of a "Dutch" people and culture which formed from these elements in the early middle ages (after the Germanic migrations/settlement). You're not going to be allowed to discard such an obvious part of ethnic Dutch identifcation. Ciao, Epf 00:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I try to be as open to critisism as possible. However in my opinion it is Epf who is pushing a POV. In spite of numerous requests by myself he has not provided a referenced definition of Ethnic Group. (This while Epf has put on the unreferenced tag and both me and Rex has taken up the challenge and have started providing reference ourselves, something Epf has not done for his view on what an ethnic group is). That is the moment I turned to the wiki [ethnic group] article. However, Epf does not accept that the definition there includes limitations to the descent part. In trying to clearly define what we should consider the Dutch Ethnic group I copied the definition of the wiki article into the introduction of the Dutch ethnic group article. My idea being that if consensus could be achieved on this (or an adapted version of this) definition the rest of the article (including the contested inclusion of Spinoza and Anne Frank) could be measured against this definition thus solving the problems. This was removed by Epf without any reasonable argument. Calling me POV pushing is therefore (imho) a clear cut case of "The Pot Calling The Kettle Black". Without a reasonalbe argument and at least minor consensus I will continue to revert unfounded removals from this page. Arnoutf 07:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, no I am not POV pushing, I am going by the accepted definition of an ethnic group from the ethnic group article which is referenced from anthropolgical and other sources. Arnoutf is now resorting to false accusations in order to make his own POV and agenda possible. He claims I am without a reasonable argument yet I have time and time again provided very significant discourse in this article arguing my point. He also claims I have not used any references but I continue to point out to the references on the ethnic group article which support my point. As for the references hes provided, all he did was use certain aspects of the defintion of ethnic group to support his POV on this issue and merely link to the ethnic group article on Wikipedia rather than providing some other source. The other two sources provided by Rex hardly constitute the whole article being seen as verified since much of it is from original research and common knowledge of various users. Artnouf refuses to accept the importance of descent and resultant traits to Dutch ethnic identifcation by making up some ridiculous and very controversial POV comments about how "the long international history of the Dutch, makes such a narrow definition hard to sustain". This is agenda pushing and clearly he is trying to come across with some point that the Dutch are some multi-cultural and multi-ethnic population that has been constantly mixed with massive immigration over history, which is obviously not the case. The Dutch colonial empire would result in significant immigratoin to the Netherlands, especially in the 20th century, but nothing that has altered the ethnic make-up of the majority indigenous Dutch or blurred their identifcation of a common descent to the pre-celtic/celtic peoples (Belgae) and the Germanic Franks. When you alter a source by excluding elements of a definition or in this case using your own interpretation as a refernce, that is a form of agenda or POV pushing. Ciao, Epf 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read the definition on ethnic group, and the discussion on that article: I quote: An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith, 1986). Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community. With Smith (I guess) being the scientific reference. This definition clearly states that An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other and I think Epf does agree there. The controversy is about whether the second section of this definition usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry means - the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry is an essential part of this identification(what I gather Epf's interpretation is - please correct if I am wrong); or that it means the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry is an often but not necessarily part of this identification (which is my interpretation). Discussions on the ethnic talk page show that both interpretations are accepted by different people. For the Dutch people article this distinction is however essential as I agree with Epf, that following the first (narrow) interpretation Spinoza and Anne Frank do not qualify as Dutch. The broad definition proposed by me (and I guess Rex as well) does however include Anne Frank and Spinoza. The narrow definition has some weird consequences, e.g. removal of royal family from Dutch ethnicity; unless special allowances are made (Assuming King Willem I 100% Dutch (whihch he want)x Prussian princess- WillemII(50% Dutch)xRussian princess; WillemIII(25% Dutch)xGerman princess - Wilhelmina(12.5% Dutch)*german husbanc- Juliana (6.25% Dutch)*German husband - Beatrix(3.125%Dutch)*german husband - Willem Alexander (1.6% Dutch)*Argentinian wife- His children 0.8% Dutch!. AnneFrank had definitely more Dutch blood).
 * In brief I think the only way out and forward is to find consensus on a definition of Dutch people. Arnoutf 15:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation of the definition in some respects and yes indeed the debate here is whether common descent/genealogy is part of Dutch ethnic identification which it obviously is (as in the majority of ethnic groups around the world). The definiton of common descent may appear to you as narrow, but it is one of the main pillars of ethnic identification and has always been so. I already explained above how it would still include the Dutch royal family since most of the major family memebers have some significant degree of ethnic Dutch origins. In any case, nearly every royal family in Europe acknowledges a multi-ethnic and muli-cultural identity and ancestry apart from that of their native land. You are rigth that a consensus needs to be made on the definition of Dutch people and clearly there are those who are ethnic Dutch (descent and culture) and those who are Dutch nationals or citizens with strong elements of Dutch culture and identity but of no Dutch descent (and in turn retaining non-Dutch ethno-cultural elements in their identity). Epf 09:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the ethnic group definition, many of the shared cultural, linguisitic and religious traits are associated with ones descent and the behavioural (or psycho-behavioural) traits are obviously very correlated with ones descent. Epf 09:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I try to summarise:
 * IMHO: We all agree that cultural, linguistic, and religious traits as well as common descent are identifiers of ethnic groups (I agree that descent plays some role).
 * The debate is to what amount (especially) common descent is an essential condition for inclusion in an ethnic group.
 * If we state that it does not play a role, we adopt the broadest possible definition of ethnic group; which includes every person who states him/her self to be Dutch into the Dutch ethnic group. (I can see this is a bit out of reality for many).
 * If we state that it does play the decisive role, we adopt the narrowest possible definition of ethnic groups; this excludes anyone whocannot trace back a unbroken descent to Francs, and Celts of say around 300AD, through both paternal and maternal lines. (This is of course not possible, so not a single member of the Dutch ethnic group can be identified following this definition).
 * Therefore the definition has to be somewhere in between; as Epf already indicated a certain amount of Dutch descent maybe enough to qualify.
 * The adopted definition has to be straightforward and neutral. Does anyone have a suggestion how to word it? One option I mentioned somewhere much higher on this talk page, is to take up Dutch Statistics Agency (CBS) condition that you can only be counted ethnic Dutch if both your parents were born in the Netherlands; this introduces a fairly relaxed condition towards the descent condition (it excludes Spinoza and Anne Frank though), as your granparents need not to be ethnic Dutch; to be ethnic Dutch yourself. This does allow third generation immigrants, who conform to the other demands (e.g think of themselves as culturally Dutch) to be included. Arnoutf 11:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you are again making some unfounded claims here Arnoutf and ignoring facts and what common descent actually includes. The common descent of the Dutch is those who can trace at least a significant degree of their ancestry to the indigenous ethnic Dutch, which are descended from a mix of the pre-Celtic/Celtic peoples (Belgae) of the region which have always inhabited it and the Germanic Franks who settled here during the Germanic migrations. Every ethnic Dutch person can claim this to some degree, otherwise they wouldn't be ethnically Dutch. The Dutch statistics agency does not state, anywhere, that you can be "counted as ethnic Dutch if both your parents were born in the Netherlands". That policy has to do with citizenship and nationality in the Netherlands, obviously. There is one suggested way to identify this article: this is about the Dutch as an ethnic group indigenous to the Netherlands, that is those who identify with a common Dutch descent and culture. Ethnic Dutch identification includes those who have the common descent and the cultural, religious, behavioural, or linguistic traits which are usually but not necessarily associated with it. Epf 05:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good. This isexactly the point that I want to have solved. What is a significant degree of ancestry???
 * I agree 100% ancestry all the way back to 300AD is a ridiculous demand for significance. But what is the lower limit; and do membbers of other Franko-Celtic peoples (common descent), who migrated to teh Netherlands and became culturally Dutch qualify???
 * Secondly, CBS reports population statistics of the Netherlands. Recently (about little over a year ago) they adopted exactly the definition given by me (both parents bron in Nl) for inclusion in the Dutch indigenous population in the official population statistics of the Netherlands. However, after checking I am not so sure whether indigenous Dutch and ethnic Dutch are necessarily the same, so forget my suggestion about the CBS definition. Arnoutf 07:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent rev by EPF
Epf once again reverted Rex' inclusion of Spinoza and Anne Frank to contribution of humanity with the edit summary: ''rv POV; i thought this was ettled. Clearly Rex has soem agendaon the issue with his insistence on including these particular two people''. However reading all debate above I cannot agree this issue was settled. There is still no clear definition of ethnic Dutch and the most recent comment above by Epf: "....The common descent of the Dutch is those who can trace at least a significant degree of their ancestry...." (without specifying what significance means) indicates that at least Anne Frank due to Dutch ancestry may be included. As I have stated many times before, without a clear definition of the Dutch ethnic group this issue cannot be settled. Arnoutf 07:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought that we came to a consensus on what ethnic Dutch entailed based on the verified definition of ethnic group on Wikipedia, i.e. the Dutch ethnic group identify with each other based on a common Dutch culture and descent (and such associated traits). I have read into Anne Frank's biography and any Dutch descent she did have (Rex mentioned such) was very minimal. I really can't see how Spinoza, whos parents were Portuguese-Jews and himself of no ethnic Dutch heritage (and still considered himself ethnically Jewish as much as anything else) could ever be included. He was proud to be born in The Netherlands and a Dutch national but he was still seen by himself and others as having many non-Dutch ethnic elements in his identity (again lacking any Dutch descent). Anne Frank was born and raised in Germany, of barely any Dutch descent, also identified as ethnically Jewish and livied in the Netherlands briefly (6 years or so). I hate discussing this in some ways because I admire the story of Anne Frank and I have no negative intention here, I just simply wish to emphasize that although she was a Dutch national, she did not share the same ethnic identity as that of native ethnic Dutch, and she is obviously acknowledged worldwide as being ethnically Jewish as much as anything else. Ciao, Epf 07:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest I am not convinced neither by you (exclusion of Spinoza and Anne Frank) nor by Rex (inclusion of both). I think we made some progress with the definition, but the definition is still a bit ambiguous. Personally I am more in favour of the broader interpretation of the definition (which warrant inclusion), and I still think your (Epf) interpretation of the definition is a bit too narrow. But that is my personal opinion. I think that Spinoza and Anne Frank are not clear cut cases; so they may or may not be included depending on consensus. I will no longer revert edits either including or excluding them, but hope that this can be resolved. I would be happy if some other editors besides the three of us (Rex, Epf, Arnoutf) would share their opinion on this issue in this talk page, so we can really see where this should be going from here. Arnoutf 08:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please both Epf and Rex try to be civil in edit summaries; making the issue even more hostile by inflammatory comments is counterproductive. Thanks Arnoutf 18:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

North germans - Germanic people
In related ethnic groups, recently the group North germans was added. I do not think this adds anything as: Thus I would be against inclusion of north Germans. Arnoutf 20:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no wiki article that identifies north Germans as an ethnic group, nor is there any other source naming them as an ethnic group therefore the inclusion is unreferenced.
 * 2) The more general group: Germanic peoples, which is already mentioned of course also includes north Germans; so there is no added content


 * To reflect on my own comment: The wiki article on Germanic people states under heading Assimiliation clearly that: ""Germanic" as understood today is a linguistic term. Modern ethnicities speaking Germanic languages are usually not referred to as Germanic peoples, a term of historic scope. Outside of Scandinavia, present-day countries speaking a Germanic language have mixed ethnic roots not restricted to the earliest Germanic peoples."
 * Thus inclusion of Germanic peoples as related ethnic group seems not a good idea. The question can be raised whether Germans are a related ethnic group. Perhaps they are, but if so much further removed then Flemings, Afrikaners and Frisians. So I would suggest to delete Germanic peoples in the infobox for now and replace with actual ehtnic groups or not at all. Arnoutf 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, of course it's a different matter when your actions are fueled by German nationalism.

The Germans are clearly much less related to the Dutch than the Frisians (coexistion and mutual colonisation since Roman times) and the Afrikaners (effectively the offspring of Dutch colonists) and Flemings (who are often considered the same group as the Dutch) Germanic peoples as a whole is gtoo broad and North Germans is just ridiculous, like Arnout said this would mean the Germans are composed of multiple ethic groups, naturally you have to take into account the mind behind all this. Rex 13:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be inclined to add Germans for the same reasons as the Frisians (who violently resisted the Lowlanders until finally being absorbed by Prussia), adding the fact that Saxons (hence the north designation) and Franks were more related than say the Saxons and Bavarians, now under one group, or in fact the Frisians and the Dutch, who are in distinct linguistic groups. One could maliciously inerpret this as "German nationalism", or in fact see it as Dutch chauvinistic claims over German lowlands, to use Rex's dumbfounding analogies. Ulritz 13:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that historically the Frisians and the Dutch were separate members of the larger Germanic peoples group. However (excluding the Ost Frisians, who were absorbed by the Prusians), the Frisians in the current Netherlands became and remained in very close contact with the Hollandic ethnic groups since the end of the Friso-Hollandic Wars (1345). In the 650 years since the current Dutch province of Frisia has always been closely related to the Dutch. In my opinion plenty of time for loose ethnic bonds (which I agree could be defended about a 1000 yrs ago) to become more tight. This I think is enough justification for inclusion of the Frisians
 * The Flemish have always been closely related to Zeelandic and Brabandic parts of the Netherlands, actually the current division is that of the treaty of Munster. Although the Flemish and Dutch have drifted apart a bit, the relation is still there and specific enough to warrant their inclusion.
 * I think everybody agrees the Afrikaners being Dutch descendants keeping many of the cultural traditions intact can also be included.


 * That leaves the Germands. To be honest I think that there are a number of ethnic similarities between German people who are Saxons descendants and the Dutch, but as they are in one group with Bavarians and Prussians, I would not add the Germans as a whole (exactly for the reason stated above by Ulritz - There is hardly any relation between the Dutch and the Bavarians, or the Prussians for that matter). Reasoning this through, a relation to Danish people would perhaps be even more accurate than to the larger German people group.
 * Assuming good faith in all editors I will not even start to react to above German nationalistic / Dutch chauvinistic accusations between some editors. Arnoutf 14:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The relation with the Bavarians and any other German group is simply that there was until very recently a perfect dialect continuum. As political divisions were late to develop, language can be the only major criterion for ethnicity here. Certainly it is extremely dubious to construct some opposition between "Dutch" and "German" before the 17th century. And certainly the cultural ties between Twenthe and Bentheim or Limburg and the Rhineland were until the late 19th century much closer than between Twenthe (or Limburg) and Holland. That the Franks had a separate identity from very early on doesn't imply they weren't German; that would be an unjustified and anachronistic projection of the present situation into the past. Dutch nationalists have to accept that they are Germans; German nationalists have to accept that there is an alternative way of being German: the Dutch one. It's hard for both :o).--MWAK 15:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't follow your argument in full. But I agree strict borders are generally artificial. I do however disagree that the Dutch-German split began only in the 17th century (ok it can be argued that Twente and Limburg became separated from Germany in the 17th century but they became only involved in the campaigns of Maurice and Frederick Henry that were initiated from Holland). If you accept that the origin of the Netherlands lies in the 17 united Netherlands the distinction goes back to at least the 15th century (when the Burgundians started to collect the separate Dutch Duchies, Counties and Bishoprics). It can even be argued that the increasingly independent (from the Holy Roman Empire) course of the Counts of Holland, Zeeland, Friesland in the 13th century is already the first lasting division between the Dutch and the German countries. Arnoutf 16:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I fear your line of reasoning is based on a fundamental mistake: that anything that caused the "Dutch" to have an identity separate from the other Germans stopped them from being German. But the other Germans had their separate political development too — and yet Bavarians and Prussians etc. are, despite their destinct national identities, still considered Germans. The only valid argument to exclude the Dutch would be that most other Germans formed a sort of unity against them. The sole reason to conclude such a unity existed is that they used a separate common standard language — and indeed this fact was employed by the romantic 19th century Pangermanist movement to unite them into one country. But the standard languages were artificial constructs, only used by a small elite. On the level of dialects there was a continuum, only broken by mass-education late in the 19th century. So, as there was no prior German unitary state and standard languages simply weren't of enough import prior to the late 19th century, there is little to base a clear ethnic distinction on before that century. And this would be especially hard before the collapse of Hanseatic Low German in the 17th century, which of course was a lot closer to standard Dutch than to standard High German.--MWAK 09:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the Dutch inclusion in the Burgundian-Spanish empire was the final break-away moment. Although I agree there are shades of grey. Especially the 80 years war (1568-1648) positied the Netherlands as an independent country that broke up all relations with the Holy roman Empire (that was the direct predecessor of Germany). So it can as easily be argued that the Dutch left the Holy roman Empire which excluded them from becoming part of the 2nd Reich. But then again putting explicit boundaries/moments in a gradual process is always difficult. PS I am happy with the revisions you made. Arnoutf 10:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps socio-economic factors were decisive; the Dutch Republic, being the wealthiest and most civilised part of the old Empire, wasn't much influenced any more, in any cultural sense, by the much poorer more eastern principalities. And this interacted with a religious division: the Dutch calvinists didn't use Luther's Bible translation — and that same translation prevented Lutheran Low Germany to adopt standard Dutch instead of High German. But again, keep in mind that the real issue is not what set the Dutch apart, but what united the other Germans in distinction to them. That seems to be the same question but really isn't. :o) There was diversification all over the Empire in late medieval times, but not much reason to single out the Netherlands as somehow special in this.--MWAK 10:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I partially disagree. The unification of the Netherlands was one of the few cases of undiversification in that they were ahead of the rest of Germany. This unification resulted in a strong and independent entity (ie the Netherlands) which grew further apart from the other German states. (I agree this is a gradual process and there are many similarities up to a point).Arnoutf 10:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

New People section
I've rewritten the "people" section. The new version is a bit more honest and (most importantly) is completely referenced. I'm thinking of adding a "relations with other people" section as well. Rex 11:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like an improvement, some English proofreading by a native levevl English is probably advisable though. Perhaps we have to reconsider the referencing if we use one source multiple ties I think the good wiki is: the first time a ref is used put in: . Then you can afterwards just use . This is used in e.g. Eighty Years' War, and has two major advantages: 1: in text numbering does not grow, a trainied reader interprets by numbers alonethat a certain source is used for multiple references. 2: Reference list is much shorter, while containing exactly the same info. If I have time I will soon implement this way of referencing here. Any other volunteers also welcome Arnoutf 12:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a problem I think in the religion section: Nowadays a large part of the Dutch population is atheist (some 42%) or is an inactive member of a church and/or religion. As is illustrated by the Dutch weekly Sunday church attendance that has dropped to well below 10 %. 2004 figures reported by the Roman Catholic Church mention a weekly Sunday church attendance of 438,700 Roman Catholics or related to the total Dutch population, about 2 percent.


