Talk:Dutch people/Archive 7

Nationalistic rape, of ethnically orientated article
That's right. You are raping this article. This article is about an ethnic group. Creating an infobox filled with 'famous Dutchmen' wasn't enough, no, you had to add a whole gallery of 'famous and influential Dutch people'. Enough already! This article is about an ethnic group, not a nationalist bulletin board which you two, who both have not (and I have checked the articles history on this) added a single paragraph themselves, can use as a platform to essentially say "look at how important we are" and "look how much we influenced the world". All nonsense. This articles aim is, or rather should be, to describe an ethnic group, not a showcase of famous people who are (though most can be easily disputed) in it. That's where list of Dutch people comes in. This article should, and believe me is going to be, an objective article about the Dutch ethnic group. Take your galleries elsewhere, there is no place for them here.HP1740-B (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not constructive, not civil and goes way beyond a reasonable discussion. Also rambling of a single editor ("there is not place for them here") goes against consensus guidelines and puts you in place as owner of the article content, another clear breach of core guidelines. Please edit you own comment to something acceptable (and while you are doing that, please take out the unfocussed "yous" as they do not address anyone in the thread (that being the first post) Arnoutf (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not the owner of any article. I am an editor of wikipedia, and so are you. When I edit an article on cows and start inserting information on cats, then that is unconstructive and harmful to wikipedia. That's exactly what you're doing here. Inserting nationalist-orientated pictures (pictures, you don't seem to ever insert text) in an article on an ETHNIC group. So really, who is the disrupting and unconstructive one here? HP1740-B (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are. The use of words like "rape" is unacceptable and offensive and as such goes way beyond being unconstructive or even. Actually the use of such words referring to other editors does not only goes against civil behaviour in conversation, it also makes clear you suspect me of bad faith in this and by the choice of words is a clear personal attack. The evidence is clear to anyone who reads above. I suggest you remove this section (including my responses).
 * I do not expect you to agree, but I do expect that you at least keep up the appearance of being a normal human being.
 * As that I have not been adding text, first of all, edit numbers do not say much, secondly I have made about twice as many edits to this mainspace articles as you; only a few of them concerning the images. I have discussed much more about this article, precisely because these articles are so sensitive, I tend to try to find consensus here before going out to edit. Nice of you to have noticed that I discuss more than I change; that is exactly my intention here. Arnoutf (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree more with the following statement from above: That's right. You are raping this article. This article is about an ethnic group. Creating an infobox filled with 'famous Dutchmen' wasn't enough, no, you had to add a whole gallery of 'famous and influential Dutch people'. Enough already! This article is about an ethnic group, not a nationalist bulletin board which you two, who both have not (and I have checked the articles history on this) added a single paragraph themselves, can use as a platform to essentially say "look at how important we are" and "look how much we influenced the world". All nonsense. This articles aim is, or rather should be, to describe an ethnic group, not a showcase of famous people who are (though most can be easily disputed) in it. The principle author of this article has been using the simple topic of 'the native inhabitances of the low-lands', as a platform for the agrandizement of any conceivable Dutch-related achievement while completely ignorning any negative historical impacts. For example, it is completely irrelevant than U.S. Pres. Martin van Buren (Martin of the Neighbors) may have spoken Dutch with his mother...the man was in fact the first American President to have been a natural-born American citizen. That the article also takes credit for the Flemish is ridiculous. The Flemish are essentially Belgian; neither the Flemish nor Belgians fit under the heading of 'Dutch'. As far as language goes, Dutch is to Flemish as British-English is to American-English. Not to mention the taking credit for the Afrikans language, wherein Afrikans has as much to do with the low-landers north of Belgium as the English or French people have to do with the Creole spoken in Louisiana--wherein it was, of course, the people of Louisiana who establish Creole and not the French or English. Additionally, stating that the Dutch inhabitants of historical New England were a part of the Dutch Republic until they joined the Thrirteen Colonies is a disjuncture of both logic and actual factual history...for example those Dutch settlers in Pennsylvania lived so isolated with their religious preoccupations as to have had virtually no involvement whatsoever in the fact that the Pennsylvanian political region joined with the other twelve colonies to establish the newly born United States. All of this is 100% extraneous of the culture of "the Dutch", the Germanic-Bativan low-landers who--conquered by the Romans--walked over the Belgian Ardens into the last piece of uninhabited European swampland and began trenching ditches to help keep their feet dry. Now, as a man with two Dutch daughters who has lived a dozen years in the Netherlands, I can tell you that a number of white Dutch individuals participate in a kind of hysterical nationalism which erroneously takes credit for everything from invention of the printing-press to the establishment of the U.S. via that village once called New Amsterdam. Further these Dutch have very little sense of the importance of any other human group, this can be commonly witnessed via the absolute fact that there has been no updating to the Dutch words for any number of minorities, e.g., Afro-American = Neger...Physically Challenged = Handicap...and Gays are still called Homos. Personally, I find these linguistic facts much more revealing of "The Dutch" culture and their outlook upon others and any posed photos of woodenshoe, windmill, and tulip festival reenactments. However, one must police their own potential bias and therefore I leave these facts--significant to me--out of my edits within this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.230.113 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

While I do think HP1740-B can be a bit more civil, this time around I'm on his side. I understand why he's annoyed since he also supported the collage that I introduced. I'm glad there is one, but anoter gallery, especially that size, goes too far. I don't agree with the content either. Nationals are added who are in no way ethnic Dutch, but only were Dutch citizens. Some of the persons are hardly notable, and some of them also appear in the collage already and even with the same image which is against wikipedia rules. But it's not just the content that I disagree with, but the entire purpose. Wikipedia policies prefer to exclude galleries, and since we already have a collage it kind of ends there. I've given quite a number of arguments now, and you can drag this out and debunk all our arguments since defensive is not just a river in egypt. But what's more important is your argument on why a giant second gallery is a good attribution. So far I've only heard one argument of you, and that's that you dislike the previous traditional images. That's a matter of opinion however, and the argument would work if you were to add a 'traditional' image into this article, but not TWENTY images. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "a bit more civil" is an understatement (being called a rapist), but I get your point. I agree the collage + gallery seems a bit over the top, and I agree that the gallery seems to be growing out of control. Perhaps I would be better to make a separate article (notable Dutch people over the ages) where we give a chronological overview of notable Dutch from 1000 CE to Now. Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He didn't mean rapist in the literal sense of the word though, which is a lot less offensive, yet still wrong. Creating a seperate article might get deleted, and the current list of dutch people is a category, I don't think you can add images there. The best solution would be to create a commons page with "Dutch People" and add every dutchman and woman you can find there. Then you can also create a box like "wiki commons has media related to dutch people" - PietervHuis (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know he did not mean it literally but (and I quote) he said You are raping this article.
 * I think your suggestion of moving this to the Commons and adding the Wikicommons link sounds like a very good idea. Arnoutf (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. The inclusion of the gallery is too poorly motivated from that argument alone (which is also mine). The fact that it duplicates the images of the collage to a large extent doesn't help either. Iblardi (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have acted on your suggestion and copied the gallery to commons (can now be expanded). I added a commons box in the History section. I am happy to remove the Gallery with this (box added here as example). Arnoutf (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been bold and removed the gallery after this. Thanks for putting this in perspective Pieter, I would never have acted on the original post as that did put me in a very defensive mode. Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it's solved, the commons page is a nice attribution. Maybe it can be named shorter, just "notable dutch people" or "Dutch People" although with the latter those who are less notable will be added too. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, was a quick and dirty solution. Thanks again for taking the sting out of the debate; sadly HP1740-B has not learned from this see below. Arnoutf (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fase II
After the removal of the gallery, which should have never been placed there in the first place, it's time for further changes. I have been preparing for a series of major edits for quite a while, mostly by reading a series of books on ethnic groups. A short and summarized overview of impending changes: Note: I regret that this has to happen in this agressive tone, but honestly, the climate around this article requires this aproach. The constant search for "concensus" and the attempts to "please all" have put real stress on the accurateness of this article. HP1740-B (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Removal of infobox collage by an image based on a map of the Dutch homeland as found in a book by Richard Schaefer.
 * Largely the removal of "image" section. Nothing encyclopedic about just about everything there.
 * Further removal of 'nation'-orientated material lowering the clearness of the article. This will become most clear in the section on the Flemish.
 * Maybe. Or maybe it could be considered evidence of some users' integrity that they are not allowing themselves to be distracted too much by the tone of your comments. Iblardi (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Iblardi, you have seen my original reaction, and if I were a spiteful/easily distracted editor I would not have accepted PietervHuis explanation. It was the reasonable tone of Pieter that showed me how to think further on the issue, while the aggressive tone only made angry, and not prepared to do anythin.
 * Re: Suggestions
 * Dutch homeland - well that sounds very nationalistic to me; so I am not sure that is a good idea if you want to remove nationalistic sentiment. Another issue is that, most ethnic group articles have an image or gallery (albeit most smaller than ours) so I don't see a reason why we should deviate from that
 * Image, I do not care too much about this section; for my part it is either in or out, I am fairly neutral there.
 * Nationality is part of identifying as a group and is hence often part of an ethnic group. Outright removal of all reference to nationality may be pushing it too far, although I agree it is a bit convuluted at the moments; so some clean-up may benefit the article. Arnoutf (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not care much for your reaction. I know what I wanted to say and how, I'm not planning on making any excuses (if that's what you're aiming for) because there is nothing to apologize about. Also, my points listed above are not 'suggestions', a suggestion implies inaction, something I'm not planning on. Nationality has nothing to do with ethnicity, I can see you are seemingly unable to accept this, hence the articles state. Furthermore, the image in question is on the placement of Dutch people within northwestern Europe, i.o.w a graphical representation of accumulated data. Now, if you can turn that into something nationalistic, then I can understand why you think that collage belongs in this ethnicity-orientated article.HP1740-B (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well since you need consensus for the suggested changes you should better try to cooperate. Being polite and having respect of others views is part of cooperation, if you can't be polite I don't see any improvement happening.
 * Re Nationalism; I think you misunderstood my comments. I do agree a lot of maintenance will be required, as I agree that the nationalism issue is making the article worse at the moment. I am not a fan of nationalism at all. However, an ethnic group is a group of people who identifies themselves as a group. Sadly, in reality, nationalism is a strong "group identifying" power. Therefore, although I don't like it, you will never be able to create an article on ethnic groups without any reference to nationalism. How to deal with that will not be easy; and will probably require insights of more than one editor to find the right balance. Arnoutf (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But then we are still in danger of committing original research, since we are independently trying to define what Dutch ethnicity is. I think I have said before that, in my opinion, this article would be much better if it would approach the subject of Dutch ethnicity from a meta-level, e.g.: How did early 20th-century sources define Dutch ethnicity? What are the first texts that speak of the Dutch as a people? How do these views relate to modern ideas on ethnicity? There should be some sources around on these subjects. I am stressing this again because I think it is the core of the problem and the reason why there is so much dissent among editors. Nationalism, historiography and concepts of ethnicity are intertwined, and there is no clear definition of Dutch ethnicity to serve as a basis for this article. Iblardi (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is solely your opinion, and because of your views on the matter (that nationalism and concepts of ethnicity are intertwined) that this article (now) seems to reflect that.Dutch ethnicity is an established fact, 20th century sources are irrelevant and quite possibly the worst possible sources for this article. The core problem of this article is that people here want to debate endlessly. I will hence refrain from much further comments in this section. I think debate is fine, but only on debate-worthy issues.HP1740-B (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To Iblardi; I think that is my point, there probably does not exist a clear definition of Dutch ethnicity anywhere (except perhaps in the archives of the NSB), so we will have to provide an overview from the literature; I would prefer late 20th century say 1980 onwards, as the more modern view deviates substantially not only from early 20th century but as far as I know also from the 50-70's ideas. I think your suggestion of taking up on sources is probably the only way forward. Although I would include some reference to 19th century (albeit likely from 20th century sources), after all ethnicism and nationalism as well as national(istic) history (e.g. setting the Batavieren, Rembrandt, de Ruyter and Willem de Zwijger down as idols) is basically a romantic invention.
 * To HP1740-B, if you want to change it you apparently think it is debate worthy; that is the nature of consensus decision making. Of course you are free to leave both the article and this talk page as they are. Arnoutf (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It might come as a surprise to you, but my activities on this talk page the last few days weren't exactly meant as comments to start a discussion. They are announcements.HP1740-B (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of what? That you will be blunt and change the article to your liking without any discussion? Arnoutf (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that I will turn this article into an objective piece of writing based on reliable sources instead of leaving it in its current detrimental state that it owes to people who 'always want to discuss' but never get anywhere.HP1740-B (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree some work is to be done. So, good luck, I will check in on your progress, but may revert if you introduce your own POV. Arnoutf (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever makes you feel in control.HP1740-B (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the article has seen a lot of improvement during the last year, but the talk page seems to have returned to its old state lately. Iblardi (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right the article has improved since a year ago; actually most is referenced with decent sources. There is always room for further improvement. A new editor might provide some new insights on some of the fossils in the text. Arnoutf (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I view anti-nationalism as racism. I must warn you; nationalism is an important part of the Dutch ethnic group. It is one of its main ingredients and cultural binding mechanism within the Netherlands.85.146.24.65 (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense, not constructive, a clear breach of NPOV. Neither is the addition of Wien Neerlands Bloed constructive in any way, therefore removed. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not nonsense, it is constructive and it does not breach NPOV; the addition of Wien Neerlands Bloed must be debated before we can decide on its complete removal. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Re nonsense: Where does it fit definition of ethnic group (provide a reliable source); Going aginst the clear anti-nationalistic view of HP1740-B and relating that view to racism is not constructive (e.g. WP:CIVIL); the remark "nationalism is an important part of the Dutch ethnic group. It is one of its main ingredients and cultural binding mechanism within the Netherlands" is not mainstream academic pov of view and hence breach of NPOV (at least unless sources are found that support it as mainstream view); and the addition of Wien Neerlands Bloed must be agreed upon before we can decide it should be added. Arnoutf (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Going aginst the clear anti-nationalistic view of HP1740-B and relating that view to racism is not constructive  Are you suggesting that we allow racism on this encyclopedia? is not mainstream academic pov of view and hence breach of NPOV Are you suggesting that millions of people did not hang orange flag, plastic lions and decorations on there houses; ran or cycled through the streets with Dutch flags after a succesfull soccer gamer? 11 million people watched soccer; are you suggesting that this form of celebration is not a binding mechanism? 11 million people outweigh the academic world. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Implying another editor is a racist will always be unconstructive, regardless whether it is the truth or not; in this case I do not see the link (and I feel a weak echo of Godwin's law). And no 11 million people do not outweigh the academic world; science is not a matter of voting. If that were the case we would still believe the world to be flat, and the center of the universe. Besides that perhaps flagging maybe nationalistic, but that does not necessarily has anything to do with Dutch etnicity, it does relate to Dutch nationalism but that is another topic. Arnoutf (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree; i think that the soccer celibrations do make the Netherlands a nationalist nations, just like the Netherlands is a marxist and a Christian nation, and it is accepted by mainstream science that these nationalistic soccer celebration really happen. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes these celebrations occur, that is a fact. However, whether these occur or not is irrelevant; you need mainstream science relating these occurences to the Dutch ethnic group (cf. the sun rises everyday, but that is not relevant to this article either). Arnoutf (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't really continue refuting what is fact. I am sorry; but i can't help it, if you don't agree with mainstream science. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

