Jump to content

Talk:Netherlands/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

coat of arms Amsterdam in infobox

I removed the coat of arms of Amsterdam per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons, because this article is not about Amsterdam but about the Netherlands. In addition this type of over-iconing is not usual at all (see USA,UK,Russia). Arnoutf (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Then why are there capital city coats of arms in the infoboxes of Germany, France and Italy? If we're removing these coats of arms that's fine by me, but let's be consistent then. (Luxorr (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC))
London and Washington don't have coat of arms. At Russia, it may have never been suggested. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
In Paris it it was added without edit summary very recently [1] by the same editor who added it to Amsterdam around the same time [[2]]
London has a coat of arms although the image is not given on the Wikipedia page; Moscow has a coat of arms [3] and Washington DC has an official seal.
But that all does not matter, Manual of Style is clear (and coats of arms on other pages are not a topic for this talk-page but MoS suggests they should be removed there too, and I reverted a recent addition so it is not a removal of long standing coats of arms, but just normal practice under WP:BRD.) Arnoutf (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, were it not for the fact that Germany is an FA. So a good question to ask is whether the icon for Berlin was there when it was promoted. Personally I don't see a good reason to include such iconography. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
It didn't and I removed it. I see no other reason for it, and none was provided here. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
It used because it's representative of the city. For the same reason as to why we used flag icons when listing countries. It's representative, and it looks pretty neat. Arnoutf, the City of London is a city within London, London has no coat of arms. I don't see where MOS suggests they should be removed? Rob (talk | contribs) 18:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I honestly didn't think anyone would be against this... --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, Samotny. Rob, the image is representative of the city but that doesn't mean it needs to be placed there. The MOS is quite clear and those infoboxes are cluttered enough already. Nor do we place icons when we "list" countries--at least, we shouldn't do that as a matter of course. See MOS:FLAG. It's distracting, very distracting. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Where in MOS? Rob (talk | contribs) 21:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
MOS:FLAG. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Samotny no problem, just trying an idea like you did is fine. Sometimes it is liked, sometimes people think differently and you get a discussion like this. Don't take it as criticism on your personal input, just keep thinking up creative ideas that you think improve the project.
Drmies - MOS:FLAG was indeed the section in MOS I was referring to. It has the line "the bulk of these recommendations are also applicable to official seals, coats of arms" in its opening paragraph. Arnoutf (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The reasons given by MOS:FLAG for not including "flags" for subnational entities are obviously not applicable here. The coat of arms of Amsterdam doesn't imply "nationality" and it doesn't need to be recognisable as it is accompanied by the name of the city.
MOS:FLAG does state 'Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox' is appropriate. Thus, if this is done consistently across Wikipedia, there shouldn't be an issue.
I don't think we should go about removing these coat of arms from articles based on MOS:FLAG (which is barely applicable in this instance), and a few editors POV from this single discussion. I think we should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, and gain wider consensus. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
From MOS:FLAG " "country" and "nation" as used below should be understood to also apply to other uses of flags, such as national subdivisions" - so we should consider Amsterdam here at equal footing with a nation.
From MOS:FLAG "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality" - Here it does not represent Amsterdam, the subject is the Netherlands, not the city
From MOS:FLAG "Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words." - Here it does, the layout changes
From MOS:FLAG "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." - This is very clearly the case here.
From MOS:FLAG "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used" - As I argued above, the Coat of Arms of Amsterdam does not convey relevant information to the larger Netherlands article.
From MOS:FLAG "Subnational flags (regions, cities, etc.) should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article. Such flags are rarely recognizable by the general public, detracting from any shorthand utility they might have, and are rarely closely related to the subject of the article." - The Coat of Arms of Amsterdam is not relevant to the (larger) Netherlands article.
So in fact there are 5 statements from MOS:FLAG that are both relevant and support removal of the icon. Arnoutf (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
MOS:FLAG is a guideline. Please take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. If editors are in favour of including the arms, then regardless of the guideline, we would reflect consensus. There's currently no consensus here, and this doesn't represent the entire community anyway. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, there is clearly no consensus in favour of the recent ADDITION of this coat of arms. Samotny was bold, I reverted now we discuss. You want to raise the level to broad country project level consensus to make a specific exception on the guidelines, be my guest. But until then I suggest we stick with the pre-march 2014 old status quo and guidelines for this page. Just a question though, if you manage to organize consensus along the lines of "We should add coats of arms to the capital in the infobox", what would be your suggestion for London? Arnoutf (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay. For London, we wouldn't show anything. It simply shows that London has no coat of arms. Rob (talk | contribs) 13:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in infobox

The source for the Ethnic Groups figures in the infobox says "Dutch 80.7%, EU 5%, Indonesian 2.4%, Turkish 2.2%, Surinamese 2%, Moroccan 2%, Caribbean 0.8%, other 4.8% (2008 est.)". Recent edits have adapted these figures to show various values for Frisians. Today I edited the figures to return them to those shown in the source but was soon reverted to show 1% Frisians. @Mythic Writerlord: please could you explain that? NebY (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as though the Frisians are recognized as an official ethnic group by both the European Union and the Dutch government, but they are in this summary grouped under those of Dutch heritage. This is an error I seek to correct. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The source does not go into such detail, as for example in its figure of 5% for "EU", and verifiability requires that we follow the source. Amending the source figures to pick out one particular group which you think should be given greater recognition breaches the neutral point of view and undue weight policies, as well as misrepresenting the new figures as being provided by the source. Of course the figures could be replaced by more detailed figures from another source, so long as there were not too many entries for an infobox, but that requires locating a suitable source; the most obvious source would be this from Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (Statistics Netherlands) but that doesn't break out Frisians. Pending the sourcing of better figures for the infobox, I'll restore the previously sourced ones. If you can source better figures, I'd urge you to discuss them here before replacing the ones in the infobox; we mustn;t start an edit-war. NebY (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
We'd need sources that the Frisians are regarded as a separate group for etnicity purposes, and the present source clearly doesn't do that. I also do not see any sources that the Frisians are regarded a separate etnic group (sure, the language has a special status in NL and EU)... L.tak (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's a source that describe them as 'an ethnic group in the Netherlands and Germany' with 'special protection under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities'. Rob (talk | contribs) 12:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Demographics / Dutch ancestry section ?

When I added a picture to illustrate the already existing text (file "Census Bureau Dutch in the United States 2000.png" from wiki commons), it was reverted with the argument, that ".. this (page) is about the Netherlands, not the US ..". A very basic and valid point I think !