 * The bold is I think an incomplete sentence, which I could finish if I knew which Dutch weekly (een blad of krant??) the writer was referring to. The other sentences need major copyediting but some are unclear enough that I'm scared to re-write them because I might change the meaning.  Maybe, "Currently, a large part of the Dutch population is atheistic or an inactive member of a church or religion (around 42%) (cite).  As illustrated in the Dutch Weekly "Religion Today", Sunday church attendance has dropped to well below 10%.  (since starting a sentence with a number must be spelled out, and that looks strange, I rearrange this) The Roman Catholic Church reports a weekly Sunday church attendance of 438,700 people in 2004, or about 2% of the Dutch population."


 * What think? Also, I'm not the only person using FireFox, but the image of worldwide Dutch domination is covering up some of the text. Anyone else see this?? Gaviidae 08:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I really have no idea where all these religion numbers come from; but it sound like a good question. I would refer to http://www.cbs.nl (the official statistics agency) as an authoritive source. I found these for 2004 on http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/ with keyword 'religie': None 42% Catholic 30% ProtestantChurchNetherlands 3% (but that is a recent merger of several large churches so that will grow) Nederlands Hervormd 11%; Reformed 6% Other 9%.
 * I also think most of teh 42% non-church Dutch are not actively Atheist (which is also a belief - in the the non-existence of a deity. I think most are just not interested (perhaps closer to Agnostic but that again is a philopsophy). Arnoutf 09:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Germans - Awesome
Recently there has been some controversy on a text in the Dutch image which ran: ''Most nations regard the Dutch as being organized and efficient, rather like the Germans but less awesome. One can hardly be frightened, the stereotypical reasoning goes, by "a nation of rosy-cheeked farmers who live in windmills, wear clogs, have a garden full of tulips and sit on piles of yellow cheese".'' Although in my opinion there is some truth in the lines, the wording does not seem to be serious. Indeed the source here is the Xenophobe's Guide to the Dutch; that in my opinion is likely to phrase information rather overstated and frame it as a humorous. Thus although I can accept to use some of that information as source (although a more serious source would be nice), I think the (ironic) wording does not fit the aim of Wikipedia, being a serious encyclopedia; and this information (if it is to stay in) has to reworded. Arnoutf 14:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Just checking, but are we all aware that "awesome" here, means "causing awe" rather than "excellent or exciting"? :) Rex 15:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Arnoutf, I agree. Though Rex is right to be careful with a subjective subject as Dutch image worldwide is (especially when it is written by a Dutchmen), the book is written in an un-encyclopaedic humoristic tone (ergo I like it... a lot). Think we should be okay by rewording it slightly, preserving the meaning, or find another source. Further, I’m not sure if the copyright can cause any problems if we use it word for word. By the way, I don’t think the word "awesome" is the only problem. --Van helsing 09:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever we decide we should prefer books not written by Dutchmen, this people section is interesting and worth writing about but it is very subjective and we should be very careful of what we write.Rex 11:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dutch views on others
Rex, thanks for your work, but, err... are you really sure you want this in like it stands right now? Should the Dutch views on others be part of an encyclopaedic article about Dutch people themselves? Or are you looking for some consensus driven paragraph evolution? I’m sure some are happy to dive on that Dutch feelings about Germans part. You know, citable doesn’t mean have to include, hence, will not all off a sudden be a magical protection. --Van helsing 23:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Strike that, still think it reads a bit like written by Rik Mayall, but this isn’t Britannica. --Van helsing 08:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean Van helsing, but I wan't to make this article more than just a list on "how many there are" and "where they live". Besides I think this information is rather interesting, and will probably inform people a bit on the nature of the Dutch people.Rex 16:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

From the article: "Germans are perhaps the one people the Dutch truly dislike, they are considered to be rude, arrogant, noisy and intolerant and in fact most other antonyms of characteristics the Dutch pride themselves on. etc." This doesn't make sense to me. What other sources are there for this? The one listed is "the The Xenophobe's Guide to the Dutch"; how reliable is this?

In my experience, the German and Dutch people get along quite well in practice. There is a lot of rivalry when it comes to football, and there are some recurring jokes about World War II or the behaviour of Germans on Dutch beaches, but these are mostly (as far as I can tell) in good spirit, and hardly affect relations between the Dutch and German in practice.

I think the statement that the Dutch "truly dislike" the Germans is just plain wrong. (Also, the cases I know of hate/racism, are not directed at the Flemish or German at all, but rather at Marrocans, Turks, blacks or just allochtonen in general, whose culture is much more different.) It is true that the Dutch don't like to be called German (and don't like their language to be confused with it), but it seems to me that it is more general patriotism than dislike of the Germans. They would just as much dislike being called French. 130.89.167.52 03:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Think you’re right about that, but our opinion or even "the truth" is secondary to what the sources say, and this one is sourced. Also when we think we’re knowledgeable on the issue. Trick is to find another source with a bit subtler wording. --Van helsing 08:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree; Dutch relations to the Germans is now pretty good. Note that this was not always the case, I believe (pov though for what its worth) about 20yrs ago the war was much more salient and the relationship less good. That is the problem with sources, they may go out of date (e.g. there are plenty of (medieval) sources stating that the earth is flat, that are no longer relevant). So something that is sources may not be relevation when it has become outdated (even in the lack of a source explicitly stating it has been outdated). On a ligther note. weelll the beaches, just show me a single tourist area where the local population (that is not employed in tourist industry) really likes the foreign tourists. Arnoutf 08:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course relations have improved since 1945, but one cannot deny that there a feeling of antipathy towards germans when one takes into account the relations the Dutch have with other peoples. I never did spot the word "hate" which is kind of different but in the last 60 years the signs of anti-german feelings are/have been clearly present. Although, as mentioned in the book "Onbekende buren" (a book specifically aimed at Dutch-German relations) this feeling of disliking is somewhat of a "group activity" and generally when Dutch people actually meet a German they are described as "not typically/very German". Rex 14:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know the 'Onbekende buren' book; but from the reviews I just 'googled' I think the new 2006 edition may be a very good reference for the statement on Dutch-German relations for this page. Arnoutf 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering the loads of information in it, its enough for a separate article.Rex 15:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mean we should put up a summary of the book, although I agree the Dutch-German relationship maybe worthy of an article in its own right (note however the book may represent a POV, so some more sources would be needed there). However if the gist of that book can be captured in a single paragraph that gives an overview of Dutch-German relation in thsi article, the book seems a fair and relevant. Arnoutf 15:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reference

I really like this part of the article, especially regarding the bad view on Germans, since it is an important aspect of contemporane dutch culture. Maybe as a German I'm not objective, but my English cousin lives with her boyfriend in amsterdam and they are overwhelmed by this constant antigerman propaganda about stolen bycicles, territorial sandcastles and dubbed television. Brits are not known to be germanophil, but they normally hide it in silly jokes or wait (or pretend) to be drunk, while Dutch girls easily start conversation with "I don't like Germans, but you don't look German - hey no insult it's a compliment!". Silly French base their chauvinism on their culture and cuisine, Brits ruled the waves and have won 2 wars and One worldcup, Germans are (or used to be) arogantly proud about their strong economy but Dutch live in the most tolerant country which opposes intolerant neighbours. This stubborn fanatic determination is so 200% German ... hey no insult it's a compliment *fg* ... "Gott schuf die Welt, doch der Holländer die Niederlande!" LanX--217.224.5.152 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't tell if you're being facetious, but being anti-German is not an aspect let alone an important aspect of this culture, sorry to disappoint. And contrary to your hear-say, there is no negative prejudice towards German students at my university. They're quite liked.


 * Oh and England only won the worldcup on two dubious goals. :) Dennnnis 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing and POV - In Dutch Views of Others section

 * 1) I partially agree with Dennnnis that for sourcing (as well as for almost everything else) quality counts more than quantity. I agree with Dennnnis that the Xenophobe's guide is overused in the section and is a dubious source (this is partially disguised because there are 3 refs to that same source (10-13-18)). Other sources like the UTwente campus newspaper and militantislammonitor do not rank highly (probably lower) on my list of quality references. So although a lot of effort is put in referencing I would say to continue improving the quality of the references and phase out the dubious ones.
 * 2) A non-neutral point of view is easily built on references, they will not guard you against that; by using references that fit your ideas and omitting those that contradict them you can make almost any statement. So here again I have to agree that some effort in neutralising the tone of this section is needed. Please note that part of the POV from even scientific sources derives from the fact that in original research a POV is not a problem as you want to advocate and offer evidence for a (usually your pet) theory. This is ok, because counterbalanced by other publications. Wikipedia however, does not aim to be a scientific publisher but to give an overview of generally accepte status quo (the no original research issue).
 * PS Rex I noticed you responded on Dennnnis' user to his edits, please try to keep content discussion on the relevant page to keep discussion centralised instead of over different user papges, thanks Arnoutf 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that section is thoroughly referenced. I do not think Xenophobe is overused, and we must not forget that we use it mainly as a base and that other referenced mainly serve as details on it. There is this tendancy on wikipedia to start bashing sources when they finally arrive, let's be reasonable, some of these sources aren't the best, but they do suffice.Rex 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Arnoutf, the referencing and the tone of the section is lacking and, I will add, plain silly. The Dutch think of the Italians as... The Dutch see the Americans as... The Dutch consider the Swiss as... What's the point of adding these questionable, simplified and hardly sourced views on other nationalities to an encyclopedic article? Not to mention, the negative views on Germans are outdated and exaggerated.
 * In regards to Xenophobe. The book is not intended and written as a researched analysis. It's just a humorous overview and I think it's rather awkward that it is used as a source on this article. And ref no. 11 is an editorial. An opinion piece of a British tabloid. Speaking of only finding references that fit certain ideas.


 * In short, the content of this section is not befitting an, here's that word again, encyclopedia. That's what I think of it. Dennnnis 06:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is lacking references than I doubt you'll find any wikipedia article that has sufficient sources. This is probably the most sourced article on an Ethnic group on this entire wikipedia. The Dutch point of view is interesting and quite worth to be mentioned. If it concerned a totally unreferenced section, I would delete it on sight, but this is clearly not the case. As I said before, the sources might not be perfect, but they definately get the job done. Rex 13:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How can you call this section sourced when two editors dispute some of the refs and *all* the claims that the Dutch see Italians as such and the Americans as so etc are without any reference to begin with? It's interesting perhaps, but pretending to be able to give an integrated Dutch point of view on other nationalities is just silly, and without a proper reference it is original research to boot. Unless someone can provide a source (an actual source, not the tongue-in-cheek claims of the 'Xenophobe Guide'), I'm in favor of deleting the unreferenced parts of the points of view section. Dennnnis 14:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd hoped that you'd understand that these books can never speak for all of the Dutch. I'd also hoped you knew that Xenophobes writers do visit the country and people they write about and that they do make use of polls and specific social studies the books aren't by far as worthless as you make them appear. And once again, Xenophobe isnt the only reference. Rex 22:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Xenophobe Guide's research and results are intended to provoke laughter, not to provide objective data acceptable for an encyclopedia. You won't find the Italian point of view or the English point of view or the German or whomever's on their articles because it is an embarrassingly unencyclopedic subject. I'm glad you recognize the book does not speak for the entire population, because this will help rid that section. Dennnnis 11:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole "Dutch views on others" section is ridiculous and should be deleted. --129.206.196.217 16:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Gave a couple days for people to respond. If anyone actually objects to the removal of what is basically a blog entry, speak now or forever hold thou breath. Dennnnis 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're thinking of removing the "Dutch image/character/views on others" section then I object.Strongly.Rex 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you were paying attention, and that's a big if, you would have noticed we were discussing the point of view section, the one with the unasserted and unencyclopedic claims. Dennnnis 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if you'd taken a look around you'd seen that there are quite a number of matter which are a bit more urgent than you wanting to remove referenced material.Rex 22:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Urgent matters? Watching you and Paul111 disagree with each other like a couple aspergers is humorous. Urgent however it is not.


 * Repeating the obvious yet again, dubious references aside the content of the point of view section is a joke. It has to go. Dennnnis 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not if I can help it.Rex 22:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we can work on an acceptable version. There is something to having this section as it gives some insight in experiences people may have with the Dutch; but I agree style and sourcing have to be improved. My suggestion - play around with it here User:Arnoutf/Dutchv and when we arrive at a workable solution we replace the version that is up now (which we leave for now) with the one we agree upon there. Arnoutf 08:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. I have meanwhile expressed my point of view (Get it? Get it?) on the page, Arnoutf and Rex. Dennnnis 14:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image of southpark dutch people
I do not see how the image for the children dressed up as dutch people qualifies for fair use? I am going to comment it out. The article is not on southpark, and the image is not associated with critical commentary on the show soutpark. If this is fauly reasoning, let me know. Thanks! - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy and neutrality disputed
This article includes a pseudohistorical account of the "Dutch people" prior to around 1500. It contains dubious and unsourced assertions on prehistory, such as the claim that Indo-European speakers "evolved into the Germanic peoples". It falsely implies that the Dutch people are a renamed continuation of the West Franks, and falsely categorises Frankish history under Dutch history. It is selective in its application of "Dutch", for instance applying it to northern France via the Franks, forgetting that they did not inhabitant the present northern Netherlands. --Caranorn 13:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC) It contains an unsourced comment in the footnotes, clearly racist in tone, on the 'Dutch blood' and part-Dutch 'lineage' of Spinoza and Anne Frank (who was a de-naturalised and stateless ex-German).

Politically, it falsely implies that substantial numbers of people in Flanders and the Netherlands see themselves as forming a single ethnic group, whereas this is a minority right-wing opinion. It gives undue importance to the concepts of Diets identity and 'Dietsland', which are only familiar to historians and a small group of right-wing activists. Similarly it implies that the Greater Netherlands ideal is a current political issue, when in fact it is a historical curiosity.

It contains an unsourced assertion that the Dutch people feel a specific affiliation to the 'West Germanic' peoples, a term which again is only familiar to historians and linguists. It gives an unsourced hierarchy of affiliation, including the Afrikaners, who play no role in Dutch or Flemish identity, outside right-wing groups. Use of the term 'Germanic people' for the Dutch is inaccurate, the term refers to mediaeval Europe and earlier, for later periods it has only a linguistic context. In the Netherlands and Flanders, self-identification as 'Germanic' (Germaans) is a marker of far-right political sympathies.

The article switches repeatedly between the Dutch as an ethnic group, the Netherlands as a nation-state, and the inhabitants of the Netherlands. For instance, it says that ten million 'Dutch' live in Canada and the United States, but then attributes the Netherlands GNP per capita and life expectancy to them. It excludes immigrants from the definition of Dutch (that is why the population of the Netherlands is given as 14 million), but lists their predominant religion explicitly as part of 'Dutch' religious adherence. It treats the Frisians in the text as a separate 'people', but includes them in the population statistics as Dutch.

The article also includes a collection of ethnic stereotypes, much of it from the The Xenophobe's Guide to the Dutch. Stereotypes do exist, but most of this collection is indiscriminate trivia.Paul111 12:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do partially agree; part of the POV comes from fierce debates previously recorded here.
 * The pre-1500 history may perhaps be a bit dubious, I would say reduce that to a twoliner as it is not really relevant (Germanic and Frank tribes inhabited North Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. These tribes would be the ancestors of the Dutch people) or similar.
 * The Anne-Frank Spinoza case is among the most fiercely debated cases on this page. In common culture both are seen as Dutch, however one editor has been demanding a link to Dutch as racial ethnic group for both or remove them; while another definitely wanted to mention them. The footnote is not nice (I agree) but was at that time the compromise that ended an edit-war.
 * The Dutch-Flanders issue. I disagree with your conclusion, although some editing may remove the impression. The following is copied from the History text However the Dutch did not succeed in creating a country for all Dutch people. The Southern Netherlands stayed under Spanish rule and a split gradually occurred between the Dutch people there and the ones in the North. The people in the South became known as the Flemish, although the Dutch and Flemish people are still very similar, such as in appearance, language and origins they are often treated as a closely related but different ethnic group. (Note that in the 16th century the 17 provinces were one entity - with the Antwerp, Ghent and Bruges people probably closer to the Breda, Den Bosch people compared to e.g. the Guelders and Frisians). This may need some more explanation in the text.
 * Your comment on the Dutch as nation state vs ethnic people is a good one, needs some serious editing.
 * The Dutch view on others is under debate at the moment (see above in this discussion). Your comment here does not add anything new.
 * In general I agree a lot of work has to be done; and a more neutral POV needs to be found. However I am pretty sure most of these were honest mistakes made by editors that are most familiar with historical and linguistic jargon/situations. I do not at all agree with your repeated accusation that a lot of the problems are caused by an extreme right-wing opinion. Arnoutf 13:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In general I agree a lot of work has to be done; and a more neutral POV needs to be found. However I am pretty sure most of these were honest mistakes made by editors that are most familiar with historical and linguistic jargon/situations. I do not at all agree with your repeated accusation that a lot of the problems are caused by an extreme right-wing opinion. Arnoutf 13:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There nothing "right wing" about calling the Dutch a Germanic people, not in the Netherlands or in Flanders. Everything can be considered "right wing" within certain contexts, this isn't right wing. The Dutch decend from Germanic tribes, mainly the Franks. The Dutch language for example is first attested in a Frankish law text and is classified as a Low Frankish language, the highest percentage of "ethnic Franks" could be found in the Low Countries (though for a long time only below the Rhine).

