Talk:Southern Netherlands

Names
The names should be changed to match the names of the period:


 * the Netherlands -> the Low Countries when referring to the 17 provinces
 * the Netherlands -> The Union of Utrecht/the United Provinces when referring to the independant provinces of the Low Countries


 * This should be okay now. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   01:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The article should be moved to "Southern Netherlands (1579-1794)" or something like that, to include the different periods, The Spanish Netherlands and The Austrian Netherlands.

--moyogo 18:41, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)


 * I moved it all to "Southern ..." because that seems neutral enough to encompass "Spanish ..." and "Austrian ...", and then redirected those two terms over here (previously the latter was inaccurately pointing at the Seventeen Provinces). I guess if "Southern ..." is also too specific, the years could be included in the title. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   01:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's of course true that Brabant was a duchy. That doesn't mean it wasn't a province also though. All the provinces were either counties, duchies or church lands, with the exception of the never feodalised Frisia.

--MWAK 05:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Map
A map might be useful to illustrate this subject. What about this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Low_Countries.png Indisciplined 12:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Peacock wording
Just some snapshots of bombastic peacock wording:
 * section Place in the broader Netherlands:
 * Netherlands in general were a jewel in ...
 * in their proud defence of ancient privileges ...

I'm neutral towards the sides this old war, so I don't like being maneuvered into a certain emotional attitude (imagine a tone of deep scorn here!) when neutrally reading what they did in the late 1600ths. In wikipedia language the above examples are WP:PEACOCK wordings, and deviates from WP:NPOV. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)