But that raises the question: should the already existing text about this not also be removed ? The page about Dutch people covers it convincingly. --84.106.90.249 (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. I guess you mean the text that reads: "Dutch people, or descendants of Dutch people, are also found in migrant communities worldwide, notably in Canada, Australia, Brazil, South Africa and the United States. According to the 2006 US Census, more than 5 million Americans claim total or partial Dutch ancestry.[99] There are close to 3 million Dutch-descended Afrikaners living in South Africa.[100] In 1940, there were 290,000 Europeans and Eurasians in Indonesia,[101] but most have since left the country." - which includes many countries with relevant Dutch descendant and places much less emphasis than the picture would. But I have no strong feeling about removing or leaving in considering the limited emphasis. Arnoutf (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Date for founding of New Amsterdam

From the entry "Dutch settlement in North America began with the founding of New Amsterdam, on the southern part of Manhattan in 1614." I don't believe that is correct and if you go to the New Amsterdam page you will have more accurate information.

Also why use New Amsterdam instead of Nieuw-Amsterdam


2604:2000:FA81:A301:3D54:39C7:C53E:4D5F (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)J Schein

English spelling on English Wikipedia
New Amsterdam reports that in 1614 a trade monopoly for the region was granted and it seems to be the first such document so that seems a good for the start of Dutch settlement in N America. Arnoutf (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

grammar - the low countries

This section's grammar seems off. I'm not sure exactly what they're trying to say. Is there a verb in the first sentence?

"While De Lage landen (The Low Countries) is a geographical designation of the general area of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, Benelux, and depending on the context, sometimes extended with parts of northern France (French Flanders, French Hainaut, Artois, Picardy to the Somme) and the former Luxembourg region around Diedenhoven and West Germany (east Frisia, Julich, Cleves, Bentheim, Lingen, the region around Geldern, around Bitburg, some municipalities east of the eastern provinces which were annexed by Prussia in 1815, etc.). Netherlands has about the same meaning as the Low Countries, but of a more historiographical and political nature."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.55.232 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 June 2014 UTC

Taking out the "While" or adding some words would make the sentence grammatically correct. The words "is" and "extended" are verbs. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this has been fixed, thanks. 68.81.55.232 (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

rename to "The Netherlands"

your thoughts? Fgnievinski (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sadly not possible, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles and Talk:Netherlands/Archive_8#Place_name.2C_the_Netherlands_or_Place_name.2C_Netherlands.--Egel Reaction? 14:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Egel: So I understand it's desirable but not technically possible to rename; how about at least {{DISPLAYTITLE:The Netherlands}}? Fgnievinski (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, let me ask you: should Academic ranks in Netherlands be renamed to "Academic ranks in The Netherlands" or "Academic ranks in the Netherlands"? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The name is similar to names such as 'the United States', 'the Maldives', 'the Philippines', and 'the United Kingdom'. I have no idea why so many people think the article "the" in 'the Netherlands' is anything more prominent than in the names of the countries I just mentioned. It's not the same as in The Hague or Le Havre, where the articles are integral to the name. J187B (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
In UK-English you always include the definite article before "Netherlands" but you don't capitalize it, in some other variants of English the definite article can be omitted. A capitalized definite article is not correct in any official variant of English. See Guardian and Observer style guide
@J187B: The Bahamas is like The Hague.
@Egel: hmm, my mistake. So both in "The Hague" and "the Bahamas" the article is integral to the name. One difference though, "The Hague" is always written with a capital "T", whereas "the Bahamas" seems to be written with a lower case "t" if in the middle of a sentence. J187B (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@J187B and Egel: So no need or desire for displaytitle trick then? Fgnievinski (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Fgnievinski: ..... the Netherlands should follow ..... the United Kingdom and ..... the United States --Egel Reaction? 18:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Egel: Thanks! Here it's the renaming result: Academic ranks in the Netherlands. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Un-DAB {{distinguish}}

The article has a hatnote

Not to be confused with Holland (disambiguation).

Linking to a disambiguation page is normally to be avoided, but in this case the DAB page has a section comprising five entries relating to the Netherlands, any of which "(the) Netherlands" could refer to. Rather than replace the hatnote with five hatnotes, I am changing it to refer and link to that section:

Not to be confused with Holland (disambiguation) § Relating to the Netherlands.

--Thnidu (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

SolaRoad, world's first PV bike path

Calling PV enthusiasts and interested eds, especially in Netherlands.... please expand SolaRoad! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Dutch Values illustration

An editor removed the image of the gay parade from the "Dutch values" section. I think it is worth discussing whether this is the best image for the section, which doesnt mention gay rights at all. I would say that the choice of image should be reflected in the content of the section, and backed with some source mentioning the specific relevant of the image to the topic of "Dutch values".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sentiments

Would it be appropriate to add in the social section that anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic sentiment in the country is high? Thats according to this page [4], where a PVV which wants to de-Islamify the country and close Muslim schools is leading in opinion polls. Peiirc (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No that would be synthesis of two pieces of information (1) PVV is anti muslim (which can be sourced) and (2) PVV is scoring high in the polls (which also can be sourced). You cannot draw the conclusion that the majority of the population is anti muslim.
One problem would be that you assume in this synthesis that PVV's only point is anti muslim AND that people only support PVV for their anti-muslim sentiments (a lot of people support PVV as protest against the current government without really supporting any of their position) Arnoutf (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The leader of PVV according to his wikipedia page is best known for his anti-Muslim sentiments. Also the majority of search returns for his online speeches consists of anti-Muslim speeches. Therefore the notion that people support him while not being anti-Muslim seems strange or unlikely. Peiirc (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
That is (while there are reports on that it is indeed the case that anti muslim sentiments are much less pronounced among PVV supporters) not the main issue. To avoid your idea being original research you need a reliable source that calls Dutch sentiments anti muslim. You could just as problematically build the argument that the appointment of Moroccan born muslim Ahmed Aboutaleb as mayor of Rotterdam (the second city of the Netherlands; and him being the first Moroccan to be appointed mayor of a major European city) together with his popularity in the Netherlands is evidence of overwhelmingly positive sentiments towards Muslim immigrants. Everything of that line of reasoning can be sourced. Yet the conclusion is an original combination of these facts. The two syntheses would lead to opposite claims; both contain bold interpretation, combination and extrapolation of the facts that may lead to this. That is why we don't allow synthesis. 19:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
So your foremost evidence that the Dutch are not anti-Muslim is the Dutch affection for a Muslim mayor who today said that "Muslim immigrants “can fuck off” if they do not appreciate freedom of speech" ? Peiirc (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No that would be original research, and would be just as problematic as your idea for much the same reasons. Arnoutf (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That is not "anti-muslim," that's "anti-Muslim who do not appreciate freedom of speech."Jeff5102 (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Peiirc's refrasing of what Aboutaleb said is not correct. He is saying in Dutch: Als je het hier niet ziet zitten omdat je humoristen niet ziet zitten die een krantje maken,..ja, ..mag ik het zo zeggen: Rot toch op. This would mean: "If you do not like it here (in The Netherlands) because you do not like it that humourist make a (little) newspaper... may I say, then go away". He is referring to the Charlie Hebdo shooting. So he is saying something totally different. He is saying, f**ck off if you don't like it here. Ellywa (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Frisian, English, Papiamento