Anne Frank and Spinozas case is explained in the footnotes. The number of Dutch people in other countries, especially in the New World are based on the number of people that report Dutch ancestries. Rex 14:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is simply no evidence that the Dutch descend from Germanic tribes, or the Franks in particular. This is the problem with the article, it treats as fact mythological assertions, which circulate among Dutch nationalists and Flemish nationalists (for decades). There are no sources to back up this kind of mythology, let alone Frankish statistics on ethnicity.Paul111 20:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with Paul111 on this in part. That is there is absolutelly no way to verify that

the highest percentage of "ethnic Franks" could be found in the Low Countries (though for a long time only below the Rhine) as Rex pretends. Also it should be obvious that not all of the Low Countries is Dutch (as this area includes territory from the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and France (possibly Germany too, but I'm not sure of that). And obviously ethnic origins are almost impossible to trace (and attempting to serves no purpouse, at least no positive one). On the other hand, the population of what is now the Netherlands obviously has/had a base population of Germanic origins and they still speak Germanic languages and/or dialects. Like any European (or most if not all continental) population the modern population has obvious mixed origins.--Caranorn 21:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous, of course the Dutch are a Germanic people. I'd be the last to say there aren't other influences (such as a celtic one) but the Dutch, like the English, Danish are mainly of Germanic herritage. I don't like your choice of words Caranorn, as I rarely "pretend". The Low countries are currently the Benelux, historically they also included parts of Northern France, around Dunkirk. As for Paul111, I don't like your choice of words either. What I claim here is not mythology, I'm not some nazi mysticist so I'd like you to stop insinuating otherwise. Rex 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest an RfC on the issue? I'm sure it should be helpful.

My own opinion is that the claim that "Dutch descend from..." is in itself totally pretentious and lacking seriousness. Nobody should dispute that Dutch are a Germanic people as the do speak a Germanic language (several?) but language is not evidence of genetic ancestry, those are separate matters.

Today is obvious that not just Germanic tribes but their very undefined IE antecessors mixed with the peoples they found locally. Corded Ware IEs mixed with Scandinavian pre-IEs, specially in Denmark (that was quite densely populated before their arrival) and, with all likehood, Germanic invaders that moved southwards mixed with the locals. Some areas of the Netherlands have long history of human dwelling (specially the Rhin basin) that dates even to the Paleolithic when Scandinavia was still a block of ice altogether). Neither Scandinavians nor Germans nor Dutch show an homogeneous genetic picture that could describe a unique origin (check these maps for instance).

I'd rather rephrase it mentioning that the Netherlands has been inhabited since Paleolithic and Neolithic times, and that, later a number of peoples have left their mark: Celts, Germanics (including Franks and Germans proper) and Jews being maybe the most important ones. --Sugaar 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I like your last suggestion "Inhabited since"; and would copy it almost like that into the artilce. I am not so sure about the jews though; Spinoza's parents and Anne Franks' parents both moved to the Netherlands as part of the intelectual elite on the run for prosecution (for inquisition in Portugal / Nzai Germany). I am not so sure whether the Jewish community as a whole (perhaps with the exception of Amsterdam) has really been that influential (some examples excepted).
 * Also I like your suggested RfC. This page has been the playground of some very stubborn editors with fixed (sometimes opposed) POV's. I am sure the RfC will bring these problems to the attention of an audience that is more neutral and emotionally less involved in the issues. So yes please to RfC. Arnoutf 08:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Re Jews you may well be right. I just had some "old" genetic map in mind where the Netherlands looked with somewhat more relevant on J haplotype (possibly of Jewish origin) than other countries. But this may well vary depending on the "accidents" of the sample. It's not significant anyhow (though on the other hand the Netherlands and Britain were indeed refuge for many Jews fleeing from persecution and they did have some historical impact in culture and economy too).
 * Whatever the case about this rather minor issue, I'm glad that you found my opinion useful. Regards. --Sugaar 08:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On the note of Jews. There were indeed notable populations in the general area during the middle ages. How they were treated and how they evolved I don't know (one of the faults of local, Luxembourgish history, we tend to learn more about France, Spain or Germany then the Low Countries), though I believe in Cologne for instance there were some serious incidents (Pogroms). In any case, those poppulations would have been largely centered on the cities, yet another indicator that rich Holland would have had noticeable populations. But in the end I can't provide any historic sources for a significant genetic input and do somewhat doubt such.--Caranorn 13:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch are a Germanic people, wether you can prove this (or another "origin") with genetics isn't relevant to me because I think most Europeans decend from Indo-Europeans anyway. In this way Germanic is more of a cultural rather than genetical term which I do believe is meant here.Rex 15:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletions from the article
These deletions are needed in the interest of accuracy and neutrality:


 * claims that there are Germanic peoples in modern Europe. Germanic is a linguistic term, Germanic peoples are pre-mediaeval historic groups.
 * claims that the Dutch people are a Germanic people.
 * claims of special affiliation to other Germanic peoples.
 * history of the Dutch people before circa 1500. No 'Dutch' ethnic group before the 15th century, and no reliable source uses this terminology. Treat as History of the Netherlands, which also covers material on Flanders.
 * Afrikaans-speaking population listed as ethnic Dutch
 * claims that Frankish is Dutch, no reliable linguistic source
 * claims that the Franks changed their name and called themselves Dutch, no source for this pseudohistory
 * claims that Flemish cities are 'Dutch'
 * claims that a single Dutch ethnic group existed around 1550 in both Flanders and the present Netherlands, and claims that this single group was partitioned in 1648
 * unqualified claims that a Flemish people or Flemish nation exists (controversial, neutrality issue)
 * unqualified claims that the Flemish people are part of the Dutch people
 * claims that the entire population of the Low Countries, and of modern Belgium, are ethnically Dutch.Paul111 12:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Above is not necessarily true; Although listed as facts these delections are clearly a personal point of view; not supported by any sources, or even minor consensus. Discuss first before starting this, because starting these deletions without agreement may easily provoke an edit war. Arnoutf 12:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try and be a contructive rather than an accusative editor. It helps. As for your points: Rex 12:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) There are Germanic peoples in Northern Europe, just as much as there are Celtic, Slavic and "Latin" groups/peoples in Europe. You think of Germanic people as the barbarians who lived at the edges of the Roman Empire. Germanic has a much broader, mostly/almost completely cultural and linguistic meaning.
 * 2) As above.
 * 3) As above.
 * 4) You need to adjust your image of an ethnic group. Its about people indetifying, the Dutch language predates 1500 ... by far that alone can constituate an ethnic group (not that Im claiming the Dutch have been a clear entity since 470).
 * 5) The Afrikaners are largely comprised of people of Dutch ancestry, there are 16 million Afrikaans speakers they are not all of Dutch origin but a large number is.
 * I strongly suggest you stop reverting until you bring something substantial to this talkpage paul111.Rex 12:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The references in the recent edits by Paul111 are as weak as any on this page. This is especially disappointing from someone attacking this page (partially) on the weakness of its sourcing. Please provide high quality scientific (ie not internet, or hearsay or anecdotes but published by a respected scientific publishing house or in a reviewed scientific journal) for each controversial edit. Arnoutf 12:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia deletion policy
Since it is an issue here, a reminder that sources are not required for deletions, sources are required to insert or maintain material. The guidelines are quite clear on this. I realise that almost everything on Wikipedia is unsourced, and I am not advocating mass deletion. However, in the case of the controversial nationalist material in this arricle, the omus is on those who want it in the article, to provide sources for it: for claims that the Franks are Dutch, for instance, or that a single Dutch people lived in all of the Low Countries in 1550. This is simply a question of providing a reliable historical source: those who want those claims in the article must provide such sources.

Paul111 12:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The same guideline also implies a less agressive approach may be preferable as not to upset editors. Since you started your comments on this page (only 3 days ago) I have been slightly upset by your (Paull111) attitude, not as much with your contentwise comments (which are in general reasonable, although often already being discussed above) but by your bulldozer mentality, just coming in starting to put up aggressive tags (without decent discussion first) and deletion lists everywhere; even before trying to find out whether some less aggressive approach may have resolved most issues first. Arnoutf 13:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is necessary to to rigourously delete material, becaue the article includes much material which is not only pseudohistorical, but clearly originates from right-wing sources. The version of the Dutch people which is presented in parts of the article is can be found primarily on Dutch-languge white nationalist websites and other nationalist websites. It is true that it once was intellectually respectable, in the 1930's, but at present it is a fringe view which does not belong as fact in an online encyclopedia.Paul111 13:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is in no way any kind of response to above issue; about trying to discuss, being polite and to get a general idea what is going on in an article before starting an aggressive round of edits.
 * You say that deletion is necessary because of lack of source, now you say that it is necessary because it is from right-wing sources: That is just a plain contradiction. For the right-wing claim, the burden of evidence lies on you (e.g. provide commentaries that state that the use of Germanic peoples as a larger group of Europeans is right-wing). By the way, if you would have read the related discussion you would have found that Germanic is the non-value loaded replacement of the 1930's (now irrespectable because extreme right wing use) use of larger German people. There is just no other phrase for the larger population group in N-W Europe. Furthermore I seriously doubt whether your undisclosed white nationalist websites would list both Anne Frank and Spinoa as Dutch contribution to world culture. Arnoutf 14:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I too would strongly urge you to calm down, drop the accusations and be constructive rather than disruptive. Up until now you've done nothing but shout claims on "bias and false information" and spammed this talk pages with your own unsupported views. This is not how wikipedia works.Rex 16:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources are not required for comments on the talk pages. Sources are required for the article and its contents, and for the claims made in it. Ethnic Germanic (Germaans) is not a neutral term, it is a politically loaded designation associated with the nationalist far right in the Netherlands and Flanders. For that reason, it would be difficult to find any reliable source for this description of populations in North-West Europe, although Germanic languages is a standard term in linguistics. The position is simple: the editors who want the article to state that the Dutch people are a 'Germanic ethnic group' should provide a reliable source for that claim, and the same goes for the other disputed claims.Paul111 13:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The only problem there is, is with the (now) removed opening sentence "they are generally seen as Germanic people". You say above that due to political reasons you see no phrase for the larger N-W European population (as you do not accept Germanic). Would the phrase "they are closely related to other North-Western European population groups such as the Germans, and the Scandinavian people" be sufficiently neutral pov (this is imho just a rephrasing of Germanic with more words but if you can agree I have no problem with that). For the rest Germanic is only mentioned twice on the page. Once in the history section and the Franks were Germanic. And once at languages and Dutch is a Germanic Language. So it is truly a non-issue and I think politely raising the issue of the contamination of the term (as I said above, the mistake was probably just that, wrong jargon, as I know several of the editors here from linguistic and history articles), and suggesting rephrasing without wild (unfounded) accusations of right wing sympathies would have contained all this. Arnoutf 13:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it has been explained to him on various talk pages what "Germanic" means and especially what it means in this context. If he thinks of "Germanic" as something solely part of Neo Nazis then that's his problem, not ours. Rex 13:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeline
I think the time is overly detailed. We are not interested in the History of the Netherlands, only of these bits of importance for the emergence of the current Dutch people. I would suggest to change it to the following

For the history of the region before the Dutch Revolt, see History of the Netherlands and Low Countries. *1300, Flanders is one of the most urbanised regions in Europe, with the cities of Ghent, Bruges and Ypres. Irrelevant for the Dutch peoples *1517, Lutheranism makes it way into the Low Countries, starting in the South. Irrelevant for the Dutch peoples *1568, the Battle of Oosterweel, the official start of the Dutch revolt. Level of detail to high for this article (in relation to previous line) *1584, start of the Dutch Golden Age. relevance? *1702, end of the Dutch Golden Age. relevance? *1789, start of the French Revolution. immediate relevance in relation to next few lines? *1795-1806, establishment of the Batavian Republic with French assistance. End of the Dutch Republic. immediate relevance in relation to next few lines?
 * Ancient times, several tribes (Belgae, Batavii) and partial Roman occupation.
 * At the end of the Migration Period the Frisians, Saxons and Franks inhabit the Low Countries.
 * 843, the Treaty of Verdun is signed. The Carolingian Empire, is divided into three kingdoms among the three surviving sons of Louis the Pious; Charlemagne's grandsons. The Low Countries become a part of Middle Francia, the realm of Emperor Lothair I.
 * 962, the Holy Roman Empire is established with the coronation of Otto the Great. Most of the Low Countries states/fiefs are a part of this multi-ethnic empire. With the decreased central powers the low countries drift apart and form semi-independent fiefdoms.
 * 1384, The dukes of Burgundy started to unite the Low Countries (until 1473)
 * 1549, the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549, issued by Charles V, established the Low Countries as the Seventeen Provinces (or Spanish Netherlands in its broad sense) as an entity separate from the Holy Roman Empire and from France.
 * 1566, iconoclasm. A wave of destruction aimed at the Catholic Church sweeps through the Low Countries. Unofficial start of the Dutch Revolt against Habsburg Spain.
 * app. 1580, de facto independence of the Northern Low Countries. Becoming arguably he first republic and nation state of modern Europe. (The Dutch republic). De facto establishment of the Southern Netherlands as an independent entity.
 * 1585, Fall of Antwerp to the Spanish. Flemish intellectuals start to migrate to the Northern Netherlands.
 * 1630, slow development of the worldwide Dutch Empire.
 * 1648, Peace of Westphalia, the end of the Eighty Years' War. Offical geopolitical division of the Dutch and the Flemish, the Dutch-speaking inhabitants of modern Belgium.
 * 1806, the Netherlands become part of the French Empire.
 * 1813, the Netherlands become an independant state once more.
 * 1815, In an effort to reunite the seventeen province the United Kingdom of the Netherlands is proclaimed.
 * 1830, Belgian revolution. The Southern provinces secede; de facto restoring the situation from before 1806.
 * 1839, The independence of Belgium is acknowledged.

And I think we should also do something about more recent developments, that resulted in the Dutch multiethnic society... Arnoutf 14:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1949, The independence of former colony Indonesia is acknowledge. Dutch Indonesians migrate to the Netherlands
 * 1950's-1970's During the blooming Economy large number of immigrants came to the Netherlands, first from Italy later predominantly from Turkey and Marocco. This same period saw the start of emigration of Dutch farmers, looking for larger pastures to especially Canada and Australia.
 * 1975, Independence of Surinam. Dutch Surinams move to the Netherlands

New introduction
Hi Paul, I can see what you want with the introduction, but am not very happy with the current one as it is rather vague: I would like to propose the following edits (the between bracket controversial issue statement is a POV and should go):
 * The Dutch people (Dutch language het Nederlandse volk) is an ethnic and national group which forms the majority of the population in the Netherlands. The term is normally applied to those resident in the Netherlands, but exactly who is included varies according to the context and intention. (National identity, and the issue of who belongs to the Dutch people, are controversial issues in the Netherlands). Outside the Netherlands, the English-language exonym Dutch also refers to an ethnic group descended from emigrants from the present territory of the Netherlands. The corresonding endonym "Nederlanders" is used in the Netherlands itself as a synonym for het Nederlandse volk. The Dutch language names are derived from Nederlanden, "low lands", now also used in the singular Nederland as the short version of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 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".
 * The Dutch people (Dutch language Nederlanders) is an ethnic and national group which forms the majority of the population of the Netherlands . Exactly who is included varies according to the context and intention, mainly whether referring to the ethnic or the national group. The ethnic Dutch group is closely related to other north-western European ehtnic groups, especially the Germans and the Scandinavian peoples. Outside the Netherlands, the English-language exonym Dutch also refers to an ethnic group descended from emigrants from the present territory of the Netherlands. The corresponding endonym "Nederlanders" however, is generally used differently in the Netherlands referring to the national group, which is used for the residents of the Netherlands with the Dutch nationality. The Kingdom of the Netherlands includes several semi-independent Caribbean islands, whose inhabitant have the Dutch nationality but consist of an ethnically distinct population. They are sometimes included in the term "Nederlanders".Arnoutf 15:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Allochtoon - Autochtoon
I am not sure this is useful as the official definition states that you are autochtoon if both your parent were born in the Netherlands (2nd generation issue). However, this also implies that if your children are born during our holidy (or your foreign temp-job); your grandchildren will be allochtoon (ie not both their parent were born in the Nl). I seriously doubt whehter we should go into these murky waters; of official definitions..... Arnoutf 15:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Antilles are not semi-independent, and the term Nederlander is not used in non-official use to mean those with Dutch nationality (a legal term). I added more on the issue of immigrants. The issue is controversial, see Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders. It is indeed murky, but then Wikipedia is supposed to explain things.Paul111 15:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok bad translation of status aparte voor Antilles. About Nederlander - that is indeed tricky. We could distinguish between legal (all those with Dutch nationality); official political doctrine autochtoon-allochtoon (2nd generation issues); popular use (which I am afraid may remind of right-wing sympathies; so perhaps we should not, but then again the Fortuyn wilders stuff....) I think the last is most important but at the same time most controversial. I think the introduction should not be overly long. Arnoutf 15:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As introductions are that high-profile I will propose my changes here rather than implementing straigth away.
 * The Dutch people (Dutch language het Nederlandse volk) is an ethnic and national group which forms the majority of the population in the Netherlands (13 million in 2006) . The Dutch are related to other peoples in North-Western Europe, such as the Belgian, the Germans and the Scandinavian peoples. The term can have several complementary meanings. Legally the Dutch people are all those who have the Dutch nationality. Mostly when speaking about the Dutch people, it is applied to the residents of the Netherlands. The Kingdom of the Netherlands includes Caribbean islands with an ethnically distinct population, who may or may not be included in the term "Nederlanders". In practical use, however, national identity, and the issue of who belongs to the Dutch people, are controversial issues in the Netherlands. The term allochtoon is used to refer to immigrants and their descendants, who although resident of the Netherlands, and sometimes having the Dutch nationality are not considered part of the Dutch people by some. Officially the term allochtoon is used for any resident of the Netherlands one of whose parents was not born in the Netherlands. This means that officially third generation immigrants are 'autochtone' (the antonym of allochtone) Dutch. However, whether 'allochtones' and their descendents are treated as part of the Dutch people depends largely on who is speaking. Outside the Netherlands, the English-language exonym Dutch also refers to ethnic groups descended from emigrants from the present territory of the Netherlands.