85.146.24.65 (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting this sudden change from "unsourced public opinion" prevails over "sourced mainstream science" to "unsourced mainstream science" prevails over "sourced mainstream science". I have stated repeatedly that it is up to you to provide references to support your claims. You have not done so; so I have no reason to think your point of view is that of mainstream science.
 * In relation to your argumentation on facts.... read WP:TRUTH Arnoutf (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a claim to say that the sun shines or the winds is blowing; so it is not possibly for you too refute nationalistic celebrations after a succesfull soccer contest. Too claim this does not happen is beyong lunacy. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for sources (per request)
I think the challenge is still open for my three (related) questions (invited by HP1740-B above) for scientifically supported issues (new subsection to focus on these):
 * 1) The Dutch people include the Dutch speaking Belgiums
 * 2) The modern Dutch ethnic group is the same as the inhabitants of the medieval Netherlands (i.e. including parts of Belgium and Northern France)
 * 3) An unambiguous description of the Dutch ethnic group. Arnoutf (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * @2: The statement stands unsourced. Also, the "historically inhabiting" would at any rate be very hard to prove. It could (only?) be done by using written and/or archeological sources. In the latter case, there should be traces of cultural characteristics not shared with the surrounding regions (that is, if you believe in 'objective' ethnicity). In the case of written sources, evidence should be found that those inhabitants considered themselves and/or were considered by others as one group, clearly distinct from surrounding groups. Erasmus (at the beginning of the early modern period) seems to do something like that, but it is thought that his self-identification is with the entire Burgundian Netherlands as a political unity, including the French-speaking areas, rather than with a Dutch ethnic group. So it would seem that the "historically" needs to be narrowed down, at least. Iblardi (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * @3: There is a situation where I can imagine that it would be meaningful to speak of 'ethnically Dutch people', which is in the case of very clearly distinguishable migrant groups, for instance many of those (historically) living in the United States, exemplified by entries such as this one. This concerns people descending from Dutch ancestors who left their homeland centuries ago, but who clung to their own 'Dutch' traditions, adhered to a strict form of Protestantism, and who deliberately made use of social (and economical) networks consisting of other people of Dutch descent, with whom they intermarried to the exclusion of others. Such communities did exist until recently, and perhaps still exist. A major difference with the 'Dutch ethnic group' which is the subject of this article, is that ethnicity there does ostensibly play a significant role in those peoples' lives; they form a small community, surrounded, and, in their perception, threatened by foreign cultural groups, they tend to emphasize their own uniqueness and 'stick to their own', and because of this behaviour they fit the description of an ethnic group. For the present-day Netherlands such factors, and the accompanying behaviour, are largely absent. Especially, there is no rule of endogamy (as far as I know, Dutch people intermarry with Canadians, Danes, and Frisians) and there are no myths of common descent (which could arguably be applied to the migrant groups mentioned above) which concern all 'ethnically Dutch' people.
 * While there have been frictions between 'autochthonous' Dutch people and immigrant groups during the past decennia, and in the wake of this there have been attempts to define Dutch identity, this always means identity in a cultural sense, which is part of, but does not constitute, ethnicity. For those Dutch migrants overseas, ethnicity plays a large role in their daily existence, and it seems justified to describe those groups as 'ethnic groups'. But for the Netherlands proper, where ethnicity plays a very limited role, a 'Dutch ethnic group' can only be defined in the vaguest of terms. If literature on the Dutch ethnic group is absent, it is probably because of this. It is not a useful descriptive term. Iblardi (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
I have just read the article and find it to be a fine piece of collaborative work. I thank the editors involved for respecting the unique relationship of the Belgian Flemish within the Dutch ethnic world. I know that work will continue, but I would hope we are all, temporarilly, happy with the present product...and whatever article comes in the future. Bedankt.--Buster7 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks but we need to fix a significant number of "citation needed" though. Arnoutf (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think this article kicks ass... Shows nicely the relationship between the Netherlands and Flanders, also the differences and the different and confusing meanings the words "Flemish", "Dutch", "Low Countries", "Holland" etc has had over the ages. It's all confusing people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.181.243.11 (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Nationalistic rape, of ethnically orientated article
I could not agree more with the 'nationalistic rape' statement from above:

The principle author of this article has been using the simple topic of 'the native inhabitances of the low-lands', as a platform for the agrandizement of any conceivable Dutch-related achievement while completely ignorning any negative historical impacts. For example, it is completely irrelevant than U.S. Pres. Martin van Buren (Martin of the Neighbors) may have spoken Dutch with his mother...the man was in fact the first American President to have been a natural-born American citizen.

That the article also takes credit for the Flemish is ridiculous. The Flemish are essentially Belgian; neither the Flemish nor Belgians fit under the heading of 'Dutch'. As far as language goes, Dutch is to Flemish as British-English is to American-English. Not to mention the taking credit for the Afrikans language, wherein Afrikans has as much to do with the low-landers north of Belgium as the English or French people have to do with the Creole spoken in Louisiana--wherein it was, of course, the people of Louisiana who establish Creole and not the French or English.

Additionally, stating that the Dutch inhabitants of historical New England were a part of the Dutch Republic until they joined the Thrirteen Colonies is a disjuncture of both logic and actual factual history...for example those Dutch settlers in Pennsylvania lived so isolated with their religious preoccupations as to have had virtually no involvement whatsoever in the fact that the Pennsylvanian political region joined with the other twelve colonies to establish the newly born United States.

All of this is 100% extraneous of the culture of "the Dutch", the Germanic-Bativan low-landers who--conquered by the Romans--walked over the Belgian Ardens into the last piece of uninhabited European swampland and began trenching ditches to help keep their feet dry.

Now, as a man with two Dutch daughters who has lived a dozen years in the Netherlands, I can tell you that a number of white Dutch individuals participate in a kind of hysterical nationalism which erroneously takes credit for everything from invention of the printing-press to the establishment of the U.S. via that village once called New Amsterdam. Further these Dutch have very little sense of the importance of any other human group, this can be commonly witnessed via the absolute fact that there has been no updating to the Dutch words for any number of minorities, e.g., Afro-American = Neger...Physically Challenged = Handicap...and Gays are still called Homos.

Personally, I find these linguistic facts much more revealing of "The Dutch" culture and their outlook upon others and any posed photos of woodenshoe, windmill, and tulip festival reenactments. However, one must police their own potential bias and therefore I leave these facts--significant to me--out of my edits within this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.230.113 (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes the article is imperfect, no printing press is mentioned, and the whole Batavian myth is acknowledged only as such a myth. So do you have any specific suggestions for change or do you just want a soap box for your opinion??? (and anyway if there is little discrimination (e.g. of homo's) a name is not contaminated with politically incorrect connotation, so no reason to change it. The Netherlands was the first country to fully legalize same-sex marriage; so perhaps it is the feeling of superiority over other human groups by those in power in the Anglo-Saxon countries that required change of the original name). Arnoutf (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

