Talk:Dutch people/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Ethnic makeup of the dutch according to genetic research

It's fun that we live in an age where genetics can tell us what ancestry people really have. A site called IGENEA has done so with many nations in Europe, and the results are sometimes quite surprising. Who would've thought Germans aren't so germanic after all? And that the celts have had much more influince than you might expect?

Anyway the results for the Dutch are that we're 50% celtic and 50% germanic. You can see all the results here: [1]. 85.147.37.120 (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well first of all the scientific credentials are hard to see (e.g. what sample of the population was taken), which makes the source of dubious reliability

This is further strengtened by it being a company and a non free site.

That notwithstanding, why would we be surprised about Celtic roots?

You can read how the samples were taken, theyre from random people mostly in thousands. I understand your concern but it seems genuine, seeing as its part of the Genographic Project too. We could be surprised by celtic roots because it was never certain that celts had inhabited the NL. 85.147.37.120 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition of indigenous population is not universally adopted so their may be different. If you take truly random sample of the Netherlands you should find significant Asian (Indonesia, Turkish) African (through Surinam, Morrocco) gene patterns, let alone significant levels of Mediterranean Europe. And if Germany has 10% jew (genes) (If jews can be genetically identified at all) it seems weird that the level of the Jew gene in the Netherlands = 0%. Also participation seems volutnary which is not resulting in a random sample. Arnoutf (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

At its peak Jews in the Netherlands were 150,000, in Germany there were a lot more, and germany also bordered poland where the majority of jews lived. The mixing could have happened long before that though, there's many possible scenarios. Also I think they tried to select mostly autochthonous people to prevent late generation immigrants changing the statistics. Anyway again the company seems ranked highly. It's hard to explain some of the results because history has often been wrong. 85.147.37.120 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting as even now with the highest population ever in the Netherlands 150,000 would make up for 1%. Autochtonous is simply defined as both parent born in the Netherlands, which applies to many of the 3rd generation Turkish and Morroccon migrants. Besides this an Antillian said in response to Wilders; Antillians are more Dutch (since 16 hundreds) then Limburgians (since ~1880). Therefore, if we want to use this as a source, we need to make clear they use the same definitions as we do on this page otherwise we are mixing things up. (BTW I am not sure we should add the genes data in detail at all) Arnoutf (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what autochthonous means in dutch law, that's not what I meant, and I don't know why you feel the need to quote that guy. I figure they avoided the antilles just like they avoided the basques in spain/france and treated them seperately. It seems they've used only the majority DNA sequence in the Netherlands and posted its statistics, to find out who the indigenous people are in the area. That's how they avoided minorities. 85.147.37.120 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"I figure they..." That basically summarises my problem with the site you quote. I have no insights in their decisions, and as it is a very sensitive issue, that is a serious problem. By the way to illustrate the complexity: If 16th century Antilles/Surinam is to be excluded from the Dutch why not exclude 8th century Viking influences from the charts. Why only list the majority DNA, that will seriously distort the view (e.g. if in all the Dutch there is 40% Germanic genes, and in the largest group say 20% of all Dutch there is a 60% Celtic gene but there is no Celtic gene outside that group you will find the gene distribution as depicted, with in reality still 40% Germanic, but only 12% Celtic genes. These kind of decisions are subjective, and rationale and argument must be visible and scientifically supported; on this commercial site they are not.