Arnoutf 16:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say that I do not like this new intro. This article is on the Dutch as an ethnic group not as a group of people with the same nationality. I think a section explaining the differences is fine, but not in the intro. Rex 18:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough that's why I put it here first, although what exactly an ethnic group is is also object of debate. I think this ~much of text can be used in a first section though.Arnoutf 20:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to keep the intro short and clear. Complicated explanations and various definitions need a separate section. (don't get me wrong though, I really appreciate your efforts) Rex 21:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How about this:

While putting the rest in an explanatory section. Arnoutf 21:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Dutch people (Dutch language het Nederlandse volk) is an ethnic and national group which forms the majority of the population in the Netherlands (13 million in 2006) . The Dutch are related to other peoples in North-Western Europe, such as the Belgian, the Germans and the Scandinavian peoples. The term can have several complementary meanings dependant on context of use..

Hmm how about:


 * The Dutch (Dutch language Nederlanders, meaning "Low Landers") are an ethnic group who form the majority of the population of the Netherlands (13 million in 2006) . Depending on definition (See below) the number of Dutch people today can range from 13M to (13+ "people of D ancestry).

Or something like that.


 * Mmmm, the meaning lowlanders does not seem essential to put up here as the Nederland is already in brackets. Your second sentence does not give any information above the first I would rather go there for something like: "The term can have different meanings dependant on context of use.". The introduction should also not be too short. Arnoutf 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm ... Rex 21:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Dutch (Dutch language Nederlanders, meaning "Low Landers") are an ethnic group who form the majority of the population of the Netherlands (13 million in 2006) . The term can have different meanings depending on context, the number of Dutch people today for example can range from 13M to (13+ "people of D ancestry) depending on context and definition.


 * I can live with that if you get rid of abbreviation style (13M, 13+ etc.). Arnoutf 22:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I just used those because I didnt want to look up the numbers ;-) Rex 22:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dutch image worldwide
The text implies that the phrases are all insults. They are not. This should be copyedited. Arnoutf 15:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Or we remove the ones that arent offensive ... Rex 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's one of the options, the other being that the phrase Dutch is not necessarily offensive in English. But anyway, that was more or less what I meant with my remark. Arnoutf 20:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaners not Dutch
The claim that Afrikaners are part of the Dutch people is inaccurate, they do not self-identity in this way, and the Dutch in the Netherlands do not see them in this way either. (The table includes Afrikaners as a separate related group, and yet lists them under the population total as Dutch, this is contradictory.) Unless a reliable source is provided - even for a significant group which claims that they form a single ethnic group - then the claim and the population figure should be removed.Paul111 11:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You claim this but you do not source it. Your edits are all unreferenced what's with that?Rex 14:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless a source is provided for the claim that Afrikaners are part of the Dutch people, then it should be removed. The onus for providing a source lies with the editor who inserts or retains the information. Sources are not required for comments at the talk page, sources are required for the article, to ensure verifiability.Paul111 10:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch are not a part of the Dutch (read the article) it mentions they are related and that the majority of the Afrikaners have Dutch ancestry and therefore can be seen the same way as Dutch-Americans.Rex 13:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Flemish not Dutch
Again there is no general self-identification as Dutch in Flanders and no description as such in the Netherlands. The small minority that thinks this way should be identified as a small minority, and their claims not presented as fact.Paul111 11:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To both your above claims I agree, although histroically related we are now not one group. I think my recent edits to the timeline (eg addition 1795 as separation S-A and the Seventeen province splits) reflect this issue. I think that by listing it this way in the timeline, and removing too strict claims otherwise from the text we show both the relation (which I think you will agree is there to a certain level) and the separation (which is also clearly present). However, some references for your recent additions on the main article (esp. the Flemish and Afrikaner sections) would be very helpful. Arnoutf 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What's meant by "Dutch" in those section is "Dutch + Flemish". A very nice and normal Fleming told me he doesn't really associate himself with "Hollanders" but he does with "Nederlanders". Also... see the source mention 2 or 3 sections below this one. Btw, your BIAS in claiming that "grootnederland"-supporters are a part of minority right wing parties is incorect. Respected people from parties like D66 (J.Terlouw) support it. Also, I believe that VB also support this and arent they one of the major parties in Belgium?! Rex 14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vlaams Belang advocates independence for Flanders. Dutch politicians do not advocate a Greater Netherlands, if they wanted to speak about the subject they would use a neutral term like 'union of Flanders and the Netherlands' and not the politically loaded term Greater Netherlands, let alone 'Dietsland' which is associated with national-socialism, see Verdinaso. The list of politicians at the the end of the Dietsland article, who are claimed to support the idea, is pure invention.Paul111 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Says who? You. You have absolutely no sources to back up what you've just claimed. Groot Nederlandisten are not right wingist as you'd like them to be portrayed.Rex 19:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No source was given for these claims in a footnote: ''The leaders of the Dutch revolt for example considered it their objective to form a state in which all "Dutch people" were united and free. Officials during the Belgian revolution used the term "(Zuid) Nederlanders" to describe the Dutch people living below the Rhine.'' Source indicates that a source is given, further explanation in a foornote may be appropriate at times, but does not in itself constitute a source.Paul111 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that would mainly be the Oranges (William, Maurice and Frederick Henry), as the regents in (especially Amsterdam) did not seem to want the welath flowing back towards Flanders. I am sure such reference can be provided easily (think it is not a very essential part of this article to include though as this wish had no effect on the status quo.)Arnoutf 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the source. Rex 20:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A source has still not been given for the claim that "leaders of the Dutch revolt considered it their objective to form a state in which all "Dutch people" were united and free". That seems extremely unlikely language for the 16th century.Paul111 11:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As I read it Rex reference covers both claims (is this the case Rex?). And I see no quotation marks in Rex' text; so apparently the phrase "united and free" is not a literal quoatation of the 16th century language. This may be a conclusion drawn in the book cited by Rex, and we have to trust Rex to have adequately used his source here. So really you do not have apoint there Paul. Arnoutf 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * When reviewing this issue I noticed you removed the book provided by Rex without any discussion. Please do not do that again; you ask for references, you get in this case a respectable one (Bloms'history of the Netherlands is a serious book), so at least have the decency not to remove it on your own initiative. Arnoutf 11:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The book was not in the version I edited, although I looked to see if a source was named. That may be a browser cache problem.Paul111 11:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, it disappeared during your last few edits, so I thought it was intentionally deleted; apparaently not, so no problem there. I put it back in. Arnoutf 12:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference added says that the leaders of the Dutch revolt considered it their objective to form a state in which all "Dutch people" were united and free. The source is given as De Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden, (J.C.H. Blom and E. Lamberts. Published by HBuitgevers, 2001), However, I can not find this claim in the relevant chapter, although I used another edition. Please supply a page reference to enable verification.Paul111 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But of course, It's the "3rde herziende druk 2003". Chapter 4 (De twisten van het twaalfjarig bestand (1609-1625)). In my version there's a line here that says that the leaders considered it an, and I quote, "obligation to free our Southern countrymen from the cursed Spaniards". Rex 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Euhm I think the quote is a bit overdoing it it does not change the point, only now it is not your own text but a literal quote. Worse however is that there is now another unsourced pov in the line, namely that A Th. Leersum is authorative. Is (s)he? Why doens't (s)he have a Wiki article? Why can't I find this person on Google with the string Leersum-Historian or Leersum-Historicus? In that light I think the current version is even more biased than before. Arnoutf 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the previous version just said "A Th Leersum", what does that tell us ... anyway "authorative" might be a bit overdone will "Dutch historian" work for you?Rex 21:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is accptable, although I would prefer not to use the literal quote (as I said above), but as that may be the only way to prevent an edit-war. PS You might want to consider formatting your source according to: Template:Cite book, and give it a name using  this waywe can reuse the reference on the page, and will have a consitent formatting of books (but this is just a suggestion) Arnoutf 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also prefer adapt this quotation to make it a normal part of the section but given the current climate (Just look at how Paul111 almost completly changed it meaning) I suggest we discuss "how" to do that on this talk page here before we implement it. Rex 21:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say, leave it up for now. Once the current storm of content revisions is over we can start polishing style issues like this. Arnoutf 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the current situation is totally unconstructive (and it's spreading to other articles as well).Rex 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dutch people are a national group
The usage of het Nederlandse volk in the Netherlands is to identify the national group, for which the Netherlnds forms the national homeland. Certainly it is also used to indicate an ethnic group, but in the interests of accuracy the relationship to the nation-state should be indicated. Legal nationality is a different category, yet the terminology overlaps. Nederlander can mean an ethnic Dutch person, or an immigrant from China who was naturalised. The article should state both meanings, and I included the nationality problem in the section ''Who is Dutch?".Paul111 11:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This section is on the Dutch as an ethnic group, what you're aiming at should be discussed at the Demographics of the Netherlands article.Rex 14:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the Dutch people. Since that is the English translation of het Nederlandse volk it is proper to include that in the article. The neutrality of the article would be compromised by giving the impression that the Dutch are not a national group. If they are not, then which nation inhabits the Netherlands nation-state?Paul111 18:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 This article is, and always has been about the Dutch as an ETHNIC GROUP, hence the line above the introduction. People with the Dutch nationality are dealt with at "Demographics of the Netherlands". Rex 18:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the Dutch people. Nationality in the legal sense does not necessarily correspond to the national group or self-identification with it. The distinctions should be explained here.Paul111 19:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes they should be explained, not hijack the article.Rex 19:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Dutch people before the Dutch state?
Claims that a Dutch people existed as an ethnic or national group before about 1500 are historically dubious, and should be provided with a reliable source. The fact that people spoke Old West Low Franconian does not make them ethnic Dutch, or make their states and territories Dutch, even if you call it Old Dutch. The modern idea of the Dutch is linked to the emergence of the Dutch Republic, in other words a parallel origin of state, nation, and ethnic group. Projecting it backwards beyond about 1500 is an anachronism.Paul111 11:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ghum, I don't think (seeing your latest edits to this article) you should demand sources and references from others as you're not providing them yourself either.
 * I mentioned the states as "Dutch speaking". The Dutch language is 1500 years old, this means there have been people for 1500 years who've spoken (more or less) the same language; this natuarally creates a bond. One of my, very reputable, history books for example (DGvdNL) mentions the Germanic tribes ariving, then the developement of Dutch and then uses the term "Nederlanders" (though it makes clear this refers to the Dutch speaking inhabitants of "de Nederlanden). Rex 14:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Moments like these I wish we had timemachines. We could send you back in time and let you test this notion. How you can assume the language of 962 even remotely resembled what we (or in this case you as I don't claim to speak Dutch) speak today is beyond me. Yes, modern Dutch certainly is descended from the languages of that time, but so are a number of other frankonian languages and dialects. There definitely was no Dutch identity at that time.--Caranorn 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be better if you'd stop dreaming about time machines and started reading books. It's not called Old Dutch for nothing you know. Old Dutch 450/500-1150 it's that clear. Those states spoke Dutch of course not contemporary Dutch but Dutch nonetheless. Rex 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

States do not speak languages. The fact that part of the population spoke Old Dutch does not make them Dutch states. 'Old Dutch' is by definition a later name, it was not Old at the time, and it was not Dutch in the modern sense, which is presumably why the more neutral term Old West Low Franconian is used. A source has still not been given for the claims that a Dutch people existed before 1500.Paul111 19:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * God, hence "Dutch speaking" (read!) it's not about how they called it at the time. It's Old Dutch and the source you asked for has been given: De Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden.

Rex 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Further removals
I propose to remove or heavily qualify the following items:

Afrikaners listed as Dutch: they are Afrikaners, see talk. The table even says they are a "related" group, so they can not be the same as the Dutch.

25 million Dutch: unsourced. Totals in the table don't add to 25 million.

34 million Dutch: unsourced and improbable.

"Generally, the term "Dutch" refers to all people who inhabit the Netherlands and have the Dutch nationality." Many people think otherwise, see Allochtoon.

"Until the late 19th century the Flemish and Dutch were regarded as being a single people." No source despite several requests.

"The area inhabited by the "Dutch people" historically did not coincide with the boundaries of the current country of the Netherlands": implies Dutch people preceded Dutch state, for which no source was given despite request

"various Germanic tribes invaded what is now Western Europe": dubious old-fashioned version of what happened

long footnote on Frankish history: belongs in article on the Franks.

"The Dutch were an economical and military superpower" : an ethnic group is not a superpower

"Until 1830, the Dutch and Flemings (who live in Northern Belgium) were generally considered as one single people": no source

popular sports: no source that these are ethnic-specific

Category:Germanic peoples. No source for the claim that Dutch are Germanic.Paul111 20:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You may want to consider rephrasing a few rather than just removing. With regard to your last line; the category includes a fair number of modern ethnic groups (besides many ancient ones). Among those modern groups are the Frisians,Flemish,Danish,Swedes,Norwegians,English and Germans. I think you should get all of these groups out of this category at the same time as you get the Dutch out, because if there is one group of ethnicities the Dutch belong to, these are bound to be the other members; so I would go a bit carefully there. Arnoutf 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I object to all. Seriously paul111, I think you're purposely blinding yourself. Sources have been provided, you seem to be the one unable to provide them actually, probably too busy with starting new section headers for the same stories ...
 * Afrikaners fall under the same category as for example Dutch-Americans.
 * Self explanatory:P simply math.
 * Self explanatory: simple math.
 * This article is about the Dutch ethnic group, for other use (I repeat again and again ...) see Demographics of the Netherlands.
 * Again, sources lie within the history of the Dutch languagw which predates the Dutch state by almost 1000 years.
 * Various Germanic tribes did invade/were invited, there's no doubt about that.
 * Footnote is an explanation of the accompagnying map and is not "long".
 * The time when the Dutch republic was a superpower had great influence on the devepment of the Dutch people and in fact the entire Low Countries.
 * They were considered one people. Source is given.
 * Those are the popular sports and they simple give an image of what the Dutch play.
 * The Dutch are a Germanic people, if only culturally.End of discussion.


 * ps, I'm getting really agitated by your wikipedia-style, you are claiming the article is unreference but add large new unreferenced sections with a clear bias yourself and yet continue to demand what needs to go ... I smell revisionism.

Rex 20:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The article needs substantial revision, because it contained a large number of innaccurate and biased claims. Some of these have to do with edit wars in the past, and some simply represent a political line. In particular the idea that the Dutch and Flemish constitute a single 'people' is a minority view, held largely by supporters of a Greater Netherlands political entity.Paul111 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You just read what you want to read. This article makes it VERY clear who supports what and which group forms the majority. Again you shout that the article is inaccurate and biased, while you yourself constantly add bias and unsourced claims. Stop it.Rex 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Category Germanic peoples
As suggested above, I have removed the modern nations from this category. In some cases, the modern name also applies to the appropriate period, (Icelanders) so I left it in. Minor groups such as the Goralenvolk were left in, I don't know enough about the issues there.Paul111 20:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This behaviour is unacceptable. You just cut and slice your way into wikipedia and expect others to expect. Like I sais on your talkpage (below the civility warning) you might have your own personal definitions of words, scolars tend to agree, stop these kinds of changes. Discus for christs sake.Rex 21:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My suggestion was mainly to show that you are really pushing your opinion on Germanic people. But if your removals are accepted (which I doubt) perhaps that is the correct POV. I hope at least you have been polite enough to place an argument why you removed these modern nations on each of the relevant talk pages; and if consensus arises to restore them you will agree the Dutch should be added as well? Arnoutf 21:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Claims that for instance the English people are a "Germanic people" are false, and that's why such articles don't belong in the category "Germanic peoples". Apart from a minority of neo-fascists, no-one in England describes themselves as Germanic. Because of its misuse to promote a political agenda, I nominated the category for deletion, there are legitimate alternatives. During CFD discussion entries should not be removed, but I will (as you suggested) raise the issue at the other talk pages. Inclusion in a category needs to be verifiable like the rest of an article. The truth is that only neo-nazi and associated groups in Flanders and the Netherlands use the term Germanic (Germaans). The article could mention that, it is relevant information, but it should not be presented as accepted fact, or as part of the general Flemish or Dutch identity.Paul111 10:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again you are very quick to point at neo-nazi influences. However (although not compulsory on talk pages) you have so far not yet given any source of this opinion. If I would go about Wiki and say that the word "the" is only used by neo-nazi's and should therefore be removed from all articles; I am sure people would demand sources from me; while they (of course) cannot give scholarly sources that explcitily state that the word "the" is used outside that context. So please, try to be a bit more elaborate and constructive in your arguments as your proposals are very far-fetching. Arnoutf 10:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Spot on Arnout. Rex 13:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The category Germanic Peoples was nominated for deletion here. De conclusion after a discussion with a lot of input was that the category should be kept. I expect this decision is respected and concludes this dicussion here. Arnoutf 12:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Top of page intro
I propose to use a page intro similar to this one at English people:
 * This article is about the English as an ethnic group and nation. For information on the population of England, see demographics of England.