In the infobox, wouldn't it be better to have instead of the current situation with two categories (Official languages: Dutch; Recognised regional languages: Official: Fy, En, Pap; Unofficial: Saxon, Limb) three categories:
Official national language: Dutch
Official regional languages: Frisian, English, Papiamento
Recognised regional languages: Limburgish, Lower Saxon
After all, Frisian, English and Papiamento do have an actual status as official languages in the respective regions, as set by law, equal to Dutch nationwide. In its current form, it is suggested that Dutch is the only official language, which is not the case. I understand that the infobox-template needs to be adjusted to make this possible, perhaps someone is willing to do this (or sees another way). PPP (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree this is tricky. Your suggestion would work for me, if you get the template changed. Arnoutf (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
To avoid having to edit the already complex template, I have instead moved Frisian, English and Papiamento from 'recognised regional languages' to 'official languages', deviding that section into 'national' and 'regional'. PPP (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I am fine with that solution too. Arnoutf (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Religion section is a mess

Humanism and Pluralism are not religions and cannot be discussed on the same level as Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. The section needs to be reorganised. {16:00, 6 August 2015‎ Ernio48}

Agree partially. The section is proportionally too big. Major part of section should be transferred to Religion_in_the_Netherlands. Use only an abstract instead in article Netherlands. However, humanism and pluralism do belong to the given subject as 'other beliefs' . --VanBuren (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed and it is not a little bit too big either. Compared to the other subsections in the demographics part (language, education, healthcare - btw none of those is demographics) it is about 4 times larger than any other. To make it more balanced this section should be shortened by about 75%. Arnoutf (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest moving Humanism and Pluralism to Religion in the Netherlands article, retaining the official latest statistics, removing the theist/atheist/agnosticism crap, melting Protestantism and Roman Catholicism sections into one big Religion section (keep only the most important info from those) and shortening this section as a whole to absolute MINIMUM.Ernio48 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree - I would suggest something like the summarized section below. What do you think. Arnoutf (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I changed some things here, for example deleted the Mosque picture. If we are going to add a picture, it has to be about the majority in the state (nonreligious), not a minority. Added Roman to Catholic, because Catholicism redirect can cause some trouble. Historical statistics are also important here. Moreover, the term Calvinist might be offensive to some. Reformed is more descriptive, often used in the Dutch language, and causes no conflicts.Ernio48 (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I would add a religious building to the religion section - even though it is the minority (since the non building of atheists make equally poor pictures as invisible pink unicorns ;-). However, whether a mosque is best can be doubted as that is a minority religion (I do like the Dutch-Muslim blend of red brick, modern form and minaret and dome on that one though). Perhaps show an iconic Catholic church like St. John's Cathedral ('s-Hertogenbosch). But no picture would be fine as well
Agree with addition "Roman" to Catholic; also agree with replacing Calvinist with reformed. Don't agree with mentioning non-PKN protestant separate though. If we lump all Christians together they should not be split off (and placed with Hinduism - I deleted that line). For the rest looks fine to me Arnoutf (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
No picture is the most reasonable choice as there won't be any skirmishes between people of various religions advocating their picture. Section implemented into the article.Ernio48 (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for the constructive collaboration here. Arnoutf (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggested cleaned up section

Religion

Main article: Religion in the Netherlands

Religions in the Netherlands (2013)

  No religion (55.1%)
  Roman Catholic (23.7%)
  PKN (10.2%)
  Islam (5.0%)
  Other religion (6.0%)

Historically, the Netherlands was a predominantly Christian society. From the Protestant Reformation on, the Dutch population was divided into about two-thirds Protestant (mostly Reformed) and one-third Roman Catholic believers. This began to change gradually in the mid-20th century as there has been a steep decline in religious adherence, which continues. There was a strong geographical difference between the Roman Catholic south and the Reformed north, remains of which are still in evidence. The Netherlands is currently one of the most secular countries in the world. About 39% of the population is religiously affiliated and in 2010 fewer than 5.6% visited religious services regularly (once or more per month). In spite of an overall decline in religiosity, a countervailing trend is the religious revival in the Protestant Bible Belt, and the growth of Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu communities.[1][2]

Religion in the Netherlands is generally considered a personal matter and is not supposed to be propagated in public.[3][4][5] The Dutch constitution guarantees freedom of education, which means that all schools that adhere to general quality criteria receive the same government funding. This includes schools based on religious principles by religious groups (especially Roman Catholic and various Protestant). Three political parties in the Dutch parliament (CDA, ChristianUnion, and SGP) are based upon the Christian belief. Several Christian religious holidays are national holidays (Christmas, Easter, Pentecost and the Ascension of Jesus).[6]

Christianity is currently the largest religion in the Netherlands, accounting for about one-third of the population. Roman Catholicism is the largest Christian religious grouping with around four million registered adherents (23.7% of the population).[7] The provinces of North Brabant and Limburg have historically been strongly Roman Catholic, and their people still largely consider the Catholic Church as a base for their cultural identity. Protestantism in the Netherlands consists of a number of churches within various traditions. The largest of these is the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN) (10.2% of the population), a United church which is Reformed and Lutheran in orientation.[8] It was formed in 2004 as a merger of the Dutch Reformed Church, the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and a smaller Lutheran Church. Several orthodox Reformed and liberal churches did not merge into the PKN. Although in the Netherlands as a whole Christianity has become a minority, the Netherlands contains a Bible Belt from Zeeland to the northern parts of the province Overijssel, in which Protestant (particularly Reformed) beliefs remain strong, and even has majorities in municipal councils. The Dutch Royal Family has historically been members of the Reformed branch of Protestantism.