Even if this all were higly reliable, should we introduce such issues in the article? Ethnicity is (at least) as much a cultural as a genetic thing. Arnoutf (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

1) I don't see why it's a sensitive subject. 2) Viking ancestry can thus be found in almst every ethnic dutch persons blood. According to the tests African/Indian ancestry cannot. 3) You're talking about probability. The site is also used for scientific projects so I do not see how its not scientifically supported. The research itself is done by scientistis. 85.147.37.120 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re 1) Ethnicity is sensitive, trust me. We have has this debate before. Re 2/3) You cannot say that as it seems only the maority composition is given. Yes they might be scientists, but their site is commercial and does not show the credentials of the reported numbers in detail. I will trust their publications (preferrably in peer reviewed scientific journals) without doubt; but the site was (in my view) never constructed as a scientific resouce, more as a commercial teaser. Arnoutf (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Check out the wiki page on them. And I think these results do a lot to confirm/deny the existence of certain myths and in general make ethnicity a less sensitive subject. 85.147.37.120 (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I take back a lot of what I said. The wiki article isn't about this site, but indeed one who markets the research for personal use, and doesn't seem to be part of the national geographic project. 85.147.37.120 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

New History Section

After several weeks of work; with input from both Iblardi and Arnoutf, I wrote the text currently in the article, focusing exclusively on Dutch ethnic history. Improvements are highly welcome, as are opinions on the following matter: The article now uses "Stage I(II)" headers ... which make it sound more like a rocket launch than a history article. I myself have no idea how to rename them, keeping in mind the intro's that refer to the said stages of ethnic development. HP1740-B (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the "stages" approach is a step forward, although I agree the titles are far from perfect.

I would suggest to add a 4th stage, which treats the modern age (we might discuss whether that starts in 1795 with the Batavian Republic (first central state) or 1815 or 1830 with the formation of the modern netherlands.

To name the stages is indeed a bit weird, sounds like jargon, but as far as I know non-exsiting jargon. A suggestion: something like (I am brainstorming so feel free to critisise) Stage I: Earliest roots (Early middle ages or alternatively 500-1200); Stage II: Emergence (high middle ages 1200-1477 (or 1556 or 1581)); Stage III: Convergence (renaissance and early modernity 1477-1795/1815/1830); Stage IV: Consolidation (modern 1795/1815/1830-Now). Or similar/shorter. Arnoutf (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening box

Just viewing the article, I noticed that the box doesn't look right; most of the numbers are cut off. I don't know if it's a formatting thing or not, but someone ought to take a look at it. Spartan S58 (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Famous people collage

I seemed to me that the Netherlands is the only ethnic group in Europe still missing a collage of famous people. So i added from left to right: the most important Dutch painter from the 19th century, an important and well know engineer, One of the most important personalities in Dutch cabaret, theater and music, The most important physicist, an important admiral and historical figure, the most important dramatist and Dutch golden age writer.

Note: Vondel and de Ruyter are not what is considered traditional last names but titles; therefor i have tried to spell out there name completely. MvdB21 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please suggest more Dutch personalities based on individual merit. MvdB21 (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest Rembrandt and Hendrik Lorentz as better choices than Alma-Tadema and Van Der Waals, being more important (in my opinion) in their respective fields. In addition, Rembrandt worked in the Netherlands his entire life, unlike Alma-Tadema and, for example, van Gogh. Other possible choices include Christiaan Huygens, Constantijn Huygens ,William the Silent, Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Multatuli, Louis Couperus, Wim Sonneveld, Wim Kan, W.F. Hermans, Harry Mulisch, Gerard Reve, Gerrit Rietveld, Mondriaan, Berlage, Thorbecke, Willem Drees, Boudewijn de Groot, M.C. Escher, Anne Frank, P.C. Hooft, Willem Barentsz, Abel Tasman, Piet Pieterszoon Hein, Grotius, Spinoza, Anton van Leeuwenhoek, Heike Kamerlingh Onnes and Johan Cruyff. 82.139.81.130 (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a collage of important Dutch people from existing Wikipedia pictures, but unfortunately I am not a confirmed or autoconfirmed user so I cannot upload it. The collage has eight figures (Right to Left, top row first, bottom row second): Rembrandt van Rijn, Willem Drees, Queen Wilhelmina, Desiderius Erasmus, Prince William of Orange, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Hendrik Lorentz, and Baruch Spinoza. Here is my image that I cannot upload. Loyalprecision (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the collage (see archives for the heated debate). Current Netherlands exists only since 1830. So Rembrandt might not qualify. In any case hard to talk about the Netherlands prior to 1580, so that would exclude Erasmus. Spinoza was not from Dutch (but of Portuguese Jewish) descent, so also might be discussed. But then again if Spinoza is not Dutch, neither were William of Orange, or indeed Wilhelmina. Etc etc. Arnoutf (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You bring up some good points. I think the point of contention here is whether "Dutch people" refers to people who are either