This will allow the Dutch people to be treated as both a national and ethnic group, without conflicting with the intro text. The English people article does this already: it opens "The English are an ethnic group or nation..."Paul111 21:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that would get far too confusing. I you want to create such an article I suggest a move;

Dutch people ↔ Dutch (Ethnic group) and the creation of Dutch (Nation) Rex 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rex, the English are an ethnic group and a nation; however not a country (that refers to the UK which includes e.g. Welsh and Scots). By the way, nation in this context raises more right-wing connotations. This is different for the Dutch as the Netherlands includes Frisia where Wales and Scotland are no part of England. Arnoutf 21:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually England (like Wales or Scotland) is undoubtedly a country not to be confused with a state. Nation is a matter of identity and unlike ethnic group extends to religious, linguistic and cultural ties. In the case of this article it should be about ethnicity, nationality and preferably also citizenship.--Caranorn 22:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops sorry, indeed state; my mistake. In the Netherlands the provinces like Holland, etc. are however neither nations nore countries. While the whole of the Netherlands is a country and a state Arnoutf 08:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing dispute at this article
I completed the initial changes to address the neutrality and accuracy issues, although there is still much disputable material in the article. If these changes are reverted, then there is clearly an editing dispute, and the next step is to use the procedures for resolving editing disputes. The background to this dispute is that the article was used to promote Greater Netherlands irredentism, especially the idea that the Flemish are part of the Dutch ethnic group. This is bad in itself, but it also meant that the article had almost nothing on the Netherlands national identity, a major political and social issue with implications for other EU states.Paul111 10:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again the unsourced/unargued right-wing nationalist allegation. Also you re-added the nation reference in the top line which has been debated and is (IMHO) the most right-wing nationalist thing ever to appear on this page, while it is absolutely not necessary to add. So I took that out again.
 * Another remark to Paul111, for someone who has been accusing others of POV's and unsourced arguments, your recent edits have given us remarkably few new high quality references and undeniable arguments, for future edits a more modest tone may prevent overreaction all around. Arnoutf 10:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this hypocrite behaviour must stop, you accuse us of being biased and not using references yet you yourself break your own rules constantly. Everything is explained in the article; in fact show me where it's said that Flemings are part of the Dutch.Rex 13:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

nation
Please check the article about the term nation, this is well defined. In this case it's also much easier to define the dutch as a nation (cultural, ethnic, linguistic, religious etc.) group then actual ethnicity which will always be disputed. As long as no separate article exists about the dutch nation and this article is not renamed into dutch ethnicity, both nation and ethnicity belong in this article.--Caranorn 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ok fair argument, I don't feel completely comfrotabel with the nationalism also discussed on the nation page, but I can see your point, I'll leave it in. Arnoutf 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this article is meant to deal with ethnicity, just because there isn't a Dutch Nation article doesn't mean it belongs in this article.Rex 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then, there now is a Dutch (Nation) article (well ... not yet, I'm sure you'll start it soon) so that problem seems to be solved. Dutch people is now a disamb. pointing to either the Demographics of the Netherlands as well as the Dutch ethnic group and Dutch as a Nation. Rex 16:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rex you are still confusing nationality and citizenship. This move was not a good idea.
 * To Arnoutf, I also dislike nationalism, but nation is a scientific term (used in geography, political science and history (those are the ones I'm aware of).
 * Now the question is what to do next.--Caranorn 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything. Nation, ethnicity and citzenship are 3 different matters. You complained that there was no separate article ... now there is, have fun editing it.Rex 17:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not complaining of there being no separate article (if I wanted one I could obviously have created one). Rather I was stating that the title dutch people was referring to both ethnicity and nation(ality). Accordingly it made (makes) no sense to leave out mention of a dutch national group in the article's introduction. That is as long as the article's title was such and no separate nation article existed. All you've done now is create an even bigger mess, and your "now there is, have fun editing it" seems to indicate your reasons, that is as a form of sabotage.--Caranorn 17:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, Caranorn ... let me quote you: "As long as no separate article exists about the dutch nation and this article is not renamed into dutch ethnicity, both nation and ethnicity belong in this article." To me this sounds like a complaint. In the quote you suggest the creation of separate articles then when someone answers your call you say it turns everything in an even greater mess and accuse me of sabotage (You're fortunate I'm moderate when it comes to personal attacks). You seem more than willing to add information on the Dutch nation here, so why does it become a problem when a more dedicated article is reserved?Rex 17:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For starters a lot of material will have to be deleted from the current article as it no longer deals with the notion of a dutch nation. That could of course then be integrated into the already mentioned new article. The question then is who has the material to write such an article from scratch, I certainly don't and never claimed I did. But as far as I can tell that's not the way to work on wikipedia anyhow, articles only get split when sufficient material exists to warrant said split, until then a single article should treat both related issues. Definitely splitting an article should not be decided by a single editor.
 * And yes, my accusation of sabotage was too harsh. I first had another word in mind but decided it was inappropriate, so I accidentally (or more likely a subconscious slip) replaced it by another inappropriate one. For that I do appologise, though I still don't feel your move was a good idea, and that's an understatement.--Caranorn 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The self-description of the Dutch nation is het Nederlandse volk, which translates back into English as 'the Dutch people'. If you ask Dutch people specifically which "ethnic group" is the majority in the Netherlnds, they will also answer; het Nederlandse volk. The term has both a national and an ethnic meaning, they can not be split, and that is the source of much controversy in the Netherlands, especially since it is related to immigration and Islam. (The immigration minister Rita Verdonk once famously said that Muslims and Dutch are two separate groups, she withdrew it later). Under the circumstances, splitting the article is not a good idea. If it must be split, then a separate article on Dutch national identity would be better, which would also cover the historical aspects (origin at the time of the Dutch revolt).Paul111 18:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt whether any serious (non right wing extremist) person ever uses Nederlandse Volk in day-to-day use. On your question I am pretty sure that the vast majority will say Nederlanders rather than het Nederlandse Volk. Arnoutf 18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Arnoutf. What you're doing is original research.Rex 14:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The term Nederlander can be used for a national or ethnic group. Avoiding Nederlandse volk (which is indeed more formal) will not resolve this issue. Again if you ask people "Are Nederlanders the majority ethnic group in the Netherlands?" they will say yes. But if you ask them "Are Nederlanders the nation which inhabits the Netherlands? they will also answer yes. There clearly is a nation in the Netherlnds, and if it is not the Dutch, then who is it?Paul111 13:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to rephrase in Dutch to prevent ambiguity. In the questions "Zijn Nederlanders de belangrijkste ethnische groep" en op de vraag "Zijn Nederlanders het volk dat in Nederland wonen" you will get yes. However your original question was "Welke ethnische groep vormen de meerderheid in Nederland" which is very different, ie; in the first two questions you pose a Yes-No question in which you yourself activate a certain construct (het Nederlandse volk in version 2)- here you measure whehter people interpret het Nederlandse volk as the majority ehtnic group if prompted to do so; in the second type of question you ask for an open answer (name the majority ethnic group). In such a type of question you measure whichever is the strongest association people have with majority ethnic group in the Netherlands. This is a very different question. So yes, I agree you will get yes answers on your first type of question, but no I do not think you will get Nederlandse Volk on your second type. Arnoutf 14:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert title change
I propose to revert the move by user Rex, to rename this article Dutch people, to reinsert the top-of-page text which identifies the Dutch as both an ethnic group and a nation, and to delete administratively the disambiguation page for 'Dutch people'. Please indicate Agree or Disagree below.Paul111 13:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree--Caranorn 13:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No way. This article is and always was about the ethnic group. This article whill fall to chaos when you and your (imaginative) political correctness come in. I've always said this article was about the ethnic group, and for the nation you needed to go to the demographics of the Netherlands. I don't mind a name revert (Dutch people) but the article will deal with the ethnic group, not the nation.Rex 14:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say I am not completely happy with the name change myself. Howver I propose to have a look how the other peoples articles cope with this. If the consensus over all articles seams to be ethnic group should be added, then I go with Rex, otherwise I would say, change it back (sorry no time to do the field work right now) Arnoutf 14:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Question to Caranorn: You said, "Nation" and "Ethnic group" are different subjects, then why the objection to separate articeles? Rex 15:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I already explained, you usually don't split an article before the necessary material is available and someone has volunteered to actually complete the split. All you did was change the article's title, create a new disambiguation with the old title and leave all the original material in the newly named one. In the case of ethnicity and nationality (not to be confused with citizenship), both can be easily treated in a single article (and that doesn't concern only the dutch, the same applies to most modern ethnic groups) as it's a closely related topic. By the way, from your 14:13 contribution to this discussion I wonder whether you don't still confuse citizenship (or statehood) and nationality (in common speech similar to identical, in scientific use quite different).--Caranorn 16:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I left the "original" information as it covered the "original" goal of the article. It has already been shown (by paul111) that treating them both in the same article is impossible, hence 2 different articles. See where all this twisting and turning gets you? Disarray. I don't know if you've got some hidden agenda, it would seem so, but really, stop leading this article into further chaos. If nation, ethnicity and citizenship are 3 different matters in scientific use then they should be split in 3 different articles how could you even argue with that?Rex 16:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the article has now been included in a standard form for ethnic groups, the revert has become difficult. Aseparate article on the national identity, and the question of who is Dutch, seems a good idea.Paul111 18:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all very simple
The Old Situation: |                                                  |       Dutch people                        Demographics of the Netherlands |                                                                    |                                                                     |                                                           (Effectively treating:) |            Dutch (Ethnic group)

As said by Caranorn, demographics, ethicity and nationhood are 3 different matters; hence the current situation:

Dutch people (disambiguation page) |                                             |                 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _               |                             |                             |                |                             |                             |     Dutch (Ethnic group)              Dutch (Nation)       Demographics of the Netherlands

Would qualify as being the best solution.

In my view, a country's demographics and "nation" are far more related than "ethnic group" and "nation". Hence this would be another possibilty

Dutch people (disambiguation page) |                                             |                 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _              |                                                         |                |                                                         |     Dutch (Ethnic group)                                   Demographics of the Netherlands +                                                                  Dutch (Nation)

This however this (BELOW), is not acceptable. Eventhough I know that "Dutch people" has different meanings in both English and Dutch I'm conviced that in the light of all this the name of the article should be changed, not it's content.

Dutch people (disambiguation page) |                                             |                 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _              |                                                         |                |                                                         |     Dutch (Ethnic group)                                   Demographics of the Netherlands +       Dutch (Nation) Rex 15:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote History section
I rewrote this section to concentrate on what was related to ethnic and national identity. I combined the timeline and text, a timeline is not necessary here (belongs in history articles). Flemish group identity now refers to the explanation, in the History section. Text which confused the Dutch people with the Dutch Republic was edited - this is a problem with similar articles, an ethnic group does not have a navy or a GNP, states do.Paul111 12:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I could not trance some of your claims back to the source you provided, hence I either removed or relavated them. Also, you seem to like to believe that the "Netherlands are Protestant" and that "Flanders is Catholic", don't forget that in the Netherlands Catholism is the dominant religion today, and has always been the dominant religion in North Brabant, Zeeuws Vlaanderen and Limburg, all bordering modern day Flanders.Rex 14:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not very much convinced by this re-writing; some of the neutral information in the timeline (especially years) is less clear and now by style alone a POV emerges for which a lot of sources are lacking. I disagree with Rex however, yes Catholoic is largest, but Protestantism has been dominant in the actual running of the country; almost approaching an official state religion in the 1800 and early 1900's (e.g. Kuipers, but also Balkenende, and of course the Queen...). Arnoutf 16:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I of course know that, I meant that Paul111 makes/wants to make it seem as if Protestantism begins 20km above Antwerp. Rex 16:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I added Hainaut and Luxembourg to the fiefs listed in the history. The reason is that the current list appears pretty arbitrary as Hainaut for instance could at times rival Flanders or Brabant, the same certainly applies to Luxembourg. I'd also tend to add Limburg (but the county/duchy was itself small and it was mostly the family (extending to Luxembourg, Berg and Marck at least) that wielded substantial power). Then there's Liege, though in the end it became a playball between the other powers. Lastly Cologne, while outside the Low Countries themselves (by modern definition at least) which was also a major player (one of the sucessors of old Lower Lotharingia). In the end I limited my addition to Hainaut and Luxembourg. I also gave those fiefs alpabetic order to avoid giving a single one precedence (which would be hard to justifiy historically).--Caranorn 17:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed Hainaut, as it was too average, (not very weak, not very powerful) and especially later on was dominated by Flanders and Brabant. I left in Luxemburg, but barely and I mainly did this because of the imperial connection and John the Blind. Limburg should not be included as it was a weak state and for example around 1300 only comprised of Maastricht and its direct surroundings.Rex 18:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By 1300 Limburg had essentially ceased to exist (after Worringen 1288 after which the duchy proper merged with Brabant), it's period of strength was from the late 12th century (Limburg, Arlon, Monschau-Valkenburg, Berg, Marck, Luxembourg, Laroche, Durbuy...) to about 1282, but of course that was mostly dynastic power rather then the power of the duchy itself. As to Hainaut, it's power once again waned when their counts regained control of Flanders... later then the wars between d'Avesnes and Dampierre (in which Hainaut barely managed to survive), after that I believe it didn't play a role anymore (I haven't looked into the relationship Holland-Hainaut yet as I obviously approach the matter from a slightly different perspective (more related to available sources then interest)). Luxembourg was pretty strong for 3-4 generations before John the Blind (the first can be seen as part of Limburg's period of strength), under "Ermesinde", Henry V, Henry VI and Henry VII (father of John the Blind). With John the powerbase moved east and accordingly one could consider the dukes after Baldwin (John's brother or uncle? would have to look that up) weak in comparison to the other fiefs of the Low Countries. Of the three I named (Limburg, Luxembourg and Hainaut) Luxembourg indeed remained an important factor in the region (one could even date it's strength back to Henry IV of Namur) for roughly two centuries (nothing compared to Flanders obviously).
 * In short, I won't object greatly to the removal of Hainaut, in a way, measuring power by the fief's alone rather then dynastic influence is not adequate in any case.--Caranorn 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting and possibly helpful event
The "Iranian peoples" article was recently (today) featured on the Main page, this article deals with an ethnic group. Maybe we should take a good look at that particular article and use it to improve this one.Rex 14:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice idea, I see some practical problems, mainly as the Iranian people article avoids a lot of the more difficult issues by talking about a group of ethnic groups. That does not seem a good idea for the Dutch..... (Would that be Hollandic, Sealandic, Brabant, Flemish, Limburgin, Guelders, Frisian up to 1800 and afterwards only Flemish, Duthc Frisian.) I think not a fruitful direction to even think about.Arnoutf 16:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that would be a "wespennest".But I think it would be nice/interesting to venture into the historical meanings of the term ... (as opposed to the +1990 meaning Paul111 seems to prefer) but we need to establish definitions first as well as make it very clear that "Dutch" (Nederland - Nederlanders) in Dutch has a different (Nederlanden - Nederlanders) meaning and that Flemings, are not a split of a larger Dutch group but that both are modern versions of a larger historical group which just so happend to be called Dutch as well ...Rex 16:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Information on the Dutch ethnic group
According to the Dutch wikipedia and "Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities":

"In Nederland wonen twee erkende bevolkingsgroepen. Naast de Nederlanders zijn sinds 2005 de Friezen erkend als nationale minderheid"

Situated in the Netherlands are 2 acknowledged ethnic groups. Aside from the Dutch, the Frisians were given the status of a national minority.

And according to the same page I found this table:

From which can be concluded that there are approximatly 13/12 million ethnic Dutch in the Netherlands. Rex 14:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Problem is whether that makes the Frisians a recognised ethnic or national group. By the above wording I'd expect national.--Caranorn 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Bevolkingsgroep is close to both, I'd say the Frisians are recognised as a National group while the figures represent the 2 ethnic groups.Rex 18:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No 'Dutch people' before the Dutch Revolt
The idea that a single ethnic group inhabited the Spanish Netherlands is untenable. Calling it 'Dutch' makes things worse, because it implies the present Dutch culture is the successor to a unified "Dutch" culture around 1500. But again, the onus is on the editor who wants this in the article, to provide a source for the claim that a single ethnic group inhabited the Spanish Netherlands.Paul111 10:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody is syaing that a single ethnic group inhabited the Spanish Netherlands; rather a related cluster of Germanic groups. However you cannot deny that the ancestors of the current Dutch lived in the area from about 500 onwards. Anyway if taking your point to the full, there is no German people before 1871 (and no German people between 1945-1990). No American people prior to 1775, no Iranian Peoples prior to 1980. That is just plain ridiculous. Arnoutf 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty tired of this revisonistic attitude of yours Paul111. What you're essentially saying (and claiming in the article) is that the Dutch ethnic group "suddenly" formed on August 10 1566. Ridiculous.

This constant replacing of (according to you) unsourced information by your own (IMHO even more unsourced) information has got to stop.

I and Arnoutf have reached concensus a long time ago on what we use to indentify an "ethnic group" and I quote:
 * An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. Recognition by others as a separate ethnic group, and a specific name for the group, also contribute to defining it. Ethnic groups are also usually united by certain common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices and traits. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community. (Smith, 1986)

With this we can conclude the following things:
 * Presumed genealogy/ancestry: Yes, Germanic. (major, not single)
 * Recognition by others: Yes (modern), but also in the past, for example the French word Thiois (which I think in Modern Walloon still means "Flemming/Dutch-speaking person")
 * specific name for the group: Yes, Dutch (as in Dutch "diets/duuts", not "nederlanders")
 * Linguistic/cultural connection: Yes The Dutch language (first recorded in 470), the landscape, Christians, etc.