'Problems of definition'
Unbelievable. There is no "problem" of definition. I've tried my very best to bring this article up to date, with the modern 'definition' of an ethnic group which (both in English and Dutch) mainly focuses on culture, history and language. Everything here conforms to that, there are no problems other than your continuous POV-pushing. If you think you have problems, you list them here, on the talk page, NOT IN THE ARTICLE.HP1740-B (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, you really need to learn some manners; screaming is uncivil. Secondly, I have discussed these issues ad nauseam on this page, but your unconstructive attitude tends to block any positive movement. Thirdly, contrarily to what you may think, you do not own this article. I do not know what gave you that idea (although I have a certain suspicion). If you disagree with what that paragraph says, you can put a 'fact'-tag on it and/or take the matter to the talk page like any other editor. Outright deletion of an entire section complete with sources is unhelpful and even disruptive. Now, I am the first to admit that the section is a little interpretative and I am willing to discuss it. But you have to understand that the moment you name this article 'Dutch (ethnic group)', you owe it to the readers to provide a definition of what exactly we mean when we speak of a Dutch ethnic group. Ethnicity is a fluid concept, and it becomes even more so when, in the absence of specific sources, we have to find a way to adapt this term from cultural anthropology, which is normally used in completely different contexts, to the Dutch situation. Is it about culture? Language? Genes? Self-designation? All of these, a mix of these? Does the definition of Dutch ethnicity change with different situations? These are problems that, in view of the current title 'Dutch (ethnic group)', need to be addressed within the article in some form or another. I would call this the opposite of POV pushing. But perhaps other editors would like to share their opinion on this issue. Iblardi (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Objected deletion of established sections will require consensus. There is clearly no consensus as Iblardi and HP1740-B do not agree. Hence all-out deletion should not be repeated (and should be considered vandalism). Arnoutf (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we're not going to discuss it. Discussing is done when there is something to say for both sides. That's not the case here. If you want write down your personal thoughts in a way that doesn't just makes a subject blurry, but plain incomprehensible on 'what constitutes an ethnic group', that's just fine and I won't stop you. What I will do however, is stop you when you do it here instead of there, where it (though I doubt the editors there will accept it) should be. So spare me the loose threats of 'vandalism' and 'disruptive editing' because it is only you who's doing that by inserting information in an article that shouldn't contain it. I know I don't own this article, and you suggesting I think so only shows that you lack proper arguments. I want only the best for this article, I want it to be consistent, honest and objective and free of any nationalist crap. I want to people to actually know something objective and fact-based. If I want them to read your opinion on ethnic groups, I'll give them the link to your blog.HP1740-B (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's back to the "I don't have to provide arguments because I am right, which I know because I am omniscient" kind of very strong arguments from HP1740-B. I acknowledge something might be said for your point of view.... But is has not been said by you because you refuse to discuss your point.
 * Massive deletions of referenced texts referring to a discussion remarks that opens "No, we're not going to discuss it", no other option but to revert. (Or in other words, if you don't want to discuss, find another world to be a God in, Wikipedia is not for you) Arnoutf (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When last I visited, everything was going smoothly. IMHO I think Iblardi's section is necessary to point out to the reader that everything is Not "clean and easy to understand" as facts relate to Dutch ethnicity. The article should be more than an antiseptic view from the top. --Buster7 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's back to the "No time and space for unrelated crap" kind of attitude. If people want to know about what constitutes an ethnic group they'll find that information at the ethnic group article, not here. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with 'good faith' but all to do with 'common sense'. I'm removing it, again, and will continue to do so as it is totally inapplicable. As I said before, if you have problems with the article you ask/pose them on the talk page. You do not place them in the article, this page is not a blog and I will see to it that it remains so.HP1740-B (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the Dutch ethnic group, through it's typical history in relation to other Holy Roman Empire and Burgundy states (especially the now Belgium parts of the 17 provinces), in combination with its adoption of many immigrants in its early days (e.g. Spinoza) is a particularly difficult group to define. Much more so than most, hence this specific article needs some special attention to this issue that addresses these special circumstances (which cannot be addressed on the overall ethnic group article).
 * With my statement I count 3 opinions in favour of maintaining the current status quo (which includes the section), and 1 opinion against. Simply put, there is no consensus for change (there is actually majority consensus to keep). Hence it should be kept. The editor who wants to remove it should provide relevant and convincing arguments to change current consensus (removal before such consensus is achieved can in the light of recent history only been seen as disruptive).
 * PS. Please don't change anything after someone has responded, not even your own arguments. In extreme cases (not here) changing your previous arguments can create the idea that other editors may have been answering in bad faith, while retrofitting prior texts has caused this. Arnoutf (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * @PS. I will correct spelling mistakes whenever I feel like it. If you don't want me to change "but" to "by" and "spear" to "spare", then say so. Don't turn it into a post full of insinuative remarks, making it seem as if I altered my statements, which I didn't. Thank you very much.HP1740-B (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Issues in the "problems" section
I think the problem in definition section makes a number of valid points specific for the Dutch situation. However, I tend to agree with some of the critisism above by HP1740-B that parts (note parts not the whole), especially in the first paragraph of this section do not add much (if anything at all) beyond the issues with the general definition of ethnic group, which should be and is discussed at that page. Therefore my suggestion would be to collaborate to focus the section of problems with the definition specific for Dutch and leaving the general problems to a single line (something like "While the definition of ethnic groups in general is problematic, there are some specific issues with the definition of the Dutch that make the definition of the Dutch ethnic group among the more problematic to define." Followed by the specifically Dutch problems. Does this approach make sense? Arnoutf (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * May I suggest..."Defining of the Dutch ethnic group is more problematic than most due to ________________." (fill in the blank)--Buster7 (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good and much less wordy then my suggestion. Arnoutf (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have been bold and implemented changes where I tried to take out any issues relating to general problems with definitions of ethnic group and leaving the (well referenced) Dutch specific stuff. I think this has probably cleared up the section (and reduced it). I may have been too blunt, so please feel free to comment and further work on it. Arnoutf (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no problem. There is a rather straight and basic definition of an ethnic group these days, and for once the Wikipedia definition is a rather good (sourced) interpretation of that:
 * The Dutch fit all of these above 'specifications'. In fact they fit 'the picture', perfectly. Of course there will always be individuals who aren't clear cut cases, but they should not be the main point of interest. When you do that, you'll eventually end up with a section which uses 'Sinterklaas' as primal example of 'Dutchness' ... please. This is an article, not a Rita Verdonk rally. The above definition, fully sourced, is more than enough as the working definition of 'an ethnic' group for this article. There is no need for a problem section at all.HP1740-B (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * HP1740-B, "An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other". The article states that the ethnic group exists of the Dutch and the Flemish. However, most Flemish people do not identify with the Dutch. There is much scientific material which treats the Flemish as a separate ethnic group as well (e.g., ). Apart from the language, many people disagree that there is a common culture between Flanders and the Netherlands: we had a different dominant religion as well, and I don't think that the Flemish feel a closer behavioral relationship to the Dutch than they do with the Walloons, French, German, or Letzeburgers... It is not surprising that apart from the language, all articles with "Dutch" in the name only discuss the people from the Netherlands. Calling someone in Flanders "Dutch", even if correct according to some scientists, will not be accepted by most people. Fram (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the Dutch fit this definition rather poorly. The core of the definition is "preferential endogamy and/or a presumed or real common ancestry". How does this apply to the Dutch?
 * As it happens, and a little unexpectedly, I found an interesting source which seems to perfectly capture (almost echo, even) the concerns voiced by Arnoutf and me on several occasions, and which may be illuminating. As I read it, the relevant point for this discussion is that traditional definitions of an ethnic group were developed in a context very different from those of modern Western societies and cannot easily be applied to these societies. I think this is extremely relevant to the Dutch situation. I shall give only a short quotation (to avoid violating copyright laws):
 * "[Ethnic nominalism] treats all who share some of the markers of an ethnic group - residents of a particular region or users of a language - or who sometimes, for some purposes, identify or associate with such a group as if they were members of a continuous, comprehensive, and structurally integral social entity. But in the modern West, neither individual identity nor the structure of the collectivity is likely to be based, in its essence, on ethnicity. In sum, ethnic nominalism imbues the fragmented, intermittent ethnic dimensions of individual and group life in modern societies with an integrity and a salience they may not possess. (...) It reifies and magnifies ethnicity and reinforces the illusion of appropriateness of the traditional concepts and theories of ethnicity for understanding it in modern societies. [It may be appropriate to view small, preliterate tribal societies as etnic groups, but (my paraphrasis)] to assume such uniformity and monolithic traits in modern, advanced industrial societies is, minimally, to make a priori judgments in lieu of empirical tests and, thus, to risk making errors of inference."
 * The source is Martin O. Heisler, "Ethnicity and Ethnic Relations in the Modern West", in Conflict and Peacemaking in Multiethnic societies, ed. Joseph V. Montville, New York 1991. It is reliable and the author does not seem to be a fringe figure. The book has also interesting things to say about Flemish ethnicity, but I have very little spare time at the moment, and I won't have access to Wikipedia for the rest of the day. I hope to be able to return soon to discuss this material with you all. (And, by the way, I generally agree with the shortening of the original section as done yesterday - it was too long.) Iblardi (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * @Fram; the article makes clear, hopefully that is, that in Europe there is an area of Dutch culture and Dutch language, which largely overlap and are by definition intertwined. The article also states that it is possible to make a distinction between "Southerners" and "Northerners", a distinction largely based on traditional religion. Modern use of "Dutch" as mostly reserved for the Netherlands has little to do with the Flemish not being part of a Dutch ethnic group. I do not mean however that Flemings aren't a different nation however, which is what SPQRobin still believes. Which I think is a very defensible point.HP1740-B (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article makes clear? Let's see: the top of the infobox: "The Dutch (Nederlanders)". While there are sources arguing that the Flemish are in fact ethnically Nederlanders, it is a minority, and it is not the way the majority of the Flemish would self-identify. Flemings, Belgians, Europeans, Westerners, ... but "Nederlanders?" Not likely (for the majority) ... However, self-identification is one of the key elements of the definition of an ethnic group. And while the origin of the distinction is of course related to religious struggles (with the Protestants fleeing north, and the Caholics in the South), very few Flemings would refuse to be identified as Dutch because of religion. Flemings perceive themselves as (ethnically) different because of differences in behaviour, culture, ... I agree that from an objective, scientific point of view (not in the genetic way, necessary, but culturally), Dutch and Flemish are close neighbours with a partially common history, a common language and a partially common culture (but the Flemings have much better beer :-) ). But does this make us one ethnic group, or two closely related ethnic groups? The article as it stands gives the casual reader the impression that we are one ethnic group, while thaings are not as clear in reality. Removing the "problems" section altogether makes this of course a lot worse still. Fram (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * @Iblardi, unless you have reliable figures that show that (by far) the majority of the Dutch does not marry with people who are Dutch as well ... then please show them. Until then, the endogamy-"requirement" is met in my opinion. Any more 'problems'? HP1740-B (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Actual figures do not prove or refute that Dutch people are discouraged from marrying outside their own group. This is what is meant by the key word 'preferential'. Any more 'solutions'? Iblardi (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, very relevant. They don't have to be pushed. Many choose themselves. According to their own preference. Simple. Any more 'problems'?HP1740-B (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Free choice does not really matter, as this is about group rules. Quoting Eriksen, Ethnicity & nationalism, p. 12: Ethnic groups tend to have myths of common origin and they nearly always have ideologies encouraging endogamy, which may nevertheless be of highly varying practical importance. I do not know of any Dutch myth of common origin (the myth of Bato, even if ever widely believed, would still only apply to Hollanders) or of an ideology which encourages marriage within the group: Dutch people are not discouraged from choosing mates from outside, such as Canadians, for instance. Of course you can stretch the meanings of 'myth' and 'ideology' to have them include the traditional idea of descent from 'the' Franks and negative stereotypes of foreigners in general, but then you have both Dutch identity on one side and that of strictly endogamous tribal groups with origin myths on the other lumped together in one category. This is imprecise and misleading, as it suggests that ethnicity plays a far greater role in Dutch society than it does. Iblardi (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My God you're tiring. Welcome to the world of 'general behavior'. It doesn't matter that your mummy and daddy never put you on a chair, followed by you swearing you'll never marry a woman who isn't Dutch while your parent poured pig blood over your head. Welcome to the post-tribal phase of Dutch society! Fact remains that nearly all Dutch marry people who are Dutch as well, despite freedom of choice. Also, let me break another eggshell for you, the idea of 'common descend' also (generally even) includes this; "my/our grandfathers lived here before me/us", "400 years ago us Dutch sailed for America" and "our ancestors made these dolmen" welcome as well to the world of "general" as opposed to "literal" meaning.HP1740-B (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We could do without the personal attacks of the type "My God you're tiring". Although you may not agree with Iblardi he tries to remain civil, and argues his point elaboritely. Tiring, perhaps, but the only way to decently complete a discussion. You could learn from that behaviour.
 * "my/our grandfathers lived here before me/us" - Great this is the exact definition of "autochtoon" by CBS. Both parents born in the Netherlands (ie Grandparent living in the country at time of parents birth). Skin colour, mythical origins, and other trivial superficialities all gone. I would be very happy if our ethnic group consensus definition would adopt this definition (by the way, while it would include many Surinam Dutch it would exclude (almost) all Flemish as their grandparent were not born in the Netherlands, they never sailed to America". Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only way to decently complete a discussion is to have a decent discussion in the first place. You, Arnoutf, are giving a shining example on how to not have one. Where did I say 'born in the Netherlands'; nowhere, that comment was directed at cultural surroundings; not national borders, and because you didn't read (or understood, interpreted it to your own liking) what I wrote the rest of your comment is unnecessary filling (inaccurate too) of this talk page; meant for proper (decent?) discussion.HP1740-B (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just give good arguments; and concerning interpretation to own liking, I acknowledge I bow for your mastery in that skill which I cannot even approach from a distance.
 * If you state "born in the Netherlands", that can only have one meaning, geographical; I truly cannot see how I can misinterpret that. Poorly phrased arguments are fairly lethal in a semantic discussion about definitions this has become. As you may have noticed I have previously and repeatedly argued that the whole ethnic group should be defined confomr the autochtoon definition of CBS; based on more then merely sloppy arguing of editors. I am happy to revamp that discussion, but consensus seems to be against, so I will accept some more dubious definition, if, and only if, it is supported by scientific sources (again a point I have repeatedly advanced). Iblardi is responding in a rational way and tries to find some common ground, some other editors (notably you HP1740-B) are that convinced of their own opinion they no longer need to weigh and seriously consider opposing views and nevertheless feel themselves above scientific papers as source. Arnoutf (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * >>If you state "born in the Netherlands"<< IF I did that then yes. BUT I DIDN'T. Seriously, do you or do you not read my comments?HP1740-B (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are right, I was responding to your comment on my comment, where you actually did use the phrase born in the Netherlands. As you do in the line above. What I did say, if you had cared to respond to my actual comment rather than interpreting it was ""my/our grandfathers lived here before me/us" - Great this is the exact definition of "autochtoon" by CBS. Both parents born in the Netherlands (ie Grandparent living in the country at time of parents birth).". I.e. I quoted you correcly and related this to the "at least two generation living in the Netherlands definition" by CBS. Not far fetched since 2 generations is exactly me to my grandparents.
 * So in brief. I did read your comment on my comment, but made the mistake not to check whether you had actually read my original comment before responding. So yes, I am to blame for not finding that you did not at all responded to my comment after all but to your selfconstructed erroneous interpretation of it. Sorry for that. Arnoutf (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Even in the section you now claim to have read did I deny using 'in the Netherlands'. I did not even use the word Netherlands in this section other than to make clear I didn't use it. Also, 'grandparents' was an metaphor for 'descend in general'; not a rule of thumb; linking that statement to a CBS definition is wasting time on irrelevant matters.HP1740-B (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * HP1740-B, the example of 'us Dutch' is interesting as an example of (cultural/national?) association, but it hardly passes for a myth of common descent. On the other hand, if speaking of past inhabitants of the country as 'our ancestors' is evidence of a "myth of common ancestry", then the Hunebedbouwers of your last example should, apparently, be considered part of the Dutch ethnic group. Regarding partner choice: It would be rather remarkable if Dutch people left the country en masse to marry foreign nationals. The fact that most people marry 'close at home' is not an argument for or against casting the Dutch in a classical 'ethnic' mould. Iblardi (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What you mean by "classical ethnic mould" is French to me. I'm working with the definition at hand. Also, I wouldn't make that 'myth' more important than it really is. Or image it in a sense of Gods making people from clay; this is the 21st century after all.HP1740-B (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Flemings are not part of a so-called Dutch etnic group
Sigh. Again. Almost everyone agrees, except User:HP1740-B. Let's take a look at the sources given:


 * Are there any sources stating Flemings form an own ethnic group? Yes, I listed some on-line sources at my user page: User:SPQRobin. You might say some of them are not "reliable" sources. However, their "quantity" implies "common acceptance", imho.
 * Are there any sources stating Flemings are part of a so-called Dutch ethnic group? So far I didn't find any. When looking to the statement in the article itself (and actually all other times this user wants to prove it), he gives this source: Based on the definition given by J. Tulkens in his 2001 book 'Sire, er zijn geen Vlamingen', the work of Pieter Geyl as well as J. Wilmots who argue that (dispite acknowleging various occurences of differences among the Dutch-speakers, the Dutch language and culture, comprising of both the Netherlands and Flanders, is an overarching concept.
 * I didn't read the book, but I looked at a fragment on http://home.scarlet.be/~george44/FragmentSEZGV.htm (it contains the most important parts and a conclusion at the end – I also refer to Verifiability).
 * The fragment ends with the statement that there are no Flemings. The fragment gives contradicting sentences likes Vandaag de dag wonen Vlamingen van kust tot Maas stating that there are Flemings. Reviews and information about the book state that it explains how Flemings did become a people, like [...] geschiedenis van de Vlaamse bewustwording and [...] probeert aan de koning uit te leggen hoe de Vlamingen een volk werden.
 * So, is this book a reliable source?

Well, imho you can conclude Flemings are not part of a so-called Dutch ethic group. Btw, I didn't read the above discussion because it's quite long :-S User:SPQRobin (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course you didn't read the above discussion, no one expected you to do so in the first place. Well lets get this over with. SPQRobin, did you happen to read the book title? "Sire er zijn geen Vlamingen". Just checking. If you'd read the entire book, and not just some excerpts (which still do not in any way attack my statement) you'd see that author debunks the statement (along with many others) that the Flemish are a 'single people'. He argues that Flemings are not a 'single people', but are, in essence, various regional subidentities belonging to a 'greater' Dutch culture. Also, the author in much of the book uses 'volk' in the sense of nation. There is a big difference between an ethnic group and a nation, which he believes - and I personally do as well- the Flemish to be, but quite frankly I'm not even going to try to explain that to you again. I've got better things to do.HP1740-B (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your single source, Sire, er zijn geen Vlamingen, is a political satire. To put this into perspective, I can mention at least two other sources which oppose the view advocated by HP1740-B. The Flemings are considered a separate ethnicity - the term is qualified there, but it is not done so in favour of any supposed Dutch identity on behalf of the Flemings - in Heisler's article "Hyphenating Belgium: Changing State and Regime" (in Conflict and Peacemaking, mentioned above). They are also listed as a separate ethnic group among many (including the Dutch) by Jaroslav Krejci and Vitezslav Velimsky in Ethnic and Political Nations in Europe. This is probably only a fraction of the sources. It shows that in literature from the relevant fields (sociology, anthropology) the Flemings are considered no less an ethnic group than the Dutch. On the other hand, no source appears to state that Flemings are part of the Dutch ethnic group. Iblardi (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

SEZGV is not my only source, it was simply SPQRobins focus. Also, I don't think in terms of "no less", Flemish and Dutch form a single, divisional, ethnic group... which happens to mostly be called Dutch in the international sphere, and due to the language they speak.HP1740-B (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Single, divisional is a clear indication of a very specific problem with the definition of the Dutch ethnic group. The word combination "single, divisional" in this context shows at best how ill defined the Dutch ethnic group is, and is at worst a contradictio in terminis. The use of this word combination to describe the relationsship Flemish-Dutch alone is evidence for the relevance of a section highlighting specific problems in defining the Dutch ethnic groups. Arnoutf (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, I used it to refer to a traditional religious and to some degree linguistic divide, among the 'total population', not Dutch on one side and Flemings on the other, which is present. It exists in numerous other ethnic groups, and isn't specific to the Dutch at all. HP1740-B (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the two references to Tulkens' book, which is a novel, not a scientific work, as he indicates on his homepage. Apart from that, the article needs a lot of work to better indicate the difficult situation of the inclusion or exclusion of the Flemish from the Dutch ethnic group. Now, they are completely included in some sections, while other sections indicate that things may not be so straightforward anyway. Articles like this one clarly indicate that the Dutch and the Flemings are separate but related (at least in the minds of the people, but also culturally and of course politically). Sentences in unrelated articles can also give an impression of the divergence between the two people: "Vlamingen en Nederlanders kijken niet naar elkaars films. " (Flemings and Dutch) don't watch each others' movies). Why would people who form one ethnic group watch movies from one part of that group but not another? Perhaps because we don't have a truly common culture (but we don't have a truly separate culture either, of course)? Fram (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting article, but not very much relevant. It's 'differences' focus on political institutions; in which there are bound to be many differences as the Netherlands are a unitary, and Belgium is a federal state; alongside the other fact that the Netherlands are a (de facto) monolingual state and don't have the 'language issues' that plague Belgian politics.
 * It is also no requirement for being a single ethnic group to be each others movies, if anything it would have to do with marketing. At the same time I could remind you of BVN, Sesamstraat (there are hardly any Netherlands-based Children's shows left thanks to 'Samson en Gert, Kabouter Plop, Piet Piraat, Mega Mindy') or even the Flemish 'magnum opus' "De Leeuw van Vlaanderen" which featured both Dutch and Belgian actors.
 * There are cultural and linguistic markers that cannot be (and aren't) ignored, language and culture are one. Of course no culture is identical everywhere, and especially to insiders differences will be visible but those differences are but small dots on the bigger picture. Besides that there are still many misconceptions among Dutch and Flemings alike; many Flemings for example think that Protestantism is the dominant religion in the Netherlands, or use the Amsterdam dialect as their imitation of a 'Dutch-Dutch' accent... It wasn't just for show that the Vlaamse Gemeenschap was known as the Nederlandse Cultuurgemeenschap not so long ago.HP1740-B (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * HP1740-B, let me put it this way: self-identification is one of the main characteristics of an ethnic group. Do you agree that a majority of the Flemings do not self identify as Dutch, i.e. that if you ask most Flemings if they are (ethnically, culturally, behaviorally, genetically) "Nederlanders", they would disagree? Fram (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting source: the book "Ethnic Groups Worldwide" lists the Flemish as an ethnic group, and does not indicate that they are part of the Dutch ethnic group (page 13). People in the Netherland are listed as Dutch (or Frisian and so on) (page 58), and no indication is given that this is the same ethnic group as the Flemings. So here we have an independent (not Flemish or Dutch), relevant source indicating that the two groups are at least not always considered as one outside our countries. The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge lists as the ethnic groups in Belgium--the Flemish, not the Dutch (page 1065). So not only the Flemish don't self-identify as ethnc Dutch, but also independent views of the situation lists two,not one, ethnic groups. Fram (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Fram and would take it even further. Self-identification is a BASIC characteristic of individuals within an ethnic group. The Flemish people do not consider themselves Dutch or Netherlanders or Hollanders. Sources verify this. Our challenge as editors is to clarify this peculiarity rather than pretend it doesn't exist. A Consensus of editors seems to side with the statement, somewhere in the article, that the existence of the Flemish is seperate from, and not included in, the Dutch (ethnic group). Why is that a problem? Don't we want the reader to be fully informed?--Buster7 (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried very much to take into account the double feelings many Flemings have about what they see as 'Hollanders' by (as other authors have also done) acknowledging those feelings in a north/south divide. However, these are 'feelings'. Now, they shouldn't be ignore (thus they aren't) but many should be taken with a grain of salt. I also, which seems to go by many here, want to again stress, that I do not, in any way, deny that the exist different national identities among the 'Hollanders' of the Netherlands and the 'Flemings' of Belgium. I'm convinced it is this, and not the ethnic qualities that is the cause of the current troubles. I just came up with an interesting thought... would there be so much discussion if the Flemish didn't have their own government and tv-stations in Belgium and would number lets say 100,000 instead of ~6 million? I don't think so, and it doesn't matter as a government, tv station or numbers aren't ethnic qualities.HP1740-B (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Number does not matter much, small groups exist (e.g Luxembourg (~ 400,000), Iceland (~ 300,000)). So that is not a criterion.
 * The existence of an own government, television, customs, traditions, etc. etc. are all part of the cultural definition of ethnicity. If we take all these away we end up with a single ethnic group. Mankind. Arnoutf (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, Luxemburgers, are a clear example of a nation; not an ethnic group, a crossroad of various other larger cultures. A comparison with Iceland is also not very useful as they have had a very different (isolated) development. I guess if any comparison can be made (not that it should) it would be more like the situation between Austrians and Germans.HP1740-B (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Or between the French and the Walloons. Surprise, our article on French people clearly labels the Walloon as a distinct ethnic group... Perhaps it is best not to make comparisons? Fram (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Arnoutf is the one who made a (completely false) comparison. I merely pointed out (alongside that comparisons are of little value) that the relation between Austrians/Germans is more akin. However, concerning what you yourself have said here, the French articles opinion on Walloons (in whatever way they wish to define that) is irrelevant to this article.HP1740-B (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to laugh when seeing it suggested that "the Flemish 'magnum opus' "De Leeuw van Vlaanderen" which featured both Dutch and Belgian actors" is in any sense a demonstration of common culture: all the French baddies in the original novel are given to Dutch actors in the film! If providing baddies in films makes for a common culture, you might as well argue that the English are ethnically American! --Paularblaster (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you found it entertaining, it wasn't meant as such though. Nor did I ever insinuate that making films together is linked to ethnicity, this was Fram, whose argument I reversed, Regardless of its value.HP1740-B (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