A) Born and raised in the region now identified as "The Netherlands"

B) Born and raised in the poltical state of "The Netherlands," beginning with the Dutch Republic in 1580

C) "Ethnically" Dutch; Referring to an ethnic group not necessarily tied geographically nor politically to "The Netherlands"

Although I believe the people I included in this collage are more or less universally regarded as "Dutch," you raise some good points that some of them might be disputed due to not meeting some of the above criteria. My respose:

1) "Current Netherlands exists only since 1830." as a criteria - I disagree. A valid comment, but I really think that this is a little bit of an unfair criteria. As you point out, "The Netherlands" as a ethno-political region goes back to at least 1580 with the founding of the Dutch Republic. For comparison, the current German government only goes back to reunification in 1990, but obviously the "German people" goes back much further than that.

2) Erasmus - I agree. Erasmus, while meeting criteria A, and arguably C, by not meeting criteria B may be controversial and should possibly be excluded.

3) William of Orange - I agree. You are correct that William of Orange, while considered the founding father of the Netherlands, technically is not native to the region and fails to meet really any of the criteria.

4) Queen Wilhelmina - I agree. By extension, you exclude Queen Wilhelmina, although she meets criteria A and B, you point out tat she arguably doesn't meet critera C.

5) Spinoza - I agree. Although I think Spinoza is fairly solid, and while he meets criteria A and B, you point out his ethnicity as "Jewish Portuguese" and thus perhaps does not meet criteria C.

6) Rembrandt - I disagree. As far as I can tell he meets all possible criteria for being Dutch, and even this page lists him as a notable Dutch person.

Do you believe that if I create a new collage that excludes Erasmus, William of Orange, Queen Wilhelmina, and Spinoza, and replace them with Dutch people that indisputably meet all of the above three criteria, it would be acceptable? Thank you for your input and I hope you find the time to reply. Loyalprecision (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not all my opinion, but just an overview of points of view in the earlier debates, none of which resulted in any kind of consensus. Please look in the archives of this talk page, because rehashing the debate front to end would take too long. Personally I am more or less neutral, I can live with the current image, but also with a collage where I actually would like both Spinoza and William the Silent (and would not mind Erasmus) as these are so influential in formation of the Dutch as people. Arnoutf (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Dutch religious map

Traditional religion within the Netherlands and Flanders:

  Roman Catholicism

  Protestantism (Calvinist)

  No traditional religion

I don't think this is the best map to show the different religious denomination in the Netherlands. I have seen a map of religion by county somewhere else on the internet around the turn of the 19th century, and it was able to show dominant Catholic counties in the north of the Netherlands, area's with large concetrations of Jewish people; and different protastant denominations. I think we should look for a map similare like the one i just mentioned. MvdB21 (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think this map is accurate, as it shows the whole of Holland as dominantly protestant. This is not true, as File:Nederlandgodsdienst1849-en.PNG clearly shows. C mon (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert, 1 July 2009

1. Collage image, infobox. There will not be a collage in the infobox. There have been long and arduous discussions concerning this and the conclusion was that a collage will, in the long run, be a source of constant bickering, as a whole ethnic group is being represented by a few individuals a certain person thinks are representative.
2. Joshuaproject references . I recall this source as being found inaccurate and unreliable.
3. "other Germanic Peoples" in the related peoples section. Listed now are the groups with clear (or undeniable) cultural, historic and linguistic links. I very much doubt you can provide equal links between the Dutch and Icelanders, Swedes, Danes, Germans or Englishmen. Even if you could, I dislike 'Germanic peoples' as a modern grouping.
4. The term "Dutch" was also used almost interchangably with "German". This is an unsupported statement. The only example I can think of are the Pennsylvania Dutch, and the origin of their name is heavily disputed. In any case, the use of "interchangeably" is not validated by the source given.