Islam is the second largest religion in the state. In 2012, there were about 825,000 Muslims in the Netherlands (5% of the population).[9] Muslim numbers increased from the 1960 as a consequence of large numbers of migrant workers. This included migrants from former Dutch colonies, such as Surinam and Indonesia, but mainly migrant workers from Turkey and Morocco. During the 1990s, Muslim refugees arrived from countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan.[10]

Other religions account for some 6% of the Dutch people. Hinduism is a minority religion in the Netherlands, with around 215,000 adherents (slightly over 1% of the population). Most of these are Indo-Surinamese. There are also sizable populations of Hindu immigrants from India and Sri Lanka, and some Western adherents of Hinduism-oriented new religious movements such as Hare Krishnas. The Netherlands has an estimated 250,000 Buddhists or people strongly attracted to this religion, mainly ethnic Dutch people. There are about 45,000 Jews in the Netherlands.

References

  1. ^ Hans Knippenberg, "Secularization in the Netherlands in its historical and geographical dimensions," GeoJournal (1998) 45#3 pp 209–220. online
  2. ^ Tomáš Sobotka and Feray Adigüzel, "Religiosity and spatial demographic differences in the Netherlands" (2002) online
  3. ^ Becker, Jos and Joep de Hart (2006). Godsdienstige veranderingen in Nederland (in Dutch). Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. ISBN 90-377-0259-7. OCLC 84601762.
  4. ^ Becker, Jos and Joep de Hart (2006). Godsdienstige veranderingen in Nederland (in Dutch). Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. ISBN 90-377-0259-7. OCLC 84601762.
  5. ^ Bleak picture of church in decline 4 December 2013 GMA news
  6. ^ "Feestdagen Nederland". Beleven.org. Retrieved 27 January 2010.
  7. ^ "Kerkelijke gezindte en kerkbezoek; vanaf 1849; 18 jaar of ouder". 15 October 2010.
  8. ^ "Kerkelijke gezindte en kerkbezoek; vanaf 1849; 18 jaar of ouder". 15 October 2010.
  9. ^ "Een op de zes bezoekt regelmatig kerk of moskee". Central Bureau of Statistics, Netherlands. 2012. Retrieved 30 March 2014.
  10. ^ "Godsdienstige veranderingen in Nederland" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 January 2007. Retrieved 17 May 2010.

Unencyclopedic?

Could somebody explain to me why this article is flagged Unenyclopedic? I guess it is no candidate for deletion, but without specifics, it is hard to improve... Eezacque (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me where you see that tag? I don't. Arnoutf (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
There is such a tag placed by JamesLucas somewhere in the history section. Maybe he can give an explanation.--Watisfictie (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I did some further improvements. How about removing the tag?--Watisfictie (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I have been bold and removed it. Without explanation even after request and after edits it should be better now. Otherwise the OP should have presented some more specifics and examples so we could have worked on it. Arnoutf (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I took a quick look, and I think the section is still seriously problematic, but I'm don't really mind if we take the template off. For anyone who's interested in helping, I note that the grammar is poor throughout (particularly notable in some dangling modifiers) but I find more concerning the tone of certainty regarding some cause-and-effect relationships. I cite the first sentence of the second paragraph as an example. To be perfectly honest, the English is poor enough that I'm not entirely sure what it supposed to mean, but even so I'm concerned by the assertion climatic conditions on the coast improved, so during the Migration Period the abandoned land was resettled again. I would argue that we can identify correlation but not prove causation, and the conjunction so is an overreach.
A little back-of-house note to Arnoutf, I am responding to this conversation within a few hours of its re-initiation. The tag I placed in "Early Middle Ages (411–1000)" that was noted by Watisfictie earlier today wasn't added until 9 July [5], many months after this thread began, and so could not have been the subject of Eezacuque's question. I can see how the timing tripped you up, and you probably wouldn't have made the mistake if Watisfictie had dropped the diff into the conversation, but I do encourage care when suggesting some sort of negligence/abandonment on the part of another editor, particularly in the edit summaries, which are by nature more permanent and harder to respond to than talk pages or even the article itself. No hard feeling in either direction, this time, I hope!
—jameslucas (" " / +) 17:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Glad I was able to track you down and hear your motivation. I see most of your points. I wouldn't mind anymore to put the tag back, if accompanied with the motivation. I will ad a source for clarification of the abandoned coastal region that got resettled again in the Migration Period. --Watisfictie (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

mainly gypsies in suriname

whether they accept it or not colonists were called zigeuners by the dutch and it's their problem to figure out with the netherlands government to correct this. It should state clearly in the article that they were called gypsies. Ignorance is not bliss. All textbooks in the 70s and 80s clearly state that they are zigeuners — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.211.124 (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Pruning the article

Virtually every section has a link to a main article, yet the sections themselves remain HUGE. Especially the history section could use a rigorous weight loss programme. Agree to put this (something like "Main article-linked sections need to be replaced by concise summaries") in the to-do-list? - HyperGaruda (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Dutchified English

At least some of this has obviously been written by a native Dutch-speaker, or else an English-speaker who has lived in Holland long enough to lose touch with his/her native language. A plan that 'foresees in' something is a literal translation from the Dutch phease 'voorziet in'. Correct English would be 'provides for', or perhaps just 'foresees' (but in any case without 'in'). I suspect the article is a patchwork of contributions by speakers of both English and Dutch. Does any of this matter? Yes, I think so, because people tend to rely - perhaps naïvely - on Wikipedia and other Internet sources when writing English, and the quality of English on the web is declining daily. I'm afraid Dutch-speakers tend to overestimate their mastery of English and to write (and post) English texts without bothering to have them checked - if challenged, they also tend to shrug it off with the argument 'Everyone knows what I mean' (which isn't always even true). If the article is going to be overhauled anyway, someone should take a good look at the English.62.163.210.37 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Go your gang and improve the language..... (to use an Englified Dutch expression for "Please go ahead";-). Arnoutf (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I checked and it wasn't me that wrote "foresees in". I'm so relieved because it's a mistake I could easily have made, especially without checking after posting. Yes, by all means, go "your gang". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I just went my gang (not being bang) and corrected it. The anonymous editor is free to check the rest of the article for Dutchisms. And all the articles listed on my user page, for that matter. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I've been "banging" around a little myself. I'll have another go with the rest of it in a few days time, removing items of Dutchified English, correcting myself afterwards and hopefully not adding new ones. Does English use capitals for North East West and South I wonder? "Bang"ing my head on the table right now....Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


Map key

There are some wonderful maps here that I like a lot that look like this (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Netherlands#/media/File:500vc_ex_leg_copy.jpg), but they don't have a key. I suspect the colors mark elevation above sea level, but don' know for sure. Can whoever posted them provide a key so we know what the colors mean? Thanks. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be an archaeological map depicting the region 500BC. It looks more like a soil type (sand, peat, clay) map than anything else to me. Not sure what we can do with this Arnoutf (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
For key see History of the Netherlands and File:500vc_ex_leg_copy.jpg --Egel Reaction? 17:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


The map 'The Delta Works are located in the provinces of South Holland and Zeeland.' is not correct.