After screwing it up a few times, I have done rewrites of parts of the article (mainly a word and a sentence left and right) to make the distinction and relation between the Dutch and the Flemish clearer. The article switched constantly between parts about the Dutch only, and parts about the Dutch and Flemish together. This should now be clearer. The major thing left to adjust are the graphs of the number of Dutch, since these still al include the Flemish. Fram (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have given it some thought, and I have to say I have come to the conclusion that this situation needs further explaining. The confusion it seems to cause among 'general readers' is simply too great. The steps that have been made so far are a beginning, however, certain things present in the article at this time. Are unacceptable; this includes the statement that Flemings are an ethnic group; this cannot be claimed, no matter if some books and sites make a casual (further unsubstantiated) reference to the term. I will implement refining in a matter of days, given heavy editing in the past few days.HP1740-B (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "this cannot be claimed, no matter if some books make a reference". Euhm if a scientific book claims this, it actually not only CAN be claimed but SHOULD be claimed. This is regardless of your personal feelings. If you want to substantiate your (until now unsubstantiated) opinion it is up to you to show that these books are unreliable; i.e. you have to provide evidence (rather than personal opinion) that the reference is no other than "casual" and "furhter unsubstantiated". Simply you calling it so does not suffice. Wikipedia is not about Truth but about verifiability, refuting a book need verifiable aguments/sources to do so; until those are provided the book is the source. Arnoutf (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When you quote me do so in full and use the spelling I used, thank you very much. As for what you wrote; no, the book in question is not about Flemings, and an ethnic group; has certain requirements; which the Flemish alone do not (or will ever) meet. Very, very, simple. To most.HP1740-B (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes we agree "an ethnic group; has certain requirements" (quoted in full). However, I think ethnic group is an ill-defined term, leading to a broad range of requirements and fuzzy borders. You believe (if I interpret correctly, but feel free to correct me in this) in fairly strict definitions of ethnic group. You must, otherwise you cannot make strong claims like "Flemish alone do not (or will ever) meet". However, you still (in spite of repeated requests) have not provided the high quality peer reviewed scientific source providing you simple and clear definition of ethnic group. Without this we simply cannot value your strong claims. Keep in mind the stronger the claim (and a claim like "or will ever" is very strong) the stronger the evidence you need. So please finally provide the scientific paper defining the Dutch ethnic group. PS I did use your spelling, but slightly condensed leaving out the irrelevant reference to site (as not reliable) and your bracketed, hence self-acknowledged non-important/relevant "further unsubstantiated". Thus I paraphrased, which I indeed should have clarified Arnoutf (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My view, as is it of most anthropologists, is that ethnic groups have a number of imperative requirements. It would be useless to list mine, as they are not referenced. However this isn't a problem as I can find myself in a definition already used on Wikipedia, and which is very much sourced. It then seems I have to repeat myself endlessly... socio-cultural anthropology, isn't an exact science. There isn't a list which you can fill in and a straight answer pops out. I doubt there is a work that specifically has 'Why the Dutch are an ethnic group" as its subject. I sincerely doubt a similar work exists for any other ethnic group in the world.PS, you didn't use my spelling I'm pretty damn sure I didn't write 'furhter'.HP1740-B (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "My view, as is it of most anthropologists, is that ethnic groups have a number of imperative requirements. It would be useless to list mine, as they are not referenced." Ok you have no reference hence your view cannot be taken as anything but your view per reliability and verifiability guidelines on wikipedia.
 * "However this isn't a problem as I can find myself in a definition already used on Wikipedia, and which is very much sourced." Another core guideline of wikipedia is that another wiki article can never be a source. If you think the references are strong, they should be provided in the article where you want to make the statement (I doubt it, as the argument on the core etnic group article is flaring up all the time too, but that is irrelevant).
 * "It then seems I have to repeat myself endlessly... socio-cultural anthropology, isn't an exact science. There isn't a list which you can fill in and a straight answer pops out." Oh but I completely agree. However it is you who wants to provide a simple, straightforward definition, not me, I want to allow for the grey area for such an ill-defined and non-exact construct. Simply put, if we want a straigthforward defintion, we need a list that provides a straight answer.
 * "I doubt there is a work that specifically has 'Why the Dutch are an ethnic group" as its subject." Indeed, that is why we cannot claim this on Wikipedia very strongly.
 * "I sincerely doubt a similar work exists for any other ethnic group in the world." That is not relevant here, take that up with other articles about other ethnic groups.
 * "you didn't use my spelling I'm pretty damn sure I didn't write 'furhter'" Sorry about that, I thought you responded on the paraphrasing where some meaning changed (and where you might have a reason to complain) rather than about an obvious typo which did not have any relevance for the content (and which I missed in rereading). Arnoutf (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe it would be helpful if you do give us your definition of ethnicity. Since your Dutch group also encompasses the Flemings and you tend to downplay the status of the Flemish variant of Dutch, I have the impression that at the core of your view lies a conviction that Dutch and Flemings, because they historically speak the same language, must form one ethnolinguistic group, which should properly be called the 'Dutch ethnic group'. Their ethnicity is objectively defined, because based on (traditional) language, while self-identification of its members does not count for much. Correct me if I am wrong. Iblardi (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) >>Another core guideline of wikipedia is that another wiki article can never be a source.<< I am/was well aware of this, therefore the definition which I refer to is sourced by reliable non-wikipedia material, which I already made clear in the very same comment you've addressed.
 * 2) >>Ok you have no reference hence your view cannot be taken as anything but your view per reliability and verifiability guidelines on wikipedia.<< No, what I said was is that though I myself agree with the common consensus among anthropologists, that isn't enough for Wikipedia.
 * 3) >>Oh but I completely agree. However it is you who wants to provide a simple, straightforward definition, not me.<< If you'd agree we wouldn't be talking. Just because ethnicity as a whole doesn't have clear cut lines doesn't mean it lacks "basic requirements".
 * 4) >>Indeed, that is why we cannot claim this on Wikipedia very strongly.<< No, it's why you cannot ask for such a book, because no anthropologist will ever write a book on why (s)he thinks a certain ethnic group is an ethnic group.
 * 5) >>Sorry about that, I thought you responded on the paraphrasing where some meaning changed<< I also did that. Had you read my comment properly you would have clearly seen that I referred to both spelling and quoting, separetly.HP1740-B (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that might be helpful to find where we clash in our views, as apparently everyone here agrees ethnicity is an ill defined phrase it would be useful to compare definitions so we can see where the problem appear and try to solve these at the source. Arnoutf (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the main source for "Flemings" being "Dutch" is a publication by a far-right political party with an ethnic bee in its bonnet. Even that once uses "Nederlandse cultuur", once "Vlaamse cultuur", and three times "Vlaamse identiteit". A far-right political programme is hardly an ethnographic dissertation. Can something PLEASE be done about this? --Paularblaster (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
I have been following up these discussions for the past few weeks but only interfered when some claimed "Flemish" to be a different "language" from what is known as "Dutch". I think many us mix up the concepts of "people"/"nation" with "ethnic group". "People"/"nation" is popular vocabulary and what is a people is determined by the people themselves; whereas "ethnic group" is a term used in academic literature (Ethnologie, Völkerkunde). When I read the definition "Menschen, die Herkunftssagen, Geschichte, Kultur, die Verbindung zu einem spezifischen Territorium und ein Gefühl der Solidarität miteinander teilen", I personally would say that this does not apply to the Flemish and the Dutch (as of 2008). However, what I think does not matter, we should refer to academics to state/reject whether the Flemings and the Holland-Dutch belong to the same ethnic group. I think we will end up with some saying yes, others no, but so be it then. For any rate, do not create an article called "Flemish (ethnic group)" next to "Flemish people" as long as we have reached a consensus on how to handle these different POVs. As a way out of this deadlock, I suggest we sum up references to academic literature here on the talk page, group them in a yes-camp vs a no-camp, then evaluate whether these are to be taken serious and then come to a agreement. I already moved two of the refs mentioned above, just to show what I mean. So please allow me to ask you to just list the sources supporting your view with a very short summary and try to withhold yourself from continuing the way too wordy discussion above. After this is done, we can have a fresh discussion based on what we have collected. Possible outcomes might be : majority view (seperate/same ethic group), or absolutely no consensus among academics. Thank you. --Hooiwind (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