Let it be clear that I'm not claiming there has been a totally separate Dutch ethnic group since 470AD. It is hard to determine when the Germanic people started to feel Franks, Goths or Saxons. It's hard to determine when the Saxons and the Angles started feeling English or Scottish or when the Franks started feeling Dutch, but it definately happened far before the Dutch revolt. Rex 15:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you give more information about that quote you just provided? Smith is a rather common name, and the quote clearly contradicts the usual definition of ethnicity and is in fact pretty close to the definition of nation. The only basis for ethnicity is descent, or perceived descent. Religion and culture certainly play no role, language makes identification easier, but is not a necessary part.
 * Never heard of a french word Thiois. Maybe you misspelled it? In any case, the modern french term for dutch is néerlandais, for the country it's Pays Bas. And yes I understand this could be old french, still odd that I've never heard about it or anything resembling it.
 * Now back to Arnoutf, German People are documented well before the creation of a modern German state, I don't think anyone disputes that. American People is an entirely inappropriate term for an encyclopedic article, in my opinion it should be forwarded to American or America instead of the current Demographics of the United States. As to Iranian Peoples that's a much more complex topic, in a sense it doesn't even belong into a single article, though the current one doesn't seem too bad, certainly no one claims that there is a single Iranian ethnicity.--Caranorn 15:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because you are unaware of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, get over yourself. The full source name is Smith, MFEMFEM D. 1987. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell.Rex 16:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The inhabitants of the Spanish Netherlands did not have a common language (they spoke Low Saxon, French, Dutch and Frisian). They did not have a common ethnic ancestry (it varied geographically). They did not have a single name for themselves as a people which coincided with the territory. Of course there were cultural similarities and ties betwen Holland and Flanders. But that equally applies to Nijmegen and the lower Rhineland, or Oldenzaal and Münster, and the article does not call the Dutch "Germans". The problem is that history is being selectively used here, to promote a Greater Netherlands ideology, in which the Dutch and Flemish form a single ethnic group. The article mentions it twice, and that is enough, given its lack of support. On sources: I did not write, in the article, that there were no Dutch people before the Dutch revolt. The editors who want the article to say that a single Dutch ethnic group or nation inhabited the entire Spanish Netherlands around 1550, should provide the sources for that. Note that this is an old academic controversy (Geyl / Pirenne) with political overtones, see Belgian nationalism.Paul111 18:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just looked the French term Thiois up. It does indeed exist as Rex said. Only it refers to anyone speaking a German dialect (obviously extended to dutch which is now no longer seen as such). Particular uses seem to be in Waloon for flemish, in French for alsacian or mosel-frankonian. The origin according to the french wikipedia is a simple transformation of the term Deutsch (or rather teutsch). Interestingly it seems to be a word regularly used by parts of the extreme right to promote the notion of a Greater Netherlands (which would seem like a contradiction to the above definitions), which might also explain why I'd never heard the term (it's neither used in scientific literature nor in any of the groups I'm associated with).--Caranorn 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To Caranorn, my examples were mainly to show that overly correct historic use of names leads nowhere; not to say that the Dutch article applies. Then again, I maintain my point that prior to 1584 there was already a relation between the ethnic groups that should not be neglected, my only alternative being something like Until 1584 the current Netherlands were empty and barren and see suddenly there were the Dutch. But again I do not want to claim there was a single ethnic group in early history. I just challenge the critics to come up with an ethnic group pre1500 that is still in existence today. I think the first Dutch unity and independence as a state larger then e.g. Frisia and Holland does not trace back before the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549, perhaps that should be taken as the birthdate of the merger of the different groups into the current Dutch people. To Paul111, please stop extreme rightwing allegations that is not an argument and kills off each and any fair discussion and is getting close to slander. So far you have not given a single argument to support those claims. Arnoutf 21:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that French wikipedia article looks kind of like a mess, the Dutch wikipedia article on Diets mentions "thiois" as Gallo-Roman/French counterpart of the Dutch term "waal" (originally "stranger") and that its probably an altaration of Dutch "dietsch". Some further research has told me that it still means Dutchophone or Flemming in most Walloon dialects.Rex 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I myself would place the clear emergin of a Dutch ethnic group around 920, this is the time when Old Dutch literature really kicks in, and it's a period of stability in Europe (with the Vikings defeated in the Low Countries) and especially in the Netherlands. In the South the cities (like antwerp,ghent and bruges) are becoming the economical heart of Europe and this also meant great cultural developement. It's also the start of something which was critical in the development of the Dutch, the early "removal" of nobility thanks to the powers of cities. Rex 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Arnoutf, my mention of extreme right was in reference to a number of links I found on google (via french portal) for the term Thiois. As you might notice I hadn't talked about the extreme right in this context previously.
 * Rex, there seem to be different meanings for Thiois in different communities, clearly it seems to be used (and have been used) in Lorraine and other parts of France to refer to speakers of frankonian dialects (Alsacian, Francique and Luxembourgish). And it's not just the french wikipedia (which indeed only has a small, rather poor stub) that derivates the term thiois from teutsch, theodisc (spelling?) or tedesco. Some even seem to use the term for anyone in the Low Countries, particularly referring those from historically multi-lingual areas (like Luxembourg, Brabant or Flanders).--Caranorn 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rex regarding your latest post, what do you mean by early "removal" of nobility thanks to the powers of cities? As far as I can tell from more recent historic writings the nobility indeed was weakened by the rise of cities, but definitely not removed. Much of this seems to be a myth (as for instance the battles of Worringen or Courtray, where depending on previous authors' POV the battles were either decided by the bourgeois alone, by peasants alone, or by the nobility alone, totally disregarding the others' influence. In some areas the growth of cities didn't even weaken the nobility (or at least not the upper-nobility) and the creation of cities should not always be seen as a sign of the emancipation of the burghers and weakening of noble power.--Caranorn 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes appartently:
 * Thiois is de vertaling in het Waals of welsch van het woord Diets/Duutsj. Het woord is archaïsch en beperkt tot regionaal gebruik. Voor de Walen zijn Thiois Vlamingen of Nederlandstaligen in het geheel. In Frankrijk bedoelt men met de term Thiois daarentegen het Elzassisch en de dialecten van de Moezel.

Translation: ''Thios is a Walloon translation of the word Diets/Duuts. The word is archaic and limited to regional use. For the Walloons thiois refers to Flemmings or Dutchophones as a whole. In France however thiois refers to the German dialects of the Elzass and Moselle region.'' Rex 21:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In the Low Countries, the nobility (practically everything below the HLR emperor) was "neutralised" early on. The Dutch counts, dukes and lords were greedy and sold a lot of "rights" to cities and settlements. However they underestimated the strenght of these cities and very soon afterwards (1250/1300) the cities were the most powerful. This situation was very different from lets say Germany, where the nobility continued to play a very dominant role up untill the second world war.Rex 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Bit POV in style but reasonably true especially in Holland, Sticht (Utrecht) and Flanders. Also see city rights in the Netherlands. Not unique for the Low Countries but a clear difference with the German states. Although this trend seems to have largely passed Guelders. Arnoutf 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't generalize the situation in "Germany", many cities did indeed revolt successfully and particularly the lower nobility (Lords and lower) lost power (I just recently read a book claiming some 70 castles destroyed by town militias (including city patricians and nobles as well as allies and mercenaries) in Germany during the 14th and 15th century. On the other hand many nobles managed to increase their power by allying with the cities or by providing aid (cavalry and leadership). But I'll end this discussion here, if needed we can continue at city rights in the Netherlands (and possibly improve that a bit).--Caranorn 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(My first talk page comment ;-) ) eh, I think paul111 needs to stop implementing his own bias and unsourced statements. This is an article not a platform for political views who you obviously have. I think you'd be worth more protesting against vlaams belang on the streets rather than fighting ghosts here.213.125.116.112 12:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I requested a citation for the claim that a "Dutch people" existed before the Dutch revolt. Despite all the discussion, no-one has quoted one yet. The geographical location is not clear either, i.e. what area did this claimed Dutch people inhabit?Paul111 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe I already mentioned that Blom among other starts speaking about "Nederlanders" from about the start of the Holy Roman Empire. As for the area occupied by these people ... I'd probably say the area of the Old Dutch (till 1150) language. (See map there) Rex 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me where in the article pre-1550s claims are made about a specific Dutch people. There are none, there is just a historical account of peoples living in the (approximate) area that is now the Netherlands. Even if I would go and find your reference I would have no idea where to stick it into the text. Arnoutf 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, where exactly are these claims paul111?I agree with the anonymous IP, you're fighting ghosts, and by doing so you implement your own bias.Rex 20:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the name 'Dutch people' for the inhabitants of the Spanish Netherlands, and changed the sentence to The boundaries of the current nation-state of the Netherlands do not coincide with pre-existing ethnic, cultural, or linguistic boundaries, such as the range of Middle Dutch, Old Dutch, or modern Dutch. That is a more accurate and neutral version. A language is not a people, and the range of a language does not prove a single ethnic group lived in that area. If Blom or any other historical work says that the Dutch were an ethnic group or a nation, before the Dutch Revolt, then put that in the article, with a reference.Paul111 10:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I see little to no differences in that wording. Like arnoutf already said, the article never states (as opposed to your own unreferenced claims) that the Dutch people emerge out of the blue. It remains vague, as the emergence of a Dutch ethnic group loose from the common Germanic (tribal) groups wasn't a single event.Rex 12:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch nation, and ethnic group, did not emerge from 'Germanic tribal groups' but during and from the Dutch Revolt. I modified the section again, to note that the Dutch Revolt did not begin in a pre-existing 'Dutch' territory.Paul111 18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As you say it above it implies there were no humans living in the Netherlands (perhaps the forests rebelled) and during that non-human rebellion the Dutch emerged. Euhmmm seems nonsensical to me Arnoutf 20:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, nonsensical. I suggest you buy an Enbglish dictionary and look up "Germanic" because this crazy conspiracy trash has got to go Paul111.Rex 20:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If there was a Dutch people living in the Spanish Netherlands before the Dutch Revolt, then please provide a reliable source for that. A source has now been requested repeatedly, and yet none has been provided.Paul111 12:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We already did that, but people like you only see and hear what they want to.Rex 12:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Map of religions
The map needs to be improved, so I removed it temporarily. It incorrectly showed the south of Zeeland as Catholic, and omitted Catholic concentrations in the west.Paul111 12:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I know Zeeuws Vlaanderen has been Catholic; furhtermore I think the Catholic concentrations west (I guess your are referring to small communities such as Volendam) are too small to depict on the map. I go with you that it has to be imporved as is not clear at what moment in time this geographic division occurred. A source (e.g. historic atlas, or old CBS report) would be a good addition to conclude this discussion. Arnoutf 12:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The map is based on the most dominant religion. If a region was 70% protestant and 30% catholic, it will be green rather than red.Rex 12:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The map gives no sources. I'd recommend you add those to the file. Until that time it would be fair to remove the file from the article or propose it for deletion from the commons. Dates would also be appropriate (I assume it's late 1940's or early 1950's).--Caranorn 12:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Done.Rex 14:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please also add the date it refers to? In the meantime I corrected the link related to the image, hope you don't mind.--Caranorn 14:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Done as well.Rex 14:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Caranorn 15:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, minor suggestion, perhaps you can remove the Noordoostpolder and the Flevopolder from the map (or make them grey to indicate no religion) as these were water in 1899. However if you keep it as it is I have no major problems as these regions are clearly protestant Arnoutf 16:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, Flevoland is now light grey.Rex 14:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Message to Paul111
Stop removing referenced information. The facts for a larger "Dutch" grouping has long been provided. The information you added is incorrect. For example, before and During the Dutch revolt "Flemmings" refered to people of that province, not present day Flanders. Also, if you accuse me, or arnoutf, of some hidden right extremist agenda once more, wether directly or indirectly I will drag you to wikipedia No personal attacks. I've been patient enough with you. Rex 12:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction, Flanders still is a province today, or rather two provinces (east and west Flanders). In medieval times it obviously was a marquisat or county (the title marquis fell into disuse in France for several centuries which is why Flanders' status was forgotten for a while). What you term present day Flanders is I assume the dutch-speaking community of Belgium which extends across a number of provinces.
 * Concerning your statement about personal attacks I must say I'm rather surprised. Do you apply different measures for yourself then other people? You repeatedly accused a registered user as well as an annon of various crimes... Personally I feel you are probably misguided but I would not directly connect you to the extreme right. I don't think Paul111 has accused you of such either.--Caranorn 12:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You think wrong yet again. I never make, or have made personal attacks. I must say though you've got a lot of guts trying to lecture others while you yourself support people like user:Ulritz (and you call me misguided).Rex 13:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I explained multiple times before I found no major problems with Ulritz' edits, except obviously for the edit waring, but then it takes two for those games. Seen outside context his edits might have seemed odd even dangerous, in context they were perfectly acceptable.--Caranorn 14:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose people like him will always have some supporters or people who are oblivious to their actions and see only good intentions in them.Rex 14:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let keep a civil tone all around. I have not personally been accused of anything by Paul111 (I dislike his unfounded random allegations). Anyway I suggest to end this chapter of discussion sooner rather than later to prevent personal remarks. Arnoutf 16:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No source has been provided for the claim that a Dutch people existed before the Dutch Revolt. The name 'Dutch Revolt' was applied later to events which affected the whole of the Spanish Netherlands, so it is a source of confusion. The only information in the footnote is this:


 * 'The modern day Flemmings and Dutchophones of Northern France and the modern Southern Netherlands (North Brabant,Limburg), for example were part of the larger Dutch grouping before, during and after the Dutch revolt yet they never all lived within the boundaries of the present-day Dutch state or the historical Dutch Republic.''

Modern groups were clearly not present around 1550. No source is given for the claim in the footnote that a "Dutch grouping" existed before the Dutch Revolt, or that Flemings and Dutch-speakers in "northern France" belonged to it. (The French border around 1550 was further south anyway). Since no source is given for the claim that a Dutch grouping existed, it can not serve as a source for the claim in the text that a "Dutch people" existed before the Dutch Revolt. "Source" means an external, reliable, source, not simply repeating a dubious claim in a footnote. If it is as simple as the user claims, then why is it so difficult to find a source? Perhaps because in reality, historians no longer accept the idea that a "Dutch people" existed around 1550, and that this unit simply demanded their independence from Spain. That would be an anachronism - a typical 19th-century nationalist revolt in the mid-16th century. The Dutch Revolt was a more complex, late-mediaeval affair. It ended with a Dutch people in a Dutch state, but it did not start that way. It certainly did not start with a united Dutch people, all the way from Lille to Groningen.Paul111 12:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 *  I am getting so tired of this behaviour paul111. I have explained several times to you already that I did present a source. In fact, it is you who does not present sources for your own views (No Dutch existed before the Dutch Revolt) stop this ridiculous and hypocritical behaviour now.
 * Rex 14:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, the (again) changed section does not seem to fit the following historical account at all, I have taken the liberty to change it fairly drastically, to make it an introduction rather then an orphaned remark. And yes Paul111, the source is given for the low-countries => 17 provinces grouping; which definitely was before the dutch revolt.
 * By the way Paul111, perhaps you may have noted that the Map sourcing issue was resolved in a polite and efficient manner because everybody (besides you) cooperated and nobody started out with removing stuff and undoing edits. Arnoutf 14:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The 17 Provinces certainly existed before the Dutch Revolt, a "Dutch people" did not. So long as that distinction is preserved, there is no problem. The present text on this issue is perfectly acceptable.Paul111 11:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We did provide proof, and concluded that indeed were Dutch people before the Dutch revolt. YOU on the other hand have provided nothing besides your opinion.Where are YOUR sources?Rex 13:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

buffer state between France and Prussia?
I removed mention of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands as a buffer state between France and Prussia. For one, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (technically not a part of the United Netherlands) belonged to the German federation and had a Prussian garrison. As such there was no buffer between Prussia and France. Secondly if anything the purpose of the creation of a relatively strong state in this area was to protect Britain's interests in the area (from invasion but also economic). Had it been up to Prussia, much more land would have been added to the German Federation. I also somewhat rephrased the entire sentence adding mention of the victory of 1814 (after which the United Netherlands essentially appeared) and again in 1815 after the Hundred Days.--Caranorn 15:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It was indeed the English who promoted the creation of a medium size power which was too samll to be a threat to them, but a sufficiently strong partner to control Prussian or French aspirations. In that sense it was definitely meant as a buffer state, although I doubt whether the wording is sufficiently NPOV, so feel free to rephrase. Arnoutf 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think it makes more sense to see the United Netherlands as a British ally in case of a conflict with either France or Prussia (essentially what happened in 1815). The United Netherlands would also have served to protect Hanover from French attack, yet another one of Britain's interests. But that's just my vision of Britain's strategic interests at the time. My main objection to the original phrase was based on some documents I'd read a few years ago concerning Prussian attempts to gain control of a greater area in the region, rather then just the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and its fortress.
 * I will see whether I can find a better way to describe the situation in a short sentence rather then saying semi-buffer state which sounds odd. Until then I'll leave the article as it is now.--Caranorn 16:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Moves
Alright, as no one seems to be planning to make a Dutch (Nation) article, I'm going to do the following:

Dutch people will redirect to this article, which will still be called Dutch (ethnic group) as English usually uses "the Dutch" and not "Dutch people", especially when refering to what's described in this article and it will at the same time be more fair to the inhabitants of the Netherlands who aren't of Dutch decent (but who are Dutch people nevertheless as they have the Dutch nationality). If someone starts the Dutch (Nation) we will reimplent the current (but soon old) situation.Rex 21:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Appearance section
This might sound a bit nordist ... but what if we could find information on for example the appearance of the Dutch, like haircolour, height etc. Should we implement it? Rex 21:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mmmm, I doubt the relevance, any way those kind of very sensitive stuff should be sourced with refs at least as good and neutral as CBS. Arnoutf 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ... let's see what we can come up with, and then determine if it's relevant/interesting enough.Rex 21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

tot dusverre

 * Planet Internet article, originally a The Independent article. It says the Dutch have 43% brown, and 40% blonde hair and thus 17% other.Rex 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * CBS graph on Dutch height. The average is 180,3 for men and 167,4 for women.Rex 21:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Map on skin colour the Dutch have 1-12 on the Von Luschan scale.Rex 22:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The statistics quoted do not refer to the Dutch ethnic group. The hair colour figures do no come from the Independent, and refer to the entire population - De meest voorkomende haarkleur in Nederland. The CBS statistsics refer to the entire population, no to ethnic Dutch. The skin colour map says nothing about ethnic Dutch, and does not even show the Netherlands separately. It is not in dispute that ethnic Dutch are white, but detailed pseudo-descriptions do not belong here. The article ought to concentrate on more important issues, such as the ongoing debate on national and ethnic identity.Paul111 12:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I expect the figure given on hair to be part of the larger european test as refered to in the Independant article.Rex 13:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaners 35% Dutch?
Professor Heese does not say that 35,5% of the Afrikaners are of Dutch descent. He says that the "average Afrikaner" has 35% Dutch ancestors. That is not the same thing. Afrikaners self-identify as Afrikaners with Dutch ancestry, not as Dutch. They are not treated as Dutch in the Netherlands, but as Afrikaners. So there is no reason to include them under the population figures for the Dutch ethnic group, that is simply inaccurate.Paul111 11:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The average Afrikaner is said to have 35% Dutch ancestry, the "average afrikaner" is created by the total of Afrikaners :


 * 2 Afrikaners of Dutch heritage and 2 of French herritage make the ancestry for average Afrikaner 50% Dutch and 50% French.