HP1740-B (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please try to be less sarcastic in edit summaries and talk page entries. In the spirit of cooperation it helps to be polite and value another editors input even if you do not agree with it. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Where's the sarcasm here? Also, one comment would have sufficed, 3, 4 times the same message makes me wonder what you're doing, and why ... are you planning on nominating yourself for an admin position any time soon?HP1740-B (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And that is what I mean with cyicism/sarcasm ;-)Arnoutf (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, but I really don't understand why you protect a person like that Prusak; have you seen his edits? He's not a struggling new editor; if he was I wouldn't treat him the way I have so far ...HP1740-B (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Genetics section 2

Please make sure to correct the problems identified in the earlier discussion (still on this talk page) on the genetics section.

It is essential you provide high quality sources stating (explicitly) that (a) Genetics are relevant to the idea of a people and (b) that this is also relevant in the (rather muddled) ancestry of the Dutch. Without such sources the section cannot stay. Arnoutf (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Naturally information on genomes and haplogroups isn't relevant to the idea of a people, but books on goats are of little relevance to goats themselves too and they exist, so that's a rather flawed argument.

I've paid special attention to the sources used, and I think this section adds another dimension to this article. It provides information on undocumented history on the (members of this) ethnic group.HP1740-B (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"information on genomes and haplogroups isn't relevant to the idea of a people" Indeed, neither is the information on the colour of bananas, that is why there is nothing about the colour of bananas in this article.

"books on goats are of little relevance to goats themselves" It would be a rather sad article about goats if it did not refer to a source about goats. But that is in any case not relevant here. This article is not called "The genetics of the Dutch" but Dutch people in general making your coutnerargument completely irrelevant (and hence your comparison with goats utterly irrelevant).

Your sources are adequately describing what genetics are, and what genetics patterns are present in North Western European, however the relation of this (high quality) information to the article in hand is unclear (just as much as the relation of the colour of bananas to the relevance of this article).

I have never doubted your genetics was correct (nor did I before), I only seriously doubt the relevance of genetics to a people articles, especially of a people with such a mixed history as the Dutch. That reference just has to be provided. Arnoutf (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm no, it is relevant. When I referred to genetics being irrelevant to the people, I meant that knowledge of it isn't a requirement of an ethnic group ... Like I said, "it adds another dimension to this article. It provides information on undocumented history on the (members of this) ethnic group." We're describing a people, I don't see any reason why we should not discuss their genes. Why do you?HP1740-B (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That is turning the tables. I ask the question "why are genes relevant to an ethnic group", with that YOU have to provide a source that actually says that (per WP:verify).

And anyway, what you say here (e.g. "it adds another dimension to this article. It provides information on undocumented history on the (members of this) ethnic group.") is not relevant, the article should say something like that, but can only do that if a reference to that effect is provided. Failing to do so makes the information of doubtful relevance to the article (at best).

PS can you complete the sources. I guess with Sengupta you do not mean the consumer psychologist, but I cannot know that without a full reference. Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed that's turning the tables, but in a good way. You see, WP:verify isn't applicable here, because I do provide extensive sources for the material in place in the article. The question is not if I've provided sources, but whether it's relevant, and that's a whole other question. A question which I have answered, and I think I ought to be able to expect the same from you.HP1740-B (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not answered in the article; hence it is not relevant. With the same line of reasoning I could start a whole section on EU guidelines for cucumbers, with sources, in the article (I won't that would be violation of WP:point).