It includes a dam that separates 3 waterways, Hollands Diep, Haringvliet and Volkerak. The dam only shuts off the Volkerak, while a bridge crosses the Hollands Diep / Haringvliet. There is free flow of water between these two waterways. 65.190.25.66 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Music of Netherlands Antilles and Aruba under culture of the Netherlands proper

Reverted good faith edits by Hebel: Actually none of the islands explicitly mentioned are part of the Netherlands, the topic of the article. Please remember that the special municipalities are the minor islands (and this old text focuses on the big picture of the old situation). The situation described includes another state of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that has been dismantled - so the section is also outdated. Finally, you mentioned "external" influences on the music of the Netherlands as a possible rationale for inclusion, but these need to be more concise, and not mislead. gidonb (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Name

In the intro, it says The Netherlands' name literally means "Lower Countries", influenced by its low land and flat geography...

The source (a glossy tourist leaflet) doesn't bear out that assertion. I've always thought the name meant 'the lands of the lower Rhine.' //erik.bramsen.copenhagen

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.135.66 18:21, 18 October 2015‎ (UTC) (talk)

Never heard of that, but if you can provide a reliable source, I would be happy to look into that. Arnoutf (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I have heard about low Rhine or low Germany as the source, but am unsure if either is correct. However, the name Netherlands itself does mean low lands. The much simpler statement, is simply correct! gidonb (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Translation Error in Wilhelmus

At the anthem, Wilhelmus, it says 'of a Dutch and ancient line'. There can be argued that the entire song is not translated properly, but it defenitely says 'van Duitsen bloed', which means 'of German blood', or 'of a German line', because Willem van Oranje was German.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

No he was not. Germany did not yet exist in the 16th century. The term Duitsen Bloed was in fact synonymous with Dietsen (ie Dutch) bloed at that time. The meaning of the Dutch line was to emphasise that William, although a prince of far away Orange and reared at the Burgundian court was in fact part of the same people (Dutch=Diets-Duits) as the Netherlands. [6] Arnoutf (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Germany existed in the 16th century, it just wasn't a modern state yet. The term is Duits is not synonymous with Diets. If Diets was meant instead of Duits, the text would have reflected that. It doesn't. The English translation seems like a free invented translation, I've heard it before. The translation is however gratuitous. However the Netherlands were considered part of Germany until at least 1608, when the Republic seceded from the Holy Roman Empire. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
There were indeed a number of German states, which tended to be part of the Holy Roman Empire; but Germany as a federation or nation states did not exist before the 19th century. The Dutch principalities, duchies and counties were part of the Holy Roman Empire, but to my knowledge the idea of Germany as a centrally controlled kingdom was based in East Francia and had faded away by 1200. Holland, Frisia, Flanders, Brabant and Zeeland originally part of Middle Francia, and while still within the Holy Roman Empire were (to my knowledge), like Italy not really considered Germany at any time, and most likely not at all by the 16th century. Arnoutf (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Dutch-Diets-Duits derived from the Old Germanic word theudisk, meaning (pertaining to the language) of the people, that is, the native Germanic language. The term was used as opposed to Latin, the non-native language of writing and the Catholic Church.[1] In the first text in which it is found, dating from 784, it refers to the Germanic dialects of Britain.[2] Until roughly the 16th century, speakers of all the varieties of the West Germanic languages from the mouth of the Rhine to the Alps had been accustomed to refer to their native speech as (low/neder/upper/hoch/hoog/middel) Du/ie/eu/ui/oots(c)(h) or some other cognate of theudisk. This let inevitably to confusion since similar terms referred to different languages and peoples. Therefore, in the 16th century, a differentiation took place. Owing to Dutch commercial and colonial rivalry in the 16th and 17th centuries, the English term came to refer exclusively to the Dutch.Watisfictie (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd revised edn., s.v. "Dutch" (Random House Reference, 2005).
  2. ^ Roland Willemyns (2013). Dutch: Biography of a Language. Oxford University Press. p. 5.

Population

Population now 17 million. Should the infobox be updated? Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Religion section

Recent edits have replaced the #Religion section by material which has apparently been copied directly from Religion in the Netherlands. I see two problems. One is that it seems pointless to have identical wording in two articles (given, of course, that Religion in the Netherlands is given as a {{main}} link from Netherlands#Religion). The second is that the copy is unattributed and therefore a copyright violation, see WP:Copying within Wikipedia. I have reverted twice, but the edit has been made yet again, so other editors' views are requested. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Your objections appear to some extent justified. Mainly that we should not duplicate contents if not essential - and here the main Netherlands article should provide a summary not the full overview, so I do not see why sections should be copied. (Personally, I do not really care much about problems with copying within Wikipedia.). What is also problematic with the recent edits is that the edit summaries are highly non-informative; and that they are repeatedly done while there is evidently no consensus to change (as shown by the reverts). In my view the editor making the edits should present their case and find consensus before doing it again. (I have reverted the latest edits). Arnoutf (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Marshall Plan

Why is there no mention of the Marshall Plan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.71.98 (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE perhaps. Arnoutf (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Why no mention of Regions of Netherlands and Independent movement for Friesland

Why is there no mention of the List of regions of the Netherlands as indicated on this other Wikipedia article and which argue that the Netherlands is divided as so:

NUTS-1 regions of the Netherlands

NUTS-1 Regional divisions as used by the European Union:[1]

  1. ^ http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/introduction

Also why is there no mention of the independent movement by Groep fan Auwerk (Group of Aurich) for an Independent Friesland (see here, here and here). There is a German Wikipedia article on this topic (see here) but there seems to be none in English, despite being briefly mentioned at the bottom of the Frisia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:25C0:380:71B1:B31D:C331:741C (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

These regions are in practice not used within the Netherlands. So listing them in this high level article would be overdoing it in my view. We cannot list all the details here. Arnoutf (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The Groep fan Auwerk seems to be a very small group, with very limited support. Again, it seems this would be too much detail for the Netherlands overview article. Arnoutf (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The regions have no formal or official standing. I agree with User:Arnoutf. I agree with him also on the "Groep fan Auwerk". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