References stating the Flemish and the Dutch are different ethnic groups

 * the book "Ethnic Groups Worldwide" lists the Flemish as an ethnic group, and does not indicate that they are part of the Dutch ethnic group (page 13). People in the Netherland are listed as Dutch (or Frisian and so on) (page 58), and no indication is given that this is the same ethnic group as the Flemings.
 * New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge lists as the ethnic groups in Belgium--the Flemish, not the Dutch (page 1065).
 * Jaroslav Krejci and Vitezslav Velimsky, Ethnic and Political Nations in Europe (exact reference will follow): lists 'Flemish', 'Walloon', 'Bruxellois' under 'Belgian' alongside 'Dutch' and 'Frisian' for the Netherlands. Iblardi (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * []...(http://www.hermanboel.eu/vlaanderen-vl-waarom.htm)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Slrubenstein, I appreciate your constructive comment and I thank you for your suggestions. I have some things to say in return, particularly concerning your fourth point.
 * While I would be glad to report only what the sources say, I think that in this particular case it is the absense of specific sources that leaves so much room for inserting one's own interpretation. The subject of this article is one that is more or less derived; sources that deal with it directly have been lacking so far. Nonetheless, the content of an article needs to be delimited in some way, and I think we need some definition to work with. In this specific case personal interpretation, and even opinion, may be allowed relatively more free space than would be the case in many other articles on more well-defined subjects. I myself am not arguing - although I admit that in the heat of the discussion it sometimes looks like it - that Dutch ethnicity does not exist. I understand from the literature that most anthropologists hold that ethnicity is a universal phenomenon, regardless of its exact definition. This is a fact for which I do not close my eyes. Obviously, there is a scientific concept called ethnicity, and this conceptual tool is applied universally; hence we must also be able to apply it to the Dutch. That I am a little skeptic about the universal applicability of the concept itself does not change that. However, most sources I have found so far that speak of Dutch ethnicity (mainly Dutch ones) do this in a context of immigration and integration of foreigners in Dutch society. This is a very specific use of ethnicity, less concerned with describing ethnic groups than societal relationships, and while this deserves mentioning, it does not really tell us more about the nature of the actual group, which is what this article is about.
 * I admit that I, being a Dutchman, am somewhat emotionally involved with the subject (as are most contributors on this talk page, I think), but I am making a sincere effort to base myself on sources. I am also honest enough to admit when I am wrong, and if I encounter a source which diametrically opposes my views, I will report it. I do think that this article has a conceptual problem.
 * My approach to this article, which I try to furnish with arguments, is not that I deny the existence of a Dutch ethnic group, but that I doubt whether this group can be sufficiently coherently defined and has enough saliency in everyday life to serve as a framework for an article in its current form. While it would be relevant to state that Hollandic identity, gradually extending itself (though not unopposedly) to the entire nation after the establishment of the Kingdom in 1814 (with an acceleration after around 1870, when due to the improving infrastructure contacts between formerly more or less isolated regions are intensified), would conceivably have resulted in a Dutch collective identity instead of a mere 'Hollandic' one manifest around 1900, most of the history section does not treat this evolving Dutch ethnic/national identity, but rather concentrates on the national history of the Northern Netherlands plus Flanders. This history is important in its own right, but it is not 'ethnic'. Describing the history of the Batavian myth, on the other hand, is, because it illustrates the invention and development of a tradition which helped in forming some sort of collective identity. But then again, the importance of this legend has diminished greatly after WOII, when many of those symbols which could be called markers of national identity were discarded. In fact, in the eyes of many foreigners, the modern Dutch have a remarkable lack of chauvinism and tend to downgrade 'their' own historical and cultural achievements. Perhaps this cultural trait is an equally defining one, but it also makes that the expression of positive feelings of 'we'-ness is restricted to a very limited range of contexts. The enthusiasm surrounding major football events, for instance, at first sight seems to have an 'ethnic' quality to it, with 'we'-feelings being voiced quite loudly. But such occurrences could also (i.m.o. better) be considered an expression of chauvinist rather than ethnic feelings. If they are considered as an example of ethnic feelings, then Dutch ethnicity apparently extends to coloured football players. This is fine, but if so, we would have to make clear that what we mean by 'ethnic group' differs from the general definition given in the central article on ethnicity. This example could be extended to many similar situations, which, in my opinion, makes the boundary between 'ethnic' and 'chauvinist' very blurry. I would say that the Dutch ethnic group is particularly weakly defined in comparison to, for instance, the Yanomamö people. Dutch peoples' lives are only to a very minor degree defined by their ethnicity, as in many post-nationalistic Western European societies. This kind of ethnicity has very limited importance to the individual, at least in his/her practical, everyday life. This, in my opinion, diminishes the value of a description of the Dutch and their history from an ethnic perspective instead of a national one. (In the case of the Flemings and the Walloons, on the other hand, ethnicity is somewhat more important, as it is reinforced by national politics.) I think these are real conceptual difficulties which should be at least be addressed in the article, without denying that the Dutch are considered an ethnic group. Iblardi (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, ethnicity is not a universal phenomena. It doesn't "have to" exist. If no one discussing the Dutch or the Flemmish use the term "ethnicity," then they are not ethnic groups. I admit this is unlikely, but the bottom line is, what matters is how people identify and talk about themselves and how the relevant scholars (anthropologists, sociologists, historians) talk about them and there are all sorts of ways people may be identified and ethnicity is only one possible, definitely not necessary. For example, the Yanomamö are a very very weak ethnicity if they are an ethnicity at all - the word itself was invented by an anthropologist to name a group of people who have or had no name for themselves because they did not identify with one another as belonging to the same society or social group. I have not followed things recently, but my guess is that the enough NGOs and human rights organizations now deal with the the Yanomamö that they may now constitute a social group, perhaps an ethnic group. This would be an example of ethnigenesis, the creation of an ethnic group. prior to the 1950s they certainly did not constitute an ethnic group, nor a tribe, nor a society. Also, chauvenism is not according to all mainstream sources a defining feature of ethnicity. It may characterize some ethnic groups, and why is a good question for researchers. Bottom line: how do the Dutch identify themselves, and how do relevant social scientists identify them, and what do they mean? Wikipedia allows no guesswork, and no personal opinion. If the Dutch, or sociologists, historians, anthropologists, and let's say political scientists studying the Dutch do not identify them as an ethnic group, well, they are not an ethnic group. We cannot make this stuff up. And we never put our own views in articles. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I agree with this. To me, however, it is the apparent lack of sources which necessarily causes us to speculate about the nature of the Dutch (ethnic) identity we are describing. I tried to explain that above. I would argue to take the focus away from the strict 'ethnic' perspective and instead write about issues such as Dutch identity, nation building, nationalism, chauvinism etc. as part of a more general article called "Dutch people". Therefore I agree with the renaming of this article, which was done yesterday. Iblardi (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of sources never cause us to speculate. there are no sources on the fact that the Dutch are the offspring of space-aliens and devils. This does not mean I therefore write an encyclopedia article speculating as to the relationships between demons and aliens among Dutch ancestors. Not at all. Articles are based on significant views in reliable sources. Articles on topics for which their are no significant views in reliable sources must be nominated for deletion. That is all there is too it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a little dismayed by the sharp tone of your last two comments, which I think is unnecessary. In my view, we share the same position. I am not arguing against you. I do not say that there 'must' be a Dutch ethnic group. It is almost as if you did not read my contributions but rather singled out a few keywords to react to. I found your first, elaborate, contribution sensible, but I think this is not a constructive way of discussing. Iblardi (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't prove it, but I am quite sure that this must be a theoretical discussion. Surely there must be reliable sources somewhere (probably even academic sources, but at least sources that are good enough in the sense of our policies), and given the generally high quality of this article I would be surprised if it had to be changed much once they are actually found. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope so. Note that the article was called 'Dutch (ethnic group)' until yesterday, which is more specific and more problematic than the current 'Dutch people'. We can easily find sources confirming that there is such a thing as 'Dutch people'. Iblardi (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest it has proven hard to find these sources using "ethnicity" since this word is considered politically incorrect by many sociologists and (to a lesser degree by) anthropologists in the Netherlands. I agree with the above and think indeed that Iblardi basically agrees with Slrubenstein (except some minor inclarities). Arnoutf (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Iblardi and I do mostly agree. I am sorry s/he infered any tone at all; my first posts were very long, this time I was able to express myself concisely. The fact remains that as far as Wikipedia is concerned a lack of sources does not force us to speculate (even as to why there are no sources) ... it forces us to move on.  I am using no tone, just stating a fact. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem tagging
HP1740-B, you cannot go around tagging sources as "dubious" without indictaing why it would be so. The Greenwood Publishing Group is a respected publisher, the author nor the publisher are known to have any bias or prejudice for or against the Dutch or the Flemish (they are e.g. not Flemish themselves), and the book is highly relevant ("Ethnic Groups Worldwide", the name says it all). Of course it is not the definite or only source, but as long as you don't have equally authoritative and neutral sources either stating the opposite or at least casting serious doubt on Levinson's work, it is not up to you to tag the book as dubious, or to add a "citation needed" tag to a cited fact (if in a book on ethnic groups, the Dutch-speaking people from the Netherlands are labeled "Dutch", and the Dutch-speaking people from Belgium are labeled "Flemings", then they are two separate groups according to that source).

Now, if you want more reliable independent sources acting as if the Flemings are a separate ethnic group, you can use this one as well:, or perhaps the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups is good enough a reference? It clearly separates the Belgians in two ethnic groups, the Flemings and the Walloons (page 179), and knows the difference between Flemish and Dutch (e.g. page 181, where it is stated that Dutch strongholds did not accept the Flemings). On the other hand, Dutch Americans are those whose ancestors came from the Netherlands, not the Netherlands or Flanders.Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, published by SAGE. Fram (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fram, your own source says quite clearly that the fact that 'Flemings' were not accepted in Dutch strongholds (settler communities, red.) such as Holland, Michigan lies with religion, specifically Catholicism vs. the Dutch Reformed Church, not ethnicity. Apart from that, it's no secret that small Dutch settlements often were either Protestant or Catholic, of which there were also many. Your Havard source literally says: "Belgian cultural activities were often integrated with Franco-American or Dutch-American organizations" and "there were few distinctly Flemish or Walloon parishes; the Belgians simply joined French- or Dutch-speaking congregations" or "Before World War I many Belgians were identified as Dutch, French or Canadian", not exactly pleading for you. Did you also notice one of Harvards references is called "Netherlanders in America". I'd say this source is more supportive of my view than yours. Now to the matter at hand, I added cite tags because there is no explicit notion of a 'separate ethic group'. A mere mention as one in this book is insufficient, as Austrians and Canadians are mentioned as ethnic groups as well, with the ensuing article greatly reducing that view... with the Dutch entry unaccesable this source is not applicable to be used a source for what is claimed.HP1740-B (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Dutch entry inaccessible? Anyway, even if it was inaccesible online, this book would still be perfectly acceptable. It is a perfectly verifiable reliable source.
 * As for the Harvard source: the book "Netherlanders in America", which neither of us has seen even partially, is from 1955. Not the most up to date source. And I am not arguing why the Flemings were not accepted into Dutch communities, I'm indicating that they are treated in this book as two separate entities, even though they have ties (language), something which has never been denied. I do not believe that an Encyclopedia on Ethnic Groups that specifically mentions the Flemings as a group, separately from the Dutch, can be considered to support your view. It is not a mere mention by the way, they are even identified in the intro, which makes clear that a section does not correspond with an ethnic group (just like the Canada section which you sue as an example does). I honestly don't understand yur objections to this source, and it seems to me to be more useful if you would look for sources that clearly support your view (e.g. an overview of ethnic groups that does treat the Dutch and Flemish together) instead of nitpicking against rather clear sources which disagree with your opinion. I have now provided four relatively recent, reliable, independent sources on ethnic groups from major publishers which all treat the Flemish separate from the Dutch. You have not yet provided one that does the opposite. Fram (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fram, by "Dutch entry" I meant that the entry on the Dutch (ethnic group) is inaccessible as it is not a fully viewable book. Also, Fram, please look at what you're doing right now. You put forward a source, and when I show you how multi interpretable it is, you denounce those as well as certain references your own source is build upon. Also, and let this hopefully be the last that is said on this matter, as quoted from your own source: "The Flemish and Walloon groups are described as Communities by experts RATHER THAN ETHNIC GROUPS. Need I say more about this source?HP1740-B (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't shout. So, one of my sources is self-contradicting (or at least acknowledges that the Flemings, which he desrcibes as an ethnic group, are often seen as a community instead). That doesn't invalidate the other sources, and that does not mean that you should supply sources to support your point of view. If you want the Flemish to be treated as part of the Dutch ethnic group, you have to provide good sources that do so. My sources at least indicate that not everyone does.
 * As for the Dutch entry: I just gave you the link, so it is accessible online (page 57-59), and it was an invalid objection to a source anyway since it does not have to be accessible online anyway. If you meant the Harvard book, there as well the Dutch entry is viewable from page 284 on. Fram (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No Fram, they are not. Pages 258 till 408 are not open to online viewing, even though the Dutch listed in the register. The information on the Flemish (or rather; Belgian) entry is not to be used to claim the Flemish are an ethnic group (the exact opposite is true) whereas the Dutch entry can't be checked. Also, my point wasn't that one incorrect source invalidates others (which would be stupid) but that you A; use sources that contradict your point as sources to support your point, while B you draw overstretched conclusions from remaining others. If it's not in the book, don't claim it. It's simple.HP1740-B (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * HP1740-B, these pages are open to viewing. You have probably just exceeded your limit in this "limited preview"... Can someone else please check if these pages are viewable? As for the rest of your statement, well, I'll let others check the sources as well, since we obviously won't agree on any interpretation of these sources. Oh, one more: the CIA factbook clearly and unambiguously lists the Flemish as an ethnic group... Fram (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My limit is everyone's limit. Oh one more thing, the "CIA World Factbook" isn't a book on ethnic groups. Once again I urge you to accept that mere use of a 'term' doesn't constitute proper referencing.HP1740-B (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

HP1740-B, when you have limited preview books on Google books, you can see X pages of each book before Google locks you out of that book. If you have looked at too many other pages of that book, you will not be able to see the rest of it (I suppose this is temporary though). As I haven't looked at too many other pages of it, I can see the pages I linked to without any problem. So once again, these pages are open to online viewing...