Just to re-iterate as answer to your question......... Family and heritage(which includes genetics) is only one take on etnicism (and a rather narrow race centred one in my view). If you take a more cultural/anthropological take shared identity is the core part of a people (allowing Surinam, Indonesian and other people to become members of the Dutch people after adopting that cultural identity). In that approach genetics is utterly irrelevant. Since both approaches exist (see ethnic group article which mentions genetics only twice, both in context of race) and we have not adopted the race centred view, the relation to genetics is tentative at best, and requires a strong sourced argument in the article. Arnoutf (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a section on Dutch genes, how can that not be relevant? And it's not about race, no where do I mention 'race' its about genes.HP1740-B (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"It's a section on Dutch genes, how can that not be relevant?" Could you perhaps first provide a reliable source stating that there is such a thing as "Dutch genes"? Dutch people have genes, of course, just like (most) Dutch people have thumbs. That doesn't mean that there is something like "Dutch thumbs", and neither does it mean that "Dutch genes" as such exist. Fram (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Dutch people have genes, but Dutch people don't have every gene. Therefore, this section ought to describe which genes they do have. Simple.HP1740-B (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Not simple. Still circular reasoning. Where is the source indicating that "The Dutch" have a common genetic markup? Perhaps the people from Zeeland have totally different (relatively speaking) genes than those from Overijssel? You are starting from the idea that theer is a common genetic characteristic for the Dutch= but statistics over all the Dutch don't prove this. The statistics produce an average, not a global image. Variation may be small or large, localized or evenly spread, ... Fram (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth. I'm saying the Dutch have a genetic make up, not that they have a common genetic make up, which would be impossible.HP1740-B (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet in this article we are presenting things that are common and specific for the Dutch people. So unless they indeed have a common genetic make up, the genetics section has no place in this article. Arnoutf (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion.HP1740-B (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well let's rephrase my opinion as a question, if there is no common Dutch genetic make up, what is the relevance of the genetics section? Arnoutf (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Read my comments or wait till the next genetics discussion as I'm sure to repeat myself.HP1740-B (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments have not convinced me (and neither have they convinced Fram judging from his/her comments and actions). Please make sure any additions to the article proper explicitly and adequately adress this issue. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Image used

How is the image in the genetics section made? An average of averages? Take e.g. the Flemish column: the image gives 54 / 19.5 / 4.2, while the source gives 56.6, 28.3, and, well, nothing (Page 2: "Haplogroups [...] and R1a were included in the analysis, but were not detected in the sample"). The 19.5 you give is solely for I1a, not for thewhole of I.

For the French, you seem to have taken your data from here: which has the 52.2 and 17.4 2.5 you give (but not the 2.5). However, the same table gives for the Dutch 70.4 / 22.2, where you use 50.2 / 26.7. I suppose that you have taken your figures for the Dutch from another source , but when you have a 20% difference between two sources you use, and you start mixing two sources, then your figures are not reliable at all and should not be used to draw any conclusions. What you are doing is WP:SYNTH, using different sources and combining their data to come to a new conclusion.

In fact, your Dutch 26.7 comes from here, based on a sample of only 30 persons...: however, this same article gives for the German 37.5%, where your section here only gives 16%.

Conclusion: you mix a number of contradictory sources to produce a result that, while based on reliable sources, is in itself a novel and untrustworthy sysnthesis which should not be used on Wikipedia. I will now remove the section again. Please don't reintroduce it again without extended prior discussion and a consensus to include it. Fram (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion: I've misread myself on the data on a subject on which I am not an expert, but struggling to comprehend. I concur that the date is incorrect and will in time review the data, to recreate this section in the future; hopefully with a more sound base.HP1740-B (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Statistics: images

I will remove the two images used in the Statistics section. They have yesterday been replaced by new versions, but those are not good.