According to the official website of the government (Wat is het Koninklijk wapen of Rijkswapen?), only the King can use the Greater "Royal" version (Koninklijk wapen) of the CoA. The Middle "State" version (Rijkswapen) can use only by the Netherlands. --IM-yb (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Je maintiendrai

Je maintiendrai isnt french! nor its the all dutch slogen. its rather limited to a part of north netherlands,

dutch might be a diritive of french as manny others like german english spannish etc. but it isnt pure french as the wiki claims. the fench have verry little todo with it. it might actualy be closer to latin then french (dont qoute me on that)

even google sugests its western friesan. (witch is a dialec of dutch) Je maintiendrai isnt 'regular' dutch either, its rather wierd and rare north dialec of dutch called friesan. its the one dialec that is verry difrent then the rest of the dialecs around here, like its the one noone understands unless you have roots there, for the rest of the dialecs least some of it can be understood with regular dutch, but not friesan.

now i i have some roots there and i know enough to claim "Je maintiendrai" isnt pure french, and it isnt pure dutch either. i supose its a mix of things dating back to the 1700's and such translation doesnt do it justice.

perhapse someone knows the exsact origen. but it isnt the french i know that much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.249.3 (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

nl:Je maintiendrai It's late medieval French dialect. It has its origins in the House of Châlon-Arlay, County of Burgundy.
Frisian is not a dialect of Dutch, but a language closely related to Anglo-Saxon. --Egel Reaction? 17:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Capitals of the Netherlands and similar redirects

Redirects Capitals of the Netherlands, Capital of Holland, Capitals of Holland and a couple of similar ones have been nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 20#Capitals of the Netherlands to determine the best target(s). You are invited to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

'Most important'

I've decided to be bold and remove the words 'and most important' from the sentence "The largest and most important cities in the Netherlands are Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam" in the lead of the article. Designating them as 'the most important' is entirely subjective. I haven't touched the rest of the sentence or the following two sentences (yet), since they contain information that's factual (which is why that information is repeated later in the article), but I'm tempted to remove them or edit them since the only reason for them to be written as they're written now seems to be to prop up the removed claim about them being 'the most important' rather than as lead-worthy facts in their own right (which they nevertheless may be). Robrecht (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Robrecht. All right I think, although Amsterdam has a special position as the capital of the country and The Hague is the residence and the seat of government. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh I'm certainly not disputing that. They certainly deserve mention in the lead on their own merits. Designating them as 'the most important' when other cities (Like Nijmegen or Maastricht, depending on which side you support, and Eindhoven) have their own claims to equal importance (those mentioned for being the oldest city in the country and for being the home of prominent companies like Philips and DAF and being the capital of the Dutch Design school respectively), however, seems unwarranted... (And kinda smacks of the usual Holland-centrism many articles about Dutch topics feature on Wikipedia, but that's a personal gripe and therefore unencyclopaedic). Robrecht (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Rotterdam is not even a province capital (like Assen), the Hague is relatively young (compared to Nijmegen and Maastricht that date back to the Roman era). Utrecht is the spiritual/religious capital; Delft holds the burial tomb of the royal family. Importance can be weighed on all such factors, and the choice which criterion to count heaviest on importance is subjective. So - yes - I agree, removal of the qualification "and most important" makes a lot of sense.(PS for much the same reason project Netherlands does not use the importance qualification in its assessment system). Arnoutf (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague are the three largest cities in the Netherlands. Amsterdam is the capital, Rotterdam the largest and busiest port in Europe and The Hague the seat of government. Jim Michael (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a list of largest cities. Why should we get into value judgements? gidonb (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for assistance in Dutch

Wikipedia NL. Kunt u aub de informatie over Nederland een beetje actueel houden. Ik doe alle moeit om informatie van 5 of 10 jaar geleden te actualiseren. Vaak lukt mij dit niet omdat ik mij wel baseer op CBS cijfers maar dit niet vermeld. Het gaat om bevolking, bevolkingsdichtheid, economie, grond-stofwinning, werkloosheid, belangrijke bedrijve , etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.224.24.222 (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Netherlands-related articles on en.wiki! gidonb (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence contradiction

This article is about the country in Europe, not the wider Kingdom of the Netherlands. This is confirmed at the start. Why then, in the opening sentence does it claim that the Netherlands also incorporates the Caribbean territories? This part of the sentence, including the citation that is attached, should be removed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Someone else wants to answer for once? gidonb (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It is somewhat complicated. There is just the physical country of the Netherlands in Europe. And there is the Kingdom of the Netherlands which includes the physical country in Europe and six islands in the Caribbean. Three of these islands have a limited dependence in that they have their own elected government and that way, for the most part, make their own decisions. The three other islands are administratively fully dependent: they are governed and considered the same way as any other town in the Netherlands. It is this latter situation that is described in the opening sentence. --VanBuren (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"tallest" people in the world correction

According to other wiki lemmas, Dutch are "among" the tallest people in the world (but not the tallest), second only to Bosnians and Herzegovinians.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_around_the_world http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide

I think this should be corrected to the article since it currently contradicts what it is written elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.56.63 (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Country's name

The country in called "The Netherlands" in English, not "Netherlands". Leaving aside any discussion on whether or not the article should be capitalised, it seems a definite article should be inserted into the title. At the moment it is missing. I suggest changing the article's name. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, based on what exactly? The capitalized article "The" as part of the name "Netherlands" is not official and far less common than the no capitalized article option. Our preferred option goes alongside with adding an article as part of the sentence structure when the "Netherlands" is included in full sentences. As in this example and the same as with the grand and other quasi-plural countries: United States, United Kingdom, and Philippines. In order for us to prefer inclusion of The in the name of a country or entity, the name without the capitalized article needs to be very uncommon. Do you want to claim Netherlands is rarely written without The? If so, can you prove this through serious documents? gidonb (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
This was discussed many times before, for example here. One of the conclusions was that British English uses a definite article before Netherlands and US English doesn't. --Egel Reaction? 19:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, gidonb, I do want to claim that "Netherlands" is rarely used, and no, I do not have to prove it because English is my mother tongue and I do not need to prove that the country is called the Netherlands, any more than I need to prove that Germany is called Germany. The onus is on you to show that the country is called 'Netherlands'. I have read the archived discussion that Egel refers to above and will comment on it here because it seems simpler to do so than on the older, now archived page.