And The World Factbook is generally considered a reliable source, condensing a lot of other specialized sources. However, you are still invited to provide sources for your point of view instead of brushing away all sources claiming or indicating the opposite... Fram (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a known problem that direct links to Google books page sometimes work for some users and not for others, not necessarily because they looked at other pages first. The problem probably has to do with copyright problems. (If there was a reliable way to link to a page it might be a violation.) And Fram is of course right: Dead tree books are perfectly acceptable as sources; the fact that there is an additional defective link doesn't make the source any less reliable. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And again, as Fram stated, a printed book witout on-line access is perfectly acceptable referencing, just go to the library and pick up the in-print (ie paper) version and check. Arnoutf (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I note that you have again tendentiously edited the intro section, adding negative elements to the "Flemish" sources while ignoring the weakness of the "Dutch" sources. One of your sources is an obvious support of the "Flemish" ethnic group, but you include it in the "Dutch" part: the quote you give, "^Eurobalkans: Eurovalkania, University of Michigan 1996, page 35; "Under the Constitution. the government must have an equal number of ministers from the Dutch-speaking and French-speaking ethnic groups (the Flemings and Walloons)"." literally says that the Dutch-speaking ethnic group are the Flemish, which is exactly the point I and everyone else has been making. Not the Dutch ethnic group, but the Flemings as the Dutch-speaking ethnic group. The first quote, "Since it seceded from the Netherlands in 1830, Belgium has been sharply divided into a Dutch linguistic culture in the north among Flemings and a French linguistic culture in the south among Walloons." only indicates that the Flemings speak Dutch and have a common (i.e. common among the Flemings) culture, not that the Dutch and the Flemish are in any way one or two ethnic groups. The note "As illustrated by sources in subsequent sections concerning this subject." is useless, sending readers on a wild goos chase.

Finally, your claim that "with all mentioned sources listing cultural unity, or similarity with the Dutch as a whole." is very strong and seems unsubstantiated or at least a very one-sided reading of the sources. Sources mention linguistic unity or near-unity, but that seems to be as far as it goes. Fram (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Both examples by Fram are of sloppy referencing which would be completely unacceptable in any scientific paper; and is even more so in Wikipedia as the original authors of claims like "As illustrated by sources in subsequent sections concerning this subject.", has no control whatsoever of what these sources will be in future re-edited versions of the article (ie putting up this statement requires the original editor inserting it to check each and any change in references in the subsequent section every time these change). Arnoutf (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that at least one source dealing specifically with the domestic situation in Belgium in a book dedicated to ethnic conflicts (I have mentioned it before: Martin O. Heisler, "Hyphenating Belgium: Changing State and Regime to Cope with Cultural Division" in Joseph V. Montville (ed.), Conflict and Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies (New York 1991), 177-195) refers to the two groups as follows: "a Dutch- or a French-language cultural community" (p. 177), "Belgium is populated by Dutch-speaking Flemings and French-speaking Walloons" (p. 178), "the Flemish North and the Walloon South" (p. 179), "disadvantages accrued to Flemings" (p. 180), "use of the Dutch language ... in the Flemish provinces" (pp. 180-181), "Being ethnic tended to mean being Flemish. Although Walloons were also ethnics in most senses of the term..." (p. 181), "Flemish and Francophone" (p. 182), "ethnic peace between Flemings and Francophones" (p. 187), "Ethnic identity was likely to be less ambivalent and more salient for Flemings", "acculturated Flemings" (p. 192), and so forth, with no hint at all of a larger Dutch ethnic group of which the Flemings should be part. Regardless what we think about it and notwithstanding close linguistic and cultural connections between the Netherlands and Flanders, 'ethnically Dutch' does not seem to be the usual way of referring to the Flemish community. Iblardi (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a good source - let me just note that now NPOV comes into play. It is not at all uncommon to find a case where people disagree over whether x is an ethnic group or what to call it. There may be a reliable source and the view may be significant enough to include, but it may help to specify whose view it is (which academic discipline, or of not academic, which profession, and also when) and be open to including other views. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless what we think about it and notwithstanding close linguistic and cultural connections between the Netherlands and Flanders, 'ethnically Dutch' does not seem to be the usual way of referring to the Flemish community.. A clear and concise statement. Bedankt, Iblardi!--Buster7 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Danish
Could somebody please permanently add the danish-dutch misconception? For example, if I'm not mistaken, US states officials have publicly mistaken the Dutch army for the Danish army in the Iraq conflict.81.207.97.6 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I trust that misconception lies in the similarities between the words Dutch/Danish, not their cultural or linguistic natures.HP1740-B (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is more of a misunderstanding/misconception by the US officials than anything else. --Buster7 (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The word Dutch has the name roots as Diets or Deutsch, but not Danish. Hence totally irrelevant. --Hooiwind (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When/where was the mistake made? Is there reason to think it is anything more than one individual's slip (as opposed to a systemic or general problem)?  For better or worse, I really doubt the US Department of Defense consults Wikipedia when preparing documents or web-pages.  And I do not think Americans typically mistake Denmark for Holland, although of course Americans are notoriously ignorant about geography.  I think most Americans cannot tell the difference between the Ecuadorian and the Venezuelan flag (then again, how many Dutch can tell the difference)?  Alas, most people do not know much about things that do not concern them in daily life.  But I do not think there is a Danish-Dutch misconception any more than a Danish-Norwegian misconception or a Dutch-Belgium misconception.  Let's just focus on making this article really good! I suspect that the real issue - in terms of Dutch politics as well as recent work by political scientists and sociologists - is not whether the Danish are Dutch but whether Muslims are Dutch!  Let's focus on the important issues! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I once got a letter addressed to "Brussels, Denmark" - so getting small north-western European countries muddled seems to be more than one individual's problem. But these are curiosities, not suitable matter for inclusion. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I once saw a text in which an American was talking of Kopenhagen being the capital of Amsterdam..... But indeed curiosities only.... ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There you are! I remember an old guy long time ago speaking out that Something is rotten in the state of Denmark ... -- Ad43 (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A very minor issue
Recently a new editor made some changes re:Second World War into WWII. []. I'm glad to say that its a minor issue (It shows progress). I would like to revert without any ill-will toward the new editor. I admit that the difference is subtle and perhaps barely noticible by the casual reader. My reasons are two-fold. The use of WWI or WWII is most times used when referencing to a military subject matter. It, in a way, objectifies the reference...it makes it about "the war". In the article it is used more to just reference a point in time, which is commonly spelled out...the Second World War. Also, "De Tweede Wereldoorlog" doesn't translate easily to WWII. Just a thought! --Buster7 (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Done..--Buster7 (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Tag
Why has this article been tagged as being non-neutral? Based on what this tag has been placed? Please someone explain to me what is wrong so I can try and fix it - I hate to see such an ugly tag on such beautiful article. Jouke  Bersma   Contributions  13:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably the whole stuff with the Flemish being included as "dutch people". Grey Fox (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

S1 - S11
I've made several edits to improve this article in the past hours and labeled them S1 through S11 to avoid previous editing tactics by some who used relatively minor points of disagreement to revert entire sections. Thus, if anyone has problems with specific edits (With the exception of S10) list them below here. There is no longer an excuse to revert an entire section. HP1740-B (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For starters, the image about "Jansen" is [WP:OR]], and the relation to the point (Dutch moving into current Germany in the Middle Ages) is very tenuous at best. I would propose to remove it again. Fram (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be your first proposal to remove the image, as you've never made such a proposal before, deleting without rationale instead. Now that's sorted out, it's not OR it's based online project which simply allocated a percentage to the map based on the total volume of the German '98 phone book. It's also not meant to refer to the Dutch settling the East, that's a product of your own mind, not mine, but simply shows Dutch influence in the Dutch-German border area by example of the most common Dutch patronymic.HP1740-B (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a relevant reply if I had said "I would propose again to remove it". However, I said "I would propose to remove it again", which is perfectly allright, since I did remove it once before. But this has becvome quite irrelevant.

We have no way to verify how reliable the research you did is, and neither do we know what the result of said research is supposed to prove. We don't need this image. Grey Fox (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * GreyFox does have a point per WP:reliable. It is up to the editor introducing potentially controversial claims to support these with reliable references, not to the editor deleting such (unsourced) claims. If no reliable reference is provided any addition can be labelled original research, the only way to refute that is providing the reliable source(an unnamed online project is not even a source, let alone a reliable one). Arnoutf (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, yes you do. By asking for the site the project is located on. Its use was already explained to you.HP1740-B (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, asking for a source is needed. However adding that source into the text, and making sure it is reliable is still the task of the original editor. (and I am not sure the provided website reliably supports the claim). Arnoutf (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Iamge now deleted (by me) as a blatant copyright violation. You can not take an image from a website and release it in the public domain as the "copyright holder", as if you did the actual work involved in creating this map. Apart from that, the relevance of the map to the text is still very unclear, there is no evidence in the map that these people are Dutch, of Dutch descent, or from somewhere else, and no indication, if they are of Dutch descent, when they migrated (it may be one patriarch who now has 10,000 descendants with each 1/1024 Dutch ancestry...). It is anecdotical, not encyclopedic. Fram (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