The first one lists the number of Dutch speakers in the Netherlands as 13,659,200. This is not realistic, the Netherlands had 16.428.360 inhabitants in 2008, of which ethnically (according to CBS) 13.189.983 Dutch, 335.799 Surinamers, 131.841 Antillians, and 112.333 Belgians. The figure given seems to have counted the first three groups only, and supposed that no one else, not even the ethnic Belgians or any of the372.714 Turkish people and 335.127 Maroccans, speak Dutch. This is unrealistic. Statistics needs sources, and until a good source is provided with a new version of the article, it has to go.

The second one has the same grammatically ugly caption start, "Dutch-(speakers)", but is not about those that speak Dutch at all, but about the people of Dutch ancestry. So while the caption of the two images is completely parallel, as if the two images can be added together to get the total, the contents of the image are not comparable at all. Fram (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It was late when I made them, I'll adapt them shortly after this comment, and replace them.HP1740-B (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

They are individually much better now, thanks for that. However, they still present two uncomparable things. We should have one graph for all Dutch speaking people (i.e. basically the left one), and one for all people of Dutch ancestry outside the Netherlands (i.e. with Belgium added to the graph). Now, we have a graph of Belgium and the Netherlands to the left, and one for the rest of the world to the right, but what is cuonted in them is not the same thing, giving an incorrect expression. There is no good reason to exclude the BElgians from the right graphic. Fram (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but that has been done for a reason. As you might remember, the position of Flemings within a Dutch ethnic spectrum was found to be troublesome with widely conflicting sources. Including Belgium in that graph (though it wouldn't show because it has only 100K+) would be picking a side/mingling in that debate.HP1740-B (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

I am assuming that the consensus is still that we do not want a collage of famous Dutch people because of the problems that brings concerning personal preference. A position which I still support. However, over time I've grown less satisfied with the current image, mainly because it could be interpreted as somewhat depressing. So I move to replace the image, with a bit more color. My personal candidate is this image; File:Mensen voor kraam op braderie.jpg, because it depicts something typically (but not stereotypically) Dutch, has a lot of color and shows happy people. Any thoughts?HP1740-B (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In principle, no objections. I like the random character of the picture. Iblardi (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is very anonymous yet Dutch, so no problem. But could you please upload a version with another pixel size, as the resizing for the infobox creates a truly ugly version on my screen. Arnoutf (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem with the image. I searched Flickr using the "Creative Commons search" advanced option, and naturally assumed all resulting images would be usable ... which seems not to be the case. I'm contacting the author of the photo, hopefully (s)he can be persuaded into changing the license. Meanwhile, the old one is back up.HP1740-B (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's hope you get a better version. Arnoutf (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

She wants 60 euros for it. So naturally I told her to go fuck herself. We'll find a similar picture someday. I might just pop around the local braderieën here to make it myself.HP1740-B (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

60 Euro!!!, well we may have to wait for the next braderie then. Arnoutf (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile we could include a section on what assholes Dutch people become when they think they smell money...HP1740-B (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

New image Dutch and Belgians

Apart from the question whether this is really relevant (why not one with the German migration as well?), the question is how correct the image File:Belgians in the Netherlands.png is. We have to guess on which figures it is based. It looks very similar to the image used here, but some of the details are clearly off (e.g. Ghent, and some things in Groningen). So, HP-1740B, could you please provide a clear, verifiable source with your images, not some vague description? Without such source, I'll have to remove the image as not only not relevant enough to be included in this image-full article, but as an incorrect one as well. Fram (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The image originates here.HP1740-B (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The more recent reference to CBS provided by HP1740-B is better/more relevant in the current context in my view, so the image seems fine. (And of course CBS is a reliable source without any doubt). Arnoutf (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To claim this as "own work" is a bit bizarre, but I'll let that pass. You are supposed to provide the exact source, not make people guess where on a large website it can be found. Anyway, how is the number of Belgians in the Netherlands relevant for the article on Dutch people, and why not e.g. the Germans, Polish, ... ? Fram (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

While valid issues, these are completely different from those you raised at starting this thread. Let's disentangled these

(1) Own work - This should be discussed at the page of the image itself, not here. Once the image is uploaded, every article can use it.