 * Thus the figure given is correct.Rex 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt your logic Rex, once there where Dutch Boers. They mingled and now are about 1 third of the ancestry, but are not a separate ethnic sub-group (ie an average Afrikaner has about 35% Dutch genes (if something like that exist, but let's just assume for the sake of argument). This is something like to say that 4 generations back only about 80 years and it has been 200! (great-great-grantparents) 6 out of ten may have been (excuse the nasty phrase) full-blooded Dutch. So the g-g-gp were D-D-D-D-D-D-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X (D=Dutch x=non Dutch) Next generation is on average something like: DD DX DX DX DX XX XX XX (Great Grandparents). (So only 1 Dutch left). Then you have DDXX DDXX DXXX DXXX (Grandparents)- Parent are DDDDXXXX DDXXXXXX and you arrive at DDDDDDXXXXXXXXXX right now where this person has 6/16 (about 35%) Dutch ancestry, hardly a Dutch person though. Arnoutf 19:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If the average afrikaner has an average of 35% Dutch ancestry/genes/herritage then doesn't that mean of the totall number afrikaners 35% has at least partial Dutch herritage? Anyways, we shouldn't takes this ancestry thing too serious, ... we should keep it in a herritage sphere ... Dutch law doesn't recognise a 5th generation Dutch-American as Dutch citizens, I dare to say they aren't even considered autochtones. Afrikaners aren't any different from them, both are the decendants of Dutch colonists and hence they have Dutch ancestry ... Rex 19:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope that does not mean that; it means that some Afrikaners (far less than 35%) have a full Dutch heritage and a very large number have a bit of Dutch heritage some 80%, others 50%, others 30% and yet others only 5% (this together averages to 35% over the population). Indeed in 200 years (since Cape Colony became an English colony) we may assume that more than 5 generations have come and gone (take a generation at 25 yrs it would be at least 8). I thik we should adopt the above, they are no longer Dutch but have Dutch ancestry (similar to autochtone Dutch-Americans). Arnoutf 19:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well that's what I meant, I never considered them to ethnically Dutch, but rather of Dutch ancestry. But we can conclude then that the figures tell us, 35% of the Afrikaners have Dutch ancestry right?Rex 21:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, far more than 35% has Dutch ancestors if only a single one ever. What the numbers mean is that going back to the ancestors of all Afrikaners. Say the Afrikaners living today list 1 million (for the calculation only). These are from families (of course everyone is from a family) that in 1800 (the moment of division, numbered 100,000 people which all had the same numbers of offspring again calculation only), so the population grew a bit in 200 yrs (ten times in this example). Of those 100,000 ancestors 35,000 were Dutch (35%). How they mingled does not matter, just that of the original pool of people who now are the Afrikaners 35% were Dutch (at least that is what I understand). So it is possible that 35% are 100% Dutch heritage, and 65% without any Dutch roots (extreme case of isolationism); but it is also possible that 100% of the people have 35% Dutch ancestors (like the fictitious person in my example above - the extreme case of assimilation). The truth is undoubtetly somewhere in between; some people have more than 35% Dutch ancestors, some have fewer or none. Arnoutf 22:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I guess that means the reference isn't very good here. Still, if we agree that 1 single Dutch ancestor means that a person has Dutch herritage, what would be your estimate?Rex 22:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * somewhere between 35% and 100% ;-) But no kidding, making such an estimate would be original research. I think we can suffice to say that Dutch heritage has an important influence on the Afrikaners (after al 35% is important). Arnoutf 08:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well with these numbers, I think we should make an estimate. If we include Dutch Americans in the count, we surely can't ignore the Afrikaners.Rex 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the other way around it can be stated -> "35% of the ancesters of the Afrikaners were Dutch". For other claims we just need a different reference because estimating (however educated) is (at best) original research. Arnoutf 17:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

lederhosen?--Chain Impact 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC) sorry.--Chain Impact 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable behavior by
Although has always displayed a clearly pro-German bias, I will not allow that to scar this article. This article uses plenty of sources and your personal opinion doesn't equal them. According to the Dutch etymological dictionary, my version (the sourced and referened one) is correct. You claimed that, and I quote, "the other source does not refer to "dirty" or "grumpy" 4)". Well guess what? It does mention them! (That's what you get when you assume you can read Dutch) It says: "een knorrepot, onbeleefd, ongemanierd mens" (A grumpy, unpolite, uneducated person). Simply, but well, put: I am right and you are wrong, your bias will not prevail here. Rex 14:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your manner to "solve" problems requires a response:

1) I am not a nationalist (feel free to check my edits) but you have obviously a problem with critics in gerneral and with critics by German editors in particular (you should ask yourself why you so desparetely insist on the wording)

2) engelfriet.net is not a citable source

3) even if the side speaks of "dirty" and "grumpy", such wording does not corresponde with the tone and the standard of an encyclopaedia

4) puting into account the historic context of the 15th century, I doubt that the cited sources refer to "the Germans" in general as the idea of a German nation did not exist by this time (the German Reich was a religous conglomerate rather than a nation state at this time) and, therefore, it may be presumed that the citation refers rather to the direct neighbours of the Netherlands such as Emsländer or Rheinländer

5) last but not least, maybe a more prudent Dutch Wikipedian could be so kind to take a look at the cited source and give a statement - thx in advance ! (194.9.5.12 15:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC))


 * I was expecting a responds, hence my remark on your talk page. The source is there, is says what is being claimed, you have nothing to add but your personal opinion. This case is closed.
 * You're bluff (when you tried to make it seem as if you could actually read the source) failed you. I've learned that instead of endless arguments with people like you, I can simply look up a source and voila, my point stands. People like you can argue as long as they want, but it's pointless.Rex 15:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

your recent statement tells its own tale (194.9.5.10 15:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC))
 * Well be sure to read it as it's the only correct tale in this discussion.Rex 15:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your tone may serve as a good example for your approach to discuss with people. Instead of insulting me you should rather read what I wrote above (especially with regard to 2, 3 and 4) - merry christmas! (194.9.5.12 16:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC))
 * Instead of claiming I insulted you, you should look up some wikipedia policies and accept that your way is wrong. Merry christmas indeed.Rex 16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with 194.9.5.12, engelfriet.net (some family's website) is not a reputable source. Considering that Germanus sees stubbornness as a virtue and has the interacting skills of a wildebeest, you may be better off discussing this subject with a brick wall. Have fun! Dennnnis 17:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

, the source used is not Engelfriet, but the etymological dictionary, you'd have know that if you read my comments rather than just my name.Rex 17:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

There are three main issues with this article: inadequate referencing, weasel words/ethnic boosterism, and grammar errors. I did a bit of a copy-editing as I read the article over, but a native English speaker needs to go through it with a fine tooth comb. I also added several tags. Yes, the article has inline references, but every statistic, every description of attitudes, every historical fact needs citation. And statements such as "Although comparatively small in numbers, the Dutch have definitely made their mark on the world, as we know it today" contain several weasel words, to the point of having an unencyclopedic tone. I also believe that the first two sentences of the "History" section are extraneous. Finally, the one fair use image needs a rationale for its use. -Fsotrain09 04:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, the main editors of this article are all Dutch (speaking), this helps a lot. Rex 11:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul111
In the recent GA review, I noticed that only the sections created by paul111 received fact-tags. Ironic isn't this paul111. You must understand that I will attempt to rewrite those sections and provide references for them.Rex 11:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I put fact-tags in the sections that I gave the closest reading to. There is some need for more citation in the "History" section, for instance, even though I didn't tag statements there. I was not attempting to support one side over another in any edit-war or other content dispute. --Fsotrain09 15:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry you didn't. There's just this user, paul111, who keeps "replacing" "unsourced" information with his own stuff. The main editors often say his information is the unsourced stuff, and I think it's just great we're not the only ones ;-) You see, paul111 wrote those sections you tagged as well as much of the history section. Rex 22:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No gloating please. Although I have I have obviously disagreed with Paul111 (mainly on his blunt apporach) I think his whole operation DID result in a net improvement of the article, although I agree his own additions are not always up the standards of referencing he demands of others. But in general I agree this article is not yet up to good level standards; more because of quality rather than quantity of references. Also I would like a round of thorough proofreading by a native English speaker. Furthermore it has not been very stable lately, another reason not to make it a GA Arnoutf 11:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

New Picture.
I think we, well I, overdid it on the picture above the ethnic group. I came to the inclusion that there is no real way of measuring onces importance. So I went to look for alternatives with anonymous Dutch people. Recently (well 15 minutes ago) I came across a beautiful pictures of a group of Dutch folkdancers, and I think it's truly perfect. So I'm trying to get the licence fixed, so I'll keep you guys tuned.Rex 19:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well ... the old birds of the Dutch folklore group I contacted didn't knew of Wikipedia, let alone the public domain and refused to release the picture I saw ... BUT I've found something just as good: http://www.flickr.com/ and I've found a couple of nice photos ... in the public domain. Rex 13:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice picture Rex, I think it is definitely the Dutch, while getting rid of the confusing mosaic. Arnoutf 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dutch not a Germanic people
No source is given for the claim that the Dutch are the descendants of Germanic peoples, and the quoted Britannica article does not say they are, nor does it say that the descendants of Germanic peoples are themselves Germanic. In fact the Britannica article makes clear that 'Germanic peoples' is a term referring to a pre-modern period.Paul111 15:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The source is given. I'm getting really tired of this behavior of yours.Rex 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claims in intro
No evidence has been provided that Flemings are Dutch, despite several requests. No 'Dutch' ethnic groups lived in Northern France,a language is not an ethnic group (and no source was provided for this claim either). No evidence has been provided that Afrikaners are 'Dutch' either, see the discussion on their ancestry above. No Dutch ethnic group existed in the 12th century, and no source was provided for this claim either. No source has been provided for the claim that Burghers in Sri Lanka are Dutch - or for any of the other populations with partial Dutch descent listed in the table. The best thing to do is to list these groups separately, in the new section on the Dutch diaspora.Paul111 15:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where does it say the Flemish or Afrikaners are Dutch? Apart from that, I provided sources, where are your counter source for the "no Dutch before 1200" claim? It's always the same old story with you. Question though: You dont like the fact that the Flemish are describes an ethnic group, nor as a Germanic people nor as Dutch, then what are they? Rex 15:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Paul111
You've done it a couple of times now, and you keep being reverted, but I'd really like your source that says that the Dutch ethnic group suddenly emerges when the oath of abjuration is signed, which is what you're claiming.Rex 16:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sources are not required for the talk page, sources are required for the article. Despite requests, no source has been provided for the claim that a Dutch people existed prior to the Dutch Revolt. A compromise text was reached, but now new claims about a "Dutch' ethnic group (before that time) have been inserted in the article. The onus is on the editor who inserts new material to provide a source for the edits, otherwise they may be deleted.Paul111 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No now you're just making stuff up. I have provided sources, 2 different ones to be exact. You on the other hand keep changing it to a story in which Dutch people suddenly appear out of the blue at the start of the 80 years' war, and I ask you: where are your sources?Rex 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankish and Germanic kings
I removed this topic because it does not belong in this article. The Franks and other Germanic peoples are not the same as the present Dutch, and contributed no more to the later political system, than they did in present Germany or Belgium. And other factors were of more influence on the later state, such as the Trias politica.Paul111 16:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Learn to read before you remove. Where does it say the Franks or Germanic tribes were Dutch or are the same as the present Dutch? These kind of edits damage the article.Rex 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ps. Would mind answering the question in the above section?Rex 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of citation-needed tags
Citation-needed tags are intended to give editors time to provide sources. They are a substitute for deletion, and they should not be instantly removed. (The inconvenience caused by their removal affects those who wish to retain the material). Material added without sources may be deleted. That is unfortunately necessary in this specfic article, which attracts pseudo-historical nonsense.Paul111 16:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Before you indirectly call my edits nonsense, remember this: the continuous adding of cn taggs to referenced information is called vandalism.Rex 16:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy disputed
The accuracy of the article has been compromised by attempts to promote Greater Netherlands irredentism and to identify the Dutch, implicitly or explicitly, as a Germanic people, and as a continuation of the Franks. Almost no-one in the Netherlands self-identifies as "Germanic", and this self-identification is confined to a minority on the extreme right (examples can be found on the white nationalist forum Stormfront.org). Additionally the list of Dutch people includes an inflated and inconsistent list of ethnic groups with partial Dutch origins, which are not now regarded as ethnic Dutch in the Netherlands itself. The list falsely identifies Flemings and Afrikaners as "Dutch". The irredentist position is boosted by claims, explicit and implicit, that a single 'Dutch people' inhabited the Spanish Netherlands prior to the Dutch Revolt. This claim was always disputed among historians, and is no longer seen as credible. The article still suggests that substantial numbers of people support reunification of the Netherlands and Flanders, but its supporters are a tiny minority in the Netherlands, and a minority within the Flemish movement also.Paul111 12:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a repitition of moves Paul111. You state the article claims five things:

Trying to go to your fulmination as objectively as I can I see only one (minor) point where I even find the major problems you apparently encounter; the inclusion of the Afrikaners in the list. Are you sure you are referring to the same article as I am??? Have you read it at all, or do you just repeat previous critisism???? Arnoutf 14:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Promotion of Greater Netherlands
 * 2) Dutch are depicted as a Germanic people
 * 3) The Dutch are some kind of continuation of the Franks
 * 4) The list of Dutch people lists non Dutch groups
 * 5) Prior to the Dutch revolt the 17 Netherlands were one people
 * I find no evidence in the article for claim 1 (Greater Netherlands). The only sentence referring to that would be 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 Which actually contradicts your claim
 * At claim 2 (Germanic people). Again only a few lines related to this at all The Dutch mainly descend from various Germanic tribes, and are hence regarded to be a Germanic people. Historically the term "Dutch" could refer to many peoples, and in fact for a period referred to "all speakers of a West Germanic language on the European mainland" which seems a reasonable enough argument worded with sufficient care.
 * At claim 3 (Continuation of the Franks) The Franks are only mentioned in this part of the History section 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,[20] 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.. This is hardly a claim the Dutch directly descond from the Franks.
 * At claim 4 (The list) I guess you mean the infobox list. I agree, that maybe the Afrikaners should not be included. Note that the Flemish are explicitly EXcluded there.
 * At claim 5: (Flemish and Dutch were one people prior to revolt) The current history section sais this about that period:  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. 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 "thé Dutchman" across Europe, as he predominantly had become a "Hollander" rather than a "Fleming" as had previously been the case. In my opinion this part states that there was no Dutch people before the Dutch revolt, but only a group of fiefdoms with related peoples (ie Guelderian, Frisian etc.....).


 * I don't know (I fully agree with Arnoutf btw) where you spend most of your online time Paul111, but I can assure you that I don't visit stormfront.org, and I'm pretty sure Arnoutf doesn't visit the site either. Apart from that, this continious repeat of already solved, proven and referenced issues is tiring. I don't mind discussing matters with you but be sure to bring with you references that contradict the ones in the article and not just your personal opinion and present it as facts.Rex 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

New list of deletions from the article
To address the accuracy concerns, the following items should be deleted. Some of these points were previously deleted, and re-inserted.


 * The Dutch mainly descend from various Germanic tribes, and are hence regarded to be a Germanic people. Cited source, Encyclopædia Britannica article on Germanic peoples, does not say this. Dutch do no self-identity as 'Germanic', and most would probably find it objectionable.


 * Table listed Afrikaners, Frisians and Flemings (and unnamed others) as Germanic peoples. 'Germanic' currently refers only to languages, no source for definition of any cuttenrt ethnic groups as "Germanic'.


 * Term Dutch for a period referred to all speakers of a West Germanic language on the European mainland. No source and no indication which word is being referred to. (If it is Duitsch/Duytsch, that can not be translated with the modern English word Dutch).


 * The number of (ethnic) Dutch people today for example can range .... to 25,000,000. Reference note says This is when the people who report Dutch ancestry are added (for example Dutch Americans. However they are not seen as Dutch in the Netherlands.


 * or even 30,000,000 Reference note says This is when the Flemings are added Flemings are not Dutch, and the fact that a small minority sees them as Dutch, is not sufficient basis for a population total of 30 million.


 * The Dutch lived in...northern France. Speakers of Dutch are not equivalent to a Dutch ethnic or national group. No source for a single 'Dutch people' in the Spanish Netherlands.


 * some institutions see Fleming as an alternative term for Dutch. The cited source, the Joshua Project, is not a reliable source.


 * support for re-unification of Flanders and the Netherlands by approximately 40% of last years voters, the note says this is because 40% of the members of the Flemish parliament, elected by the Flemish, are part of Vlaams Belang, a party which supports the separation of Flanders and a possible reunification with the Netherlands. VB does not have 40% of the seats, did not get 40% of the votes, and does not support reunification.


 * Until the early 20th century, both the Flemish and the Dutch were generally grouped, and grouped themselves, under the denominator Dutch. No source for this, no time frame is given.


 * Dutch had a broader definition at the time - at most, that would apply to 1815-1830.


 * The Dutch have been emigrating from their original homeland since medieval times. There were no Dutch in mediaeval times. Geographical terms are accurate here, such as 'emigration from the Low Countries'. No source for term 'Dutch'.


 * The first big wave of Dutch immigrants to leave the Low Countries came from present day Northern Belgium...They arrived in Brandenburg in 1157 Then they were not Dutch, and they were not Belgian either, since neither entity existed in 1157. No source.


 * in the 12th century, large numbers of Dutch farmers migrated to The Wash in Britain, the delta of the Gironde in France, around Bremen, Hamburg and western North Rhine-Westphalia. Again only a geographical term is accurate, there were no Dutch in the 12th century. No source.Paul111 12:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC) (Item added).Paul111 11:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC) (Add item) Paul111 11:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let it be clear that Paul111 here, has removed loads of REFERENCED information because it did not form a concensus with HIS OWN UNREFERENCED VIEW. Every remark you've made above here has NO REFERENCES. You Paul111 are the one who's making up his own definitions, not us. Let it be clear that you will be reverted, untill you learn that on wikipedia referenced information is more valuable that your opinion. "It's wrong because I say so" doesn't work here.Rex 12:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to Paul111
 * The Dutch mainly descend from various Germanic tribes.... Britannicae states "Germanic people those who speak a Germanic language (Dutch is)' And then lists the whole history of the Germanic tribes including the Frisii. In my opinion the line in the introduction is a fair summary, especially if you read the caveats in the history section.