S10 (removal of section)
To describe what typifies "Western-European societies" as well as matters concerning "nationhood" and "national pride" is not what this article is about. I've said it before, if you want to talk about flaws in defining 'Western European' ethnicities, do so on the ethnic group-article or create a specific article. Do not write that down here. Further Dutch-specific content of that section is also irrelevant, as "nation building" (it's almost in the name) is different from ethnicity as a concept. Cultural, linguistic and religious identicality or similarity does not have to be recognized to exist. We are talking about a time where most people were farmers, not linguists or cultural anthropologists. HP1740-B (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The interesting thing of the Dutch people have emerged from a civilian population (i.e. cities have been leading forces in the emerging Dutch identity), not an agricultural one. As such the Dutch group is relatively unique, and needs some specific content. (I know we disagree on this topic.) Arnoutf (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not unique. Most 'World cultures/ethnic groups' develop in and around cities/villages/settlements which form meeting places, and/or cultural propellers, and/or centers for cultural development. This is a process already observed among stone age hunter-gatherers (southern France is known for it) who used certain cave sites as specific trade posts. It's not unique it's actually the most common way of ethnic/cultural evolution, seen among a wide variety of people ranging from the Han and Persians to the Maya. The only thing (rather) unique in this among the Dutch is that they didn't gradually evolve from village to city, but rather fast and that their social system changed from tribalism to feudalism in the blink of an eye, only to then find itself located outside more centralized rule and subsequently acquiring (de facto) social freedom not seen in other parts in Europe for several centuries.HP1740-B (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Subsequently acquiring (de facto) social freedom not seen in other parts in Europe for several centuries in itself already warrants a special section in my opinion. Alternatively, if you start Dutch ethnogenesis at around 1550 feudalism was already on its return, and the cities were already dominant. (But as I stated above, it is already clear from previous discussions on this section that we are unlikely to achieve consensus on this topic). Arnoutf (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't in which corner you're trying to get now, but none of this applies to that 'defining Dutch ethnicity' section or warrants its existence.HP1740-B (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, we disagree on this topic (and did so in previous, now archived discussions). Let's wait for other editors to comment. Arnoutf (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not talking about the topic at hand. You mentioned a whole new one, on which I don't even care if there will be commenters. Try to stay clear, it saves a lot of space.HP1740-B (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Topic at hand is whether definition of Dutch is sufficiently special to mention in a separate section for whatever reason (ie the topic is about removing the definition section). Above are only a few examples why this is the case; hence all examples (even if not mentioned in the current version of the section) are relevant to the topic. Arnoutf (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we are writing an article on an ethnic group, I think that the relevancy is obvious, because (as I said before) national identity and ethnicity are often intertwined. What is deliberately being built in the 'nation-building' process described in that section is a sense of shared identity which was not present before, not just in a political sense, but also culturally, and the latter is considered the most important marker of ethnicity. The idea of sharing a common past was forged in classrooms, where for the first time in history children all over the country would learn that the Batavians were their ancestors (although perhaps rather metaphorically), national heroes like Tromp and De Ruyter were the embodiment of typically Dutch virtues, and William the Silent was honoured as the "Vader des Vaderlands" (note the allusion to metaphorical kinship). For the first time, there would have been a large-scale sense of being connected with other Dutch people on account of their 'being Dutch' (and sharing those common experiences). If anything can be said to have been instrumental in creating a Dutch ethnicity, it would have been the late-19th-century cultural homogenization of the country. Conversely, I think that the other historical sections are too long in their present state. Ethnicity has more to do with the way in which groups of people view their own history than with describing its actual course. The Batavian Myth is relevant because it can be seen as an early example of a Hollandic elite cultivating an idea of common Hollandic (later, by extension, Dutch) ancestry and making this awareness of a shared past part of their own identity. These two processes have more right to be called ethnogenesis than the actual history of the inhabitants of the Low Countries, which rather belongs in History of the Netherlands or something similar. Iblardi (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. This talk page is infested with the (read:your) notion that nationality and ethnicity are "closely intertwined". They're not. What you describe as ethnogenesis is in fact 19th century romantic nationalism, and it didn't create an ethnicity, it created a sense of nationality. A process seen all over Europe. William of Orange has nothing to do with ethnicity.HP1740-B (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The notion that ethnicity is largely based on self-identification (which was what I was talking about) or identification by others, but not on objective cultural markers, has been common among anthropologists for about the last 50 years. See also Ethnic group. Hence the problem with describing the present-day Flemings as part of a larger Dutch ethnic group. Iblardi (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Back to topic. There is clearly no consensus to delete the section, the opposite is more likely (2 to keep, 1 to remove). Status quo remains. The tag is removed (not by me, was already done). Arnoutf (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The section is well sourced and deserves to stay. I think it's better to name the section "Dutch Identity" though, and not "defining dutch identity", and maybe it's better to move it down somewhere instead of at the start of this article, because I think that this article isn't, and shouldn't be dedicated to just identity, but also ancestry. Grey Fox (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Original research issues
HP1740-B continues to insert Original Research on a mass scale. We've explained him dozens of times, but if he refuses to change his editing behaviour then we should just revert his actions, including the removal of the images he made himself. HP1740-B, please propose controversial changes instead of just reverting them back in all the time. Grey Fox (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please place some diffs on the talk page concerning those dozens of times, because I don't insert OR and have no idea who you're supposed to be.HP1740-B (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure you don't. I'm not going to bother providing you with diffs from months of conflicts. My message was to other editors here who probably know what I'm talking about. For months you've been treating this page like it's your own. Now you've taken it a step further. First you create and upload images to commons that do not contain reliable sources, and use them to propogate your personal believe that the Flemish are "Dutch people", or some other fringe theory. Then after that you include them on this page without discussion, and accuse anyone who removes them of "vandalism", just like you did now. In the meantime I've reported you for a clear three-revert violation, and I encourage others to do so more often as well. Grey Fox (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're not planning on bothering to substantiate your claims, then don't make you claims. I don't know who you are, or think you are, but I do not practice OR. In fact, I find it rather important to source material. Also, I don't think the Flemish and Dutch are the same people, I (and so does literature) establish they have/belong to the same ethnicity/culture. As to your 'report', I don't care. HP1740-B (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This post was made in reply to several other users above telling you to stop inserting original research. Of course they were all wrong? Grey Fox (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW I am a fan of original research, in fact I do a lot of original research, which I publish in peer reviewed scientific journals, just not on Wikipedia ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Flemish again
"The Dutch-speaking community in Belgium is sometimes included in the Dutch ethnic or cultural group, due to the common language, and partially shared culture and history,"

At an attempt to verify these sources I looked them up. The first source was hard to check, because no page number was provided. It turned out that said book says nothing that matches the initial statement really. The languages of Belgium are discussed, but this has nothing to do with their inhabitants being ethnically or culturally dutch.

The second source uses a quote. I looked it up and it turns out the quote was taken out of context. The same page simply speaks of "Dutch-speakers", not "ethnic" or "culturally" dutch. Again this source says nowhere that the inhabitants are ethnically or culturally dutch, only linguistically. Grey Fox (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This doesn't surprise me at all, since it is my experience that very few sources speak out on this topic explicitly. Iblardi (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As noted by User:Fram neither references in that section (apart from the one, mine, that explicitly calls the Flemish as a community not an ethnic group) substantiates itself. But if a page says The Dutch, also called Flemings. I think that's rather clear. Especially given the context of the whole book, rather than the page you just read.HP1740-B (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (inserted comment) Please don't say what I "noted", certainly not when adding things in parentheses with which I completely disagree. Fram (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why the section doesn't belong here at all. Even if a source calls the Flemmish a community (which they are) then that doesn't mean they are ethnically dutch. Again an example of original research. And no that's not "clear". Nowhere in the book does it say that the Flemish are either ethnically or culturally Dutch, and that quote refers to Dutch speakers (just like on the rest of the same page), not the Ethnic Dutch. Grey Fox (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Learn to read what I wrote and what the source says. I repeat myself: "apart from the one, mine, that explicitly calls the Flemish as a community not an ethnic group". Respond to what I said, not to what you think I said. HP1740-B (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read you fine, and I've concluded that it shouldn't be me who needs to "learn how to read", especially when it comes to sources, but you. Grey Fox (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No you didn't because if you had, you would not have said "Even if a source calls the Flemish a community (which they are) then that doesn't mean they are ethnically dutch." on my comment in which I said that the only substantiating reference states they are a community, not an ethnicity. Which the article ALSO states. So rather than continuing to fill up this talk page with meaningless comments. READ.HP1740-B (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did. The Flemish being a community or not has absolutely no relevance to this topic, which is about Dutch people. I removed the section because it turned out that not a single source was provided which listed the Flemish as ethnically Dutch. Grey Fox (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It most certainly does. Because there are people who deny it and people who claim it. It's called showing both perspectives. HP1740-B (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What 'some people' claim is of no relevance here. It's about what Reliable sources say. So far, there's not a single reliable source that lists the Flemish as part of the Ethnic Dutch, and about a hundred sources that say the Flemish are not part of the Ethnic Dutch. See WP:FRINGE. Grey Fox (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are about a 100 please list them, instead of blowing air. Do it, list them. The last guy had about a 100 too, they turned out to be 3. 2 of which proved useless, the other one directly opposed the view he thought it represented. Come on, list them, or is this just another filler? HP1740-B (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What would be more fitting is your list of sources. Since you want to include something controversial, you're the one who should provide sources, and apart from the two sources that did not contain said information, we've seen nothing. Grey Fox (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So far I've referenced every claim I've made in this article. Now list those sources or admit you don't have them. TP's are about bring forth sources, it's becoming repetitive, not blowing air with exaggerations you then evade. Don't waste my time. HP1740-B (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interpreting The Dutch, also called Flemings as The Flemish are part of the Dutch ethnic group is original research as it is some form of WP:synthesis; as you over-interpret a casual remark. You need a source that makes the claim (much more) explicit Arnoutf (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "So far I've referenced every claim I've made in this article." You're kidding right? As I already pointed out the sources you've provided contain nothing that back up said-claim. Grey Fox (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the sources that list the Flemish as a distinct ethnic group, here we go; And there were already three provided above. Want me to go on? This was the result of just 5 minutes of google search. Grey Fox (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (un-indent)@ HP...Grey Fox seems to question whether the Flemish are Dutch. Your reply seems to focus on whether they are a community or an ethnic group. He seems to also make a valid claim that your reference only groups "Dutch-speakers" linguistically, not ethnically. It doesn't make the Flemish Dutch! If this is your only source, the article should not infer an ethnic bond that doesn't exist.
 * Also, @ Grey Fox..the same picture is used twice. The NY Dutch picture is nice but what happened to The Dutch on the street. It was a picture that was chosen by Consensus quite awhile back. Can you please return it?
 * Also, somewhere, I believe it was Grey Fox, changed noteworthy to significant. I am changing it back to noteworthy. The amount of Dutch settlers was worthy of note, worth noticing. It was not significant, however. Significant would imply a considerable percentage of the whole.
 * Also...one another question to all. Where Flemings a part of the population shift to Prussia's Baltic Sea area or was it just the Friesians???--Buster7 (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind your changes, but I don't like the idea of putting back the image of the "dutch people standing on the street". I personally really don't like that image, because I don't think two overweight citizens and an extremely skinny female are supposed to portray the entire Dutch population. It's almost insulting. Not only that, those persons are most likely not aware of the picture that was taken of them, let alone that it be circulated on the web like this (I believe there's a policy against that too). Note that I did remove the image of the New York family down below, but it was put back in during HP's edit warring. Anway I think any other picture is fine too, even the clog girls from ages ago. Just not the bicycle folks one. What do others think? Grey Fox (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The picture was chosen by consensus. The idea behind it was that it has representational value, showing a plain, everyday scene of the kind that most people are likely to encounter when visiting the Netherlands. I strongly dislike old images of people wearing traditional costumes for the same reason. You may have a point concerning the individuals being depicted without their assent. It is possible that the picture was taken without them knowing it. I would probably not be pleased if my portrait was all over the internet without my consent.
 * The choice of words for describing them in your comment may not be helpful either. Iblardi (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Before that another picture was also choses with consensus (a collage) but it got hijacked, so I don't think a true consensus exists. My choice of words is a point though; when I look out of the window I don't see people with weight problems, thats just a minority. That's not meant to be insulting, I don't want to add models instead because that wouldn't be very representative either. Anyway I don't mind any other picture, it doesn't have to contain traditional clothing. You're never going to find a single picture that can represent the entire dutch population, there's just too much diversity. I think we should just take an example of other articles describing ethnic groups, who either use a collage or an old picture. None of them every go out on the streets, shoot a picture of random passer-by and use that. Grey Fox (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of section
I moved the recently re-instated section on genetics to Demographics of the Netherlands (not Demography of the Netherlands, as I erroneously stated in my edit summary), which seemed to be a more fitting place for this kind of information. Iblardi (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)