(2) Is this image relevant to the article? I agree that the relevance of migration of Belgians to the Netherlands, and of Dutch to Belgium is not obvious per se. I can imagine that this migration picture is embedded into an argument about the close relation between Flemish and Dutch; but in my view that argument should be made in the text. I don't see it there (yet). So for that reason I am ot convinced about the image. Arnoutf (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

1) When I uploaded this file to commons, I selected the 'own work option' as commons doesn't allow you to choose the "CBS license" from the start. I had to pick something (all options being false) to upload the file in the first place. Once uploaded I added the correct license.

2) I've been meaning to add a section/couple on extra-national (?) marriages (marriages between the Dutch and Flemings being the most common) I then found this image, which I thought was one of a kind and very interesting (including that Flemish tend to stay in the south of the Netherlands) but of course will need some additional text ... at the moment I'm not even sure if the current spot in the article is the right one.HP1740-B (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You could also not upload it to commons, but just to the English Wikipedia. Using an incorrect license / description because the correct one is unavailable is not the way to dosuch things. Even then, you could at least have added the full source somewhere in the description, not just the general CBS one. As for the other aspect: wouldn't it be more logical to only provide an illustration when there is something to illustrate? Now you have added an image for no good reason. Fram (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the technicalities / legal issues of the image here: File talk:Belgians in the Netherlands.png Arnoutf (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The upload page on the English Wikipedia also don't allow a CBS license as an option. Like I said before, any initial license choice would have been false. In any case, Wikipedia Commons is the place to upload images like this, unless you can prove this image has use only to the English project, now and in the future?HP1740-B (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So, should this image be included in the article or not? I see no reason to include it for the moment. Fram (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To expand on this: according to the CBS, in 2003 Belgium was the most popular country for emigration of Dutch people (nationality), closely followed by Germany. But there are currently (in 2001 at least) three countries with more people with the Dutch nationality than Belgium, i.e. the USA, Germany, and Canada.[2] To single out one country gives undue weight to this and can give the impression that the relation between the Netherlands and Belgium is much more important than e.g. between the Netherlands and Germany. (I have focused on the Netherlands side of the equation, but for Belgium, the same argument can be used: the Netherlands are only the second immigration and emigration country for Belgium, France is more important. See e.g. page 43 of this.) Fram (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said text accompanying the image will follow shortly, I thought that was quite clear. If it makes you feel better, you can remove it ... but it won't be more than a few days before I'll add text and place it in the article again. So figure out for yourself if it's worth the effort.HP1740-B (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