 * Table listed Afrikaners, Frisians and Flemings (and unnamed others) as Germanic peoples., this is strictly a semantic discussion and since you request to delete the Germanic peoples category including those tribes was denied by the CfD debate you just have to accept that the consensus is aginast you here


 * Term Dutch for a period referred to all speakers of a West Germanic language on the European mainland. No source and no indication which word is being referred to. (If it is Duitsch/Duytsch, that can not be translated with the modern English word Dutch). I am not familiar enough with linguistics to say anything about it, belongs more in Dutch language anyway, but may shed light on Deutsch-Dutch confusion in English. Anyway, what POV is made with this statement; remember your remark was about Greater Dutch Sympathy POV....


 * The number of (ethnic) Dutch people today for example can range .... to 25,000,000. Reference note says This is when the people who report Dutch ancestry are added (for example Dutch Americans. However they are not seen as Dutch in the Netherlands. Whoever is seen as Dutch in the Netherlands does not really matter as this is ENGLISH wiki. Anyway; I already stated above that I can see some merit in your remark on this issue above.


 * or even 30,000,000 Reference note says This is when the Flemings are added Flemings are not Dutch, and the fact that a small minority sees them as Dutch, is not sufficient basis for a population total of 30 million. As I said, I already stated you may have a point for discussion here


 * some institutions see Fleming as an alternative term for Dutch. The cited source, the Joshua Project, is not a reliable source. Well at least Joshua Project is an institution, so unreliable as it is, it is already one of those. Anyway, the source gives a published alternative pov, removing a source if you do not agree is POV behaviour. (By the wayI agree that Flemish is not an alternative for Dutch)


 * support for re-unification of Flanders and the Netherlands by ... Ok, I think there are substantial unification sentiments in especially Flemish right-wing parties, but I can see your problem with the numbers, (go look for better ones if you disagree please). I have no idea how large VlaamsBelang is, but we only should consider the Flemish federal parliament, and there maybe other people outside VB who also support the idea. I agree a better source and perhaps updated numbers would ocntribute here.


 * Until the early 20th century, and is actually mitigated by the next Dutch had a broader definition at the time Yes if you read these lines in isolation they seem POV together they jsut say the Englsih word for Dutch has changed during the 20th century from meaning anyone from the lowlands, to referring to inhabitants of the NationState the Netherlands (mind you nation states themselves are late 19th early 20th century inventions (Mazower - Europe the Dark Continent); so in that light there is nothing strange with thise evolution of the phrase.


 * The Dutch have been emigrating from their original homeland since medieval times. Please change that to inhabitant of the lowlands if you really thinkn this is POV, I doubt anyone will disagree. Writing a bit of text is much more difficult then picking it apart (you can do that even with articles in Science or Nature). Gradual imporvement of such minor issues is what Wiki is about.


 * The first big wave of Dutch immigrants to leave the Low Countries came from present day Northern Belgium...They arrived in Brandenburg in 1157 See last remark


 * in the 12th century, large numbers of Dutch farmers migrated to The Wash in Britain, the delta of the Gironde in France, around Bremen, Hamburg and western North Rhine-Westphalia. See above.

So in brief: You did not disagree with some of my observations (e.g. the Franks) so apparently you have conceded on a number of those. Furhtermore, I still agree with you on the numbers in the table (so nothing new). I disagree with most your other points as those were based on lines taken out of context; or were mainly minor unlucky use of words that you could have changed easily without any protest. The only additional point I concede here, is that the number 40% of Flemish want unification maybe an inflated number and needs a reference. Arnoutf 12:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Clicking on the link to Flemish Parliament shows that 32 out of 120 seats are held by Vlaams Belang, I think Rex confused 1/4 (which it is, and which=25%) with 40%. Seems more like an honest math mistaked then bad intentions. Changed accordingly.Arnoutf 13:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * DO NOT ADD ITEMS IN LISTS THAT ARE ALREADY RESPONDED TO That way you are distorting my response; You mayadd them in a separate list but not to something I have already answered to. Please do not do that again. (contentwise - the region around Arras/Atrecht was part of the Spanish Netherlands; and was just as Dutch (at that time) as Flanders).
 * With regard to your recent changes and deletions. You changed things added by Rex in response to your remarks above; you deleted things that I already respondedon, so for your deletions the list above does not give a good reasons (because it does not address the new additions, or because untreated counterarguments were given). Therefore I reverted your latest edit. Arnoutf 11:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Third deletion list
Plese do not remove reasons given for edits in an edit summary. If you think an item belongs in a new list, then make a new list. This list of accuracy issues includes responses to points in the second list.


 * Dutch people lived in...northern France, was re-inserted. Speakers of Dutch are not equivalent to a Dutch ethnic or national group. No source for a single 'Dutch people' in the Spanish Netherlands.


 * Pre 20th century use: The word Dutch refers to all inhabintant of the Lowlands which includes both the modern Flemish and the people now solely known as the Dutch. No source is given, and this is inconsistent since if it was used before the modern terms Flemish and Dutch, then it can not describe them either. Note that this problem is addresed in art history by the use of the invented term 'Netherlandic' to mean approximately 'of the Spanish Netherlands'

In general the article should avoid any suggestion that a singe Dutch people existed before the Dutch Revolt, or that they inhabited an area outside the present Netherlands.Paul111 11:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not understand your first line; how can you remove reasons in an edit summary????
 * If you think using Netherlandic is the proper use, please insert it, rather than deleting asection inserted by others for the aim of defusing the debate (and where another word (Netherlandic) may have been better suited.)
 * As I said repeatedly above I never aim to say there were a single Dutch people before the Dutch revolt. Mind you; due to travel distances, the differences between Amsterdam and Leiden people was probably much larger in 1600 then the difference between Middelburg and Leeuwarden people today!! The modern Dutch people are in my opinion only a 19th century idea; before 1795 the Republic consisted of (partially) independent regions; so I would even argue that at that time Guelders, Sticht, Frisia, Groningen and Holland were largely different independent Ethnic groups. The nation state (as Mazower states) is largely a (post)romantic idea which gained ground in the 1800's. The larger Netherlandic group of related peoples did however inhabit an area outside the present Netherlands. Focussing on the borders of the present Netherlands is (in my opinion) using a modern (post 1850) and very narrow definition of a complex issue; that does right to the fairly simplistic term Dutch Nation, but not to the more complex cultural relations that underly Dutch ethnicity; and its history. Perhaps this is the reason why Rex is opposed to reniming the article to ethnic group and nation..... Perhaps this is the reason why you revert to accusations of right-wing ideas. The historical event leading to the current Dutch ethnic group are interesting on their own, but should not serve any political ideology; I cannot see that the term Dutch Nation can ever be free from nationalist sentiments Arnoutf 12:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch nation is indeed a 100% nationalist concept, and the Netherlands, as I indicated in my edits, does not correspond to any pre-existing nation. Nevertheless the currently existing reality is that the state is inhbaited by about 12 to 13 million people who fully identify with that state, and are often extremely patriotic. The exceptions are the immigrants, who are not seen as Dutch anyway, and many Frisians. The origins of the present nation-state are very complex but the national identity is not: it is simplistic to the point of extremes, see Pim Fortuyn. The article should addres this reality (and not pseudo-history).Paul111 12:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok thus we agree; the Dutch nation is something different from the complex things we (Rex and me) are talking about here.
 * Yes there are about 12 million Dutch ethnic people living in the Dutch state. Often is however unquantified. I used to very patriotic about Dutch tolerance and Dutch openness for foreign contact (eg Europe). I have been very disappointed in that recently.
 * If there are patriotic Dutch, the Frisians are bout the worst; at least if you count Frisian nationalism/patriotism.
 * We apparently agrre history is complex, so no argument there.
 * National identity is however complex. People from Staphorst (SGP) have a much different identity from the Amsterdam squatter) community. Both are clearly Dutch. One of the most interesting (and in my opinion scary)  struggles in Dutch politics is the move towards simple extremist certainties (this includes all of the 3 extremist parties CU-SP-PVV) and away from balanced views (e.g. D66 and GL). So in my view the Dutch are seriously struggling with national identity at the moment
 * In any case, your remarks clarify that we were indeed not talking about the same issues. Rex and me are both history fans. Personally I think history explains much of the present; hence I like to add information on the background of the Dutch ethnic group, rather than sketching a very unstable snapshot of the moment. Of course this is a Point of View, but that is inherent in any choice to write anything whatsoever (when publishing in internatianal refereed scientific journals I also take a POV; and so do you by taking a different perspective from mine) Arnoutf 17:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Germanic peoples
The Britannica does not say that modern Dutch are a "Germanic people", it says that the historic Germanic peoples spoke a Germanic language. The issue of Afrikaners, Frisians and Flemings being Germanic peoples is not a semantic problem, but a question of sources.Sources are still required for claims on this page, despite discussions elsewhwere. I am not in favour of wholesale deletion, but the claims are inaccurate, a minority view associated with the far right.Paul111 12:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (Quoting) Britannica opens with Germanic Peoples also called Teutonic Peoples  any of the Indo-European speakers of Germanic languages. I do not think there is much room for debate; Dutch is a Germanic Language hence the Dutch are a Germanic people. Arnoutf 17:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides that, the article doesn't say the Dutch are a Germanic people. It says they descend from them.  The modern Dutch descend from tribes who spoke a Germanic language.  82.93.133.130 17:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Change of title
I propose to change the title to Dutch (ethnic group and nation). This is to reflect the reality that the Dutch people (Nederlanders, Nederlandse volk) are both an ethnic group and a nation. At present the article contains almost no information on the current problems and debates in the Netherlands regarding national identity, national language, immigration, and the national identity within the EU. The concentration on the ethnic group only has led to a distorted and incomplete article. (Some of the content, such as details of the verzuiling, is more properly considered as an attribute of the Dutch nation and society, rather than of an ethnic group). It would improve the article if it concentrated on the present Netherlands, and the meaning of 'Dutch people' in that real-life context, as both ethnicity and nation.Paul111 13:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite the various past titles, this article has always dealt with the Dutch as an ethnic group.Dutch people can indeed mean both, hence it is now a redirect page (which can be the intended disambig-page when "Dutch (nation)" is created) but I doubt Dutch (ethnic group) leaves much to the imagination. The Dutch nation and ethnic group have a lot in common, but they are not the same.Rex 15:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of the problems come from the ideaby Paul111 that nation and ethnic group are synonyms; and from my and Rex' interpretation that although similar they are very distinct concepts (eg Flemish will never be part of the Dutch nation; or even be treated as such besides reference to extreme right-wing sympathies by me. However, historically the ethnicity of the groups is very closely related; to such an extent that if there was a Dutch ethnic group around 1600; the Flemish would be part of it (IMHO)). Arnoutf 12:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Contribution to humanity?
The Dutch (supposedly) invented the multinational-company, perhaps this qualifies as a contribution to humanity.

This is what the Dutch East India Company page says about it:

''The Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie or VOC in Dutch, literally "United East Indies Company") was established in 1602, when the Estates-General of the Netherlands granted it a 21-year monopoly to carry out colonial activities in Asia. It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock''

I don't know if it's true or just popular believe in The Netherlands, but is true I would consider it mentionable. After all, considering modern live multinationals are far more important than ancient painters :)145.98.208.243 13:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been debated by the writers of the British East India Company article, that wasfounded in 1600 but did not issue freely tradable stock untill much later, but yes it is true. Whether the foundation of modern capitalism is a contribution to humanity is another issue though;-) Neverthelss I think this addition is a good idea,I added it one paragraph higher under influence on the world. Arnoutf 13:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mazower and a 'single Dutch people'
The reference added in support of the claim that Flemings are Dutch states that the nation state only became dominant in Europe after WWI. That is not correct for western Europe, which had nation-states in the 19th century if not earlier. Mazower can not be used as a source for the claim that a Dutch "people" is divided at the national border. National borders are indeed divisive, but that does not mean that another ("true") nation exists on both sides. The claim that Flemings and Dutch are one people is just as nationalist as the claim that they are two peoples, or that Belgians are one people, or that the Dutch are Germans or Aryans. These are all nationalist claims, and this article should not say which is "true", but simply state the current position, which is that Dutch nationalism is 99% oriented to the present national territory, and that most Dutch people have no interest in union with Flanders. If tomorrow all Dutch voters convert to Odinism and demand a Greater Germanic Netherlands, then the article should say that they support that option. Until such time, it should treat such views for what they are - the beliefs of a tiny minority.Paul111 11:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are seeing things that aren't there and are again making up your own definitions and mention no sources to prove us wrong. Another, more important matter: I'm getting very sick and tired of indirectly being called some kind of nazi by you. Stop it or it will have concequences.Rex 11:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The addition of Mazower was just for the reason you advocate above.... The strict definition of nations states is a relatively modern invention. I agree that in the Netherlands the notion of a nation state is a bit older; but in my opinion that would be somewhere in the mid-1800's still pretty modern. I have (and will) never claim that the Dutch and Flemings are one people; my claim is that the Dutch were not one people untill very recently (about 100-150 years); so that talking about the Dutch ethnic group(s) as if they were a single nation is absolutely nonsense if you are referring to the period before let's say about 1900. That is why I added the reference. Arnoutf 11:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy still disputed
The accuracy of this article is still compromised by irredentist claims about a single 'Dutch people', by claims that the Dutch are a Germanic people, and by inaccurate and inconsistent population figures (and totals). That is explained in more detail above. However, explanation and background was used a pretext to reverse deletions of unsourced material, on the grounds that 'counter-arguments' had been provided. Wikipedia deletion policy is quite clear: no arguments or consensus are required. The onus is entirely on the editors who wish to insert or retain material, to provide a reliable source for it. Other editors may delete material, if a reliable source is not provided.Paul111 19:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Editors have provided reliable sources. You just refuse to see them.Rex 19:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well as far as Britannica (quoted above) is not a reliable source, you are free to delete the material. The problem is that no source whatsoever is deemed reliable by you. I think you should tone down a bit and at least give arguments before you reject sources (by the way WP:RS states doubts about reliability shoud be discussed; as you state it now editors have to come up with (unknown) criteria to prove the reliability of a source; while everyone can just delete stuff without arguments on the basis: Personally I do not believe that source is reliable sufficing with something like: weeeeell the journal Nature, that is just the opinion of some scientists hence I am allowed to delete the stuff. In brief, you state provding reliable source is the responsibility of the adding editor; however judging whether a source is reliable should at least follow some kind of agreement (and not your POV)).
 * Second; when discussing non-referenced parts of the text, the rule you quote is only one of many, Wiki policy also states that you should be polite, assume good faith and so on and so on. So if I put the assume good faith as rule-#1 (which is just as justified as you putting up the reference rule) I am justified to revert all your deletions as your arguments are always based on the assumption of right-wing sympathies and you are assuming bad faith. There is no single rule here; so please be more cooperative.
 * As I said before, I think your original edits contributed to the article; but your style of discussion is blunt (at best); offensive more likely, and your style of editing is the same. In the end the article should give a good overview of consensus knowledge (not just yours), deletions are just as much a tool for POV pushing as inserting unreferenced text (although deletions are much less visible, so IMHO even more a nasty way of POV pushing). Please consider whether not at least part of the problems lie with you and your style of commenting and editing. Arnoutf 20:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I already gave an example of what would be a reliable source on this issue, namely a survey indicating that a substantial number of Dutch self-identify as Germanic. No such source has been provided, but instead something was inferred from a source, something which is not in the source itself. (This is accepted as a standard objection to a source, and there is a specific tag for it). It is necessary to delete material from the article, because all attempts at a compromise text were simply reverted: there is a choice between an inaccurate article, and deletion.Paul111 16:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All you add is your personal (and continually proven to be incorrect) opinion. A simple example is the use of "Germanic". It has a dozen of other meanings aside from "nazism" but you continually blind yourself for them. Rex 16:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A survey is original research; a survey may also conclude the dutch as 3 meters tall, that does not become true either. Britannica is an esteemed source and the line quoted by me (Germanic or teutonic peopl.....) is THE exact, and checkable opening of the Britannica article on Germanic people; so I do not know how you can conclude it is not in the source. Furthermore Paul111; you are about the only one who has never ever attempted to reach a compromise on this issue.Arnoutf 17:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at your recent edit; you reinserted several spelling mistakes I edited out a while ago, please be a bit more careful what old text you reinsert. Second: There were a few notes to unification ideas (Flanders-Netherlands) but those were all attributed to a minority extreme right wing POV(Eg Vlaams Belang). These ideas exist, and should arguably be mentioned in this page. By listing the right-wing corner they come from readers can judge the value of those. So I really cannot see what the harm could be. Not mentioning them could on the other hand be interpreted as censorship of wikipedia by politically correct editors. Ethnicity is a difficult topic, that easily is linked to racism and other extreme right wing ideas; however I think we cannot make a balanced article without at least mentioning these opinions and clearly label them as an extreme right wing minority point of view). Arnoutf 17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, the concept of a unification of Flanders and the Netherlands is not nazistic or anything. Even D66 supports it (though it isn't a part of their programm)Rex 18:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The political party D66 does not support the unification of the Netherlands and Flanders, and never did. One prominent member once advocated closer co-operation, that's all. No political party currently represented in the Dutch parliament supports unification, largely because that would amount to a territorial claim on a friendly neighbouring state (Belgium). With the exception of one Marxist-Leninist group in Belgium, organisations which support unification are right-wing. At present support comes from a minority within Vlaams Belang, and from organisations to the right of Vlaams Belang. Widespread Dutch attitudes to Flanders - which as this article points out were often condescending - have limited enthousiam for unification in Flanders.Paul111 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)