All references to the way the Dutch use their country's name are not relevant because this article is in native speaker English, not a non-native speaker English. If the Dutch don't use an article, that is fine, but the English do, so that is what matters. Most references to the preferred addresses methods of various post offices around the world are also not relevant: post offices are businesses trying to simplify their systems to maximise profits; they do not control how a language is spoken. Reference to other North European English speaking countries, besides Britain and Ireland, are also not relevant because there are none. Who says the 'official' name is "Netherlands' without an article? Where's the evidence?

Whenever the county is called 'Netherlands' by an English speaker it is invariably grammatically wrong and reflects badly on the person using it. An exception might be in fast moving slang, text-speak or similar. Addresses on envelopes fall into this category. It is all correct English but only when used in very specific situations. An encyclopedia article is not one of them.

Back to wikipedia policy. In all this debate, common-sense seems to have been lost. WP:COMMONNAME is all that is needed. To quote: In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article: as such the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. So, why is this article not headed 'The Netherlands'? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Because its also United States and not the United States in Wikipedia, and Philippines, and not the Philipines. The false plurals as mentioned before. How much more common sense do you need? Its just a convention. period.Watisfictie (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

What false plurals? The low countries are plural, the Phillipine islands and plural, the United States are plural. They also happen to be unitary states. But their name holds the memory of their original plurality. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, false plurals because states and lands are plural, however the United States is (as in singular) a country in North America and the Netherlands is a country in Europe. All this has been discussed many times before as especially Dutch people are sometimes confused about the name of their country. People testified at this talk page that they were wrongly taught at school by teachers who were clueless themselves. As a result several Dutch websites carry the article The in front of the country name! gidonb (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Until the American Civil War, politicians in the USA said, "the United States are..", not "the United States is...".Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Laurel Lodged, yep! All my statements are current truths. gidonb (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
This style guide may come handy. gidonb (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

gidonb, could you please stick to the topic. The commonly used name for English speakers is 'the Netherlands', so why isn't Wikipedia policy followed and that name used in the heading. What Dutch children are taught in school about their own country, in their own language, and what they do and do not understand, is all very interesting but is off topic. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, actually it's just "Netherlands". The article is added as part of a full (!) sentence structure, not as part of the name. As I showed above, style guides warn against viewing the article as part of the country name and against capitalizing it. I do not view anything I said off topic but I'm happy to learn which statements helped you most ;-) gidonb (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Adding to that: 'The' in the Netherlands is seen as an article and not as part of the name, because stacking of articles is not possible. Compare the following: "A weak Netherlands lost from a strong Denmark" with "A weak The Hague lost from a strong Manchester". The 'The' in the city name The Hague is no longer treated as an article, since it tolerates the article 'a' before the 'The'. Such is not the case with the Netherlands (hence the capitalisation of 'The' in The Hague but not 'the' in the Netherlands. Not sure wether 'the stacking of articles' terminology is correctly used here, but the examples speak for themselves. Watisfictie (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Roger 8 Roger, can you explain why you claimed it's "The Netherlands" at the beginning of the discussion and later changed to "the Netherlands"? Are you unsure of the country name or unclear on English grammar? After you clarify we can hopefully provide even more focused answers! gidonb (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

There was no claim that the article is capitalised: in fact, that question was specifically put to one side, if you care to quote correctly. gidonb, you have a habit of rambling off course which makes it difficult at times to follow your reasoning and causes apparent contradictions. I notice you have a rapid rate of input. Why not slow down and try to give your posts more consideration? Your last post above, for example, is of questionable merit (or motive) on this site, especially from an experienced editor.

[[User talk:Watisfictie|talk], grammar rules are broken, and exceptions are made, all the time and they have to be to avoid clumsy structures arising. I think your argument about article stacking is a compelling one, but quite rigid. I believe that very often the term 'the Netherlands' takes on the role of a noun, and is not treated as a noun (Netherlands) with an attached article (the). It then becomes the same as 'The Hague' for use in written and spoken English. In the example you give, that would not be the case, but examples like that are infrequent. In fact, it is likely that a person about to say it would try to rearrange the sentence to avoid dropping the article before 'Netherlands'. Eg, "A weak Netherlands team lost to..." The awkward dropping of the article from the noun phrase 'the Netherlands' is avoided by turning 'Netherlands' into an adjective (or creating a new noun phrase: 'Netherlands team). So, by common use, 'the Netherlands' becomes a noun even if less grammatically fixed than 'The Hague". Debate about capitalising the definite article then becomes irrelevant. However, your point is a strong one. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, specifically I was referring to your statements:

  • The country in called "The Netherlands" in English, not "Netherlands".
  • So, why is this article not headed 'The Netherlands'?

These are your precise quotes from above. Could you please clarify why initially you claimed it's The Netherlands, now claim it's "the Netherlands" (also explaining your change of heart), while quality sources, the Dutch government, and WP agree it's the "Netherlands". gidonb (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Does it matter?Watisfictie (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure. It's always helpful to try to understand what a person is trying to say. gidonb (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the article heading which is obvious if read in context. That would have a capitalised article in any case. The following sentence starts: 'Leaving aside any discussion on whether or not the article should be capitalised...' which you intentionally ignore. This selective use of information is an example of why your edits appear designed to suit an agenda. You then give further examples of agenda driven contributions. What the Dutch government says is of little relevance here because it is about Dutch not English, so no, in context here the Dutch government is not a quality source: check WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. And to say that Wikipedeia is a reliable source, well, are you really serious, or on another one of your fast pace edits? Now, for the last time, will you please stop acting as if you own this article and stop steering off course down side roads. In English, a commmonly used name becomes the name to use; it creates grammar of its own that override more formal grammatical rules. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, so here and now are you suggesting "The" Netherlands or "the" Netherlands within a sentence structure? And what would be your suggestion in a list? Also where does it say that Wikipedia is a reliable source? gidonb (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's start at the origin I guess. The Netherlands comes from "De Nederlanden" or in english low countries later the Netherlands. This included a part of Belgium, parts of Germany and parts of Luxembourg. In otherwords multiple "lands" (countries). Now unforunatly no institute in the netherlands states how in the english language the netherlands should be written, simply the Dutch don't tell other languages how to write their language and words. Now the Dutch have stopped using the plural for over 150-ish years. It's simply called Nederland (low land or Netherland). Now that brings us to a problem. English refers to our country as Netherlands (with and S) no matter if it's brittish- or american english. If they would be doing it right they would be calling it Netherland without s and the article "the/The" wouldn't be nessesary. But considering we are using Netherlands (plural) in my huble opinion that's Nederlanden (translated) and in Dutch we never write that without the definite article "de" as in "De/de Nederlanden" so it should be "The/the Netherlands". As for a source: http://www.jurisfluence.nl/en/netherlands/ (short version we never write it without "the"). As you can see in the previous article there is also mention of The Bahamas which on wikipedia http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Bahamas is also written with "The" same for The Gambia. As for the "the or The" I am a strong advocate when that "The Netherlands" is used at the start of a sentence or when it's standing alone and "the Netherlands" in a running sentence. I strongly dislike the use of "Netherlands" without an article. I do understand that there is a problem here that might be larger then simply this article. Considering that appearently brittish and american languages are not in agreement. In that case there should be two different articles "The Netherlands" and "Netherlands" for brittish and american natives on two different wikipedia's. Velorian (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Worstenbrood recipe correction suggestion

Hello, I apologize in advance for not creating an account for this suggestion.