But could you perhaps indicate here why this is important? E.g. for Belgians, according to page 62 of this, marriages with Dutch people are only the fourth most common, after marriages with Maroccans, French, and Italians. The same goes for the Dutch: your claim that "a section/couple on extra-national (?) marriages (marriages between the Dutch and Flemings being the most common)" is incorrect, since e.g. marriages with Germans are much more common (see e.g. this). That's why I believe it is a bad idea to just add an image, and then plan to later do the accompanying research and section. The risk of the image being not representative is clearly considerable. I'll remove it for those reasons. Fram (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that I doubt that ethnic Dutch make out the majority of those marrying Moroccans or Germans; just like I doubt Flemish are the ones making up the bulk of those marrying Moroccans, French and Italians. In either case that not really important. The image will be used in the section concerning the Flemish, not Moroccans, the French or Germans. As for your reasons for removing it; like I said. If it makes you feel better, by all means do it, but it will be back in no more than a few days.HP1740-B (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You may doubt whatever you like, but I use sources, you use WP:OR. And when something is disputed, the normal thing is to discuss this. So could you please first indicate here, on the talk page, what exactly the image will be illustrating? The previous indication you gave (that marriages are most common between Dutch and Flemish) is a) not illustrated by this image and b) simply incorrect. It gives the impression that you want to include this image no matter what, instead of using it where itis actually needed for the benefit of the article. An image concerning Belgians in the Netherlands and Dutch in Belgium can hardly be used to illustrate the situation of the Flemings, since you don't know whether the Belgians in the Netherlands are Flemings, Walloon, or more recent immigrants (or, as is of course also more and more the case, a mixture of those). Fram (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem confused. I don't believe I've given any specific source for my marriage claim have I? So how can you be sure it isn't true? The actual source (not the map) on which I based it states clearly that marriages between autochthonous Dutch and Flemish are most common. That's more than you can make out from any CBS survey. You'll find out what the context of the image will be quite soon. Until that, I'm not going to fuss with you any longer concerning this topic.HP1740-B (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And I have given you a source (actually, from the CBS, the same where your map comes from) that clearly states that marraiges between Dutch andGermans are much more common than marriages between Dutch and Belgians. Your source may state that marriages between Dutch and Flemish are the most common, but at best, we have two contradicting sources, and at worst, your source is either unreliable or misinterpreted. You state fro some reason "That's more than you can make out from any CBS survey.", while the source I gave has a handy graphic about "Gemiddeld jaarlijks aantal huwelijken tussen een autochtoon en een allochtoon, 1997/2001" (Average yearly number of marriages between an auochtone and an allochtone, 1997/2001)page 35, where the marriages of autochtonous Dutch people with Germans are three times as high as those with Belgians. Since the number of marriages with Flemings can not be higher than the number of marriages with Belgians, the claim that "marriages between autochthonous Dutch and Flemish are most common" is flatly and clearly contradicted by this reliable source. So again, please present your source and text here, on the talk page, for discussion and consensus, before you introduce it to the main text, as it seems quite certain that it will be controversial. Fram (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not going to go on on this, but note that your source is on autochtoon/allochtoon marriages; including between any of the 360.000 people in the Netherlands with German origins, regardless of 'degree'. You figures disprove nothing I've said or what I've supposedly said in your mind. HP1740-B (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

HP-1740B, why do you always become uncivil when you are losing a discussion (see also the fake quote you produce in the section below)? This is not about what you "supposedly said in my mind", this is about what you actually said: "[...]it states clearly that marriages between autochthonous Dutch and Flemish are most common. That's more than you can make out from any CBS survey." The source I gave describes exactly that, marriages between autochtones and allochtones. You are now shifting the goalposts, with degrees of autochtonity, but your original statement described exatly what my source disproves. If you wanted to say something different from what you actually said, do so, but don't blame your mistakes on me. Fram (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I told you already, I don't really know what to do with the picture, but have listed some options. The final result will show in a couple of days. Until then, stop bothering me with this whining concerning things I did not say or things that were taken deliberately out of context by you.HP1740-B (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone neutral perhaps intervene and point out what I have taken "deliberately out of context"? Anyway, if you don't know what to do with the picture, don't include it. Think before you act. Fram (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Article concerns; Status of 'Flemings'

This article is beginning to reach a stage, in which extensive editing is getting rare due to the pretty accurate and complete state of the article. However on certain points, this article isn't (or doesn't seem to be) consistent or clear. One of these, and in my eyes the most important one, is the position of the Flemish/Dutch-speaking Belgians within the Dutch ethnic group. As this is a tricky subject, I want to achieve at least some common ground on the matter, so that there will be a kind of 'frame' in which matters relating to this issue should be portrayed in the article.

In a nutshell this is the problem I think we're facing:

There is only one Dutch culture and language, and it's shared by both the Dutch and the Flemish: No cultural, linguistic or religious line can be drawn between them. However, despite that, Flemings don't consider themselves to be Dutch, but at the same time, studies show that they don't see the Dutch as 'foreigners' either.

It's a paradox.

However, the key lies in the nature of Flemish self identification