The correct recipe for brabants worstenbrood doesn't use ground beef, but a 50/50 mix of ground beef and ground pork.

Sources (in Dutch):

Germanic dialects map

Archeological cultures of Central Europe — note how they are all not "Germanic"

This map [7] needs to be removed because it peddles the same myths about the Germanic peoples that were circulated in the 19th and early 20th centuries. For one, how can you draw such clear borders between supposed ancient dialects if no written record exists?! Also, how can you with such clarity define boundaries of "Germanina" when there is archeological evidence that in many of the lands the Germanic peoples lived in mixed regions where celtic and/or slavic settlements in the same geographic proximity existed. Btw, there is very little in terms of archeological evidence that Germanic tribes inhabited lands of Poland and Czech Rep. (mostly assumptions driven by 19th/20th century ideologies). But, for example there is plenty to support that Celts lived there at one time. Sorry, but this map has a hint of Nazi propaganda from the 1930's. --E-960 (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Statistical Dawkinsism (to compare hypernyms with hyponyms in order to present greater numbers): a mere gerrymanderism

Irreligion as defined here is a means to show that they're more non-theists than Christians! Irreligion (correctly mentioned and not presented as the hypergroup of non-religion) is a. not to care about religion, or b. not to have or not to practise any religion. Conscious atheism is statistically different!

Mergers are pure gerrymanderism. If you don't merge different theists, you shouldn't merge different non-theists.

You believe that we have a war, and you protect the non-theists by merging the conscious atheists with the irreligious only to present a larger number!

What you do is filthy! Wikipedia has different articles about atheism and irreligion.

You claim that you protect non-theists (= a hypernym), but mergers kill the analytical ideology and the specifics!

You might believe that I'm a monarchic causator (a Christian, because Dutch monarchy is based on that filthy pig, Jesus)(mayby you need accept other faiths or visions a little bit more), but no.

I am an analytical antimetaphysicalist - antisupersensualist.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

– The country should be the primary topic, not the constituent country. 192.107.120.90 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - The Netherlands is only used for the constituent country and never for the whole kingdom; so renaming Kingdom of the Netherlands to Netherlands makes about as much sense as renaming United Kingdom to England. The same argument foregoes the necessity to rename Netherlands to Netherlands (constituent country). Arnoutf (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME. Jarkeld (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
"Netherlands" is vastly more common that "Kingdom of the Netherlands," according to this ngram. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't mean those are references to the kingdom rather than the country does it? —DIYeditor (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Even if "Netherlands" referred to the constituent country 99.6 percent of the time, it would still be the common name of the kingdom. I don't see anyone off-Wikipedia making this distinction at all. Published reference works generally have a single entry for Netherlands, presumably the kingdom. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
If that's the case, (if "Netherlands" is the WP:COMMONNAME for both entities and if "Netherlands" refers to the constituent country 99.6 percent of the time), then the constituent country is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the kingdom would need to be disambiguated, just as it is now.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 03:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't write anything like what you are accusing me having written. You could try reading it. What I wrote is that nobody is making a distinction between the kingdom and constituent country. That includes this article itself. The distinction did not exist until 1954, yet both articles currently contain earlier history. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving to a redlink parenthetical. Metropolitan France seems like the French equivalent; surely there is an equivalent naturally disambiguated term that could be used? The CIA and Britannica don't have separate articles. Effectively following them would amount to merging the content of Kingdom of the Netherlands into the Netherlands article. That might be too much to fit into a single article, then if we need to summary-style split we're back to the status quo and the others don't give us a useful model to follow. The Dutch themselves organize their content this way – see nl:Nederland. I would be hesitant to second-guess the natives. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
A "constituent country" article would be about the metropole since 1954. After some cut-and-pasting, there would be a main country article at Netherlands, which is surely what most readers expect. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The question is whether the Netherlands, or indeed France, refers primarily to the country in Europe or the larger entity that owns overseas territories. I think it may be the France article that is misnamed here. When people say "I am going to the Netherlands" it is pretty much 100% certain they mean they are going to Europe, not the Caribbean. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose but open to further arguments. My impression is that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "the Netherlands" is the country in Europe. The islands are called by their names. People may technically incorrectly phrase it as the country in Europe owning the islands rather than the Kingdom including them, but that doesn't change how "the Netherlands" is used. Contrary to Nine Zulu queens's claims, the Kingdom of the Netherlands article focuses primarily on the Kingdom from its beginning and on topics relevant to it. I can see why Nine Zulu would like for this to line up with the France articles, but I think this is a different situation and things are fine as they are. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment: To complicate things. France does not really distinguish between constituent countries: French Guiana is an overseas department of France (proper). This is not that dissimilar of the current status of Bonaire, Saba and Elba (Caribbean islands that are part of the Netherlands (constituent country)). The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of the Netherlands (including Bonaire, Saba, Elba), Curacao, Aruba and St Maarten. As far as I know there is no term for European Netherlands alone. Arnoutf (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
According to the article, the constituent country joined the United Nations in 1945. But it is the Kingdom that is represented at the UN, as you can see here. We should use published reference works as models, not other Wikipedia articles. I have already cited several of these. In case anyone wonders about British usage, here's Oxford World Encyclopedia. It is mainly behind a paywall, but you can still see that they treat the terms "Netherlands" and "Kingdom of the Netherlands" as equivalent. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I think they are equivalent in many uses (except one of the most common - referring to the Netherlands as a location), but that doesn't make the Kingdom of the Netherlands more the PRIMARYTOPIC of "the Netherlands" than the constituent country. PRIMARYTOPIC is the question here since "the Netherlands" is the COMMONNAME of both. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Netherlands/Archive_9&oldid=1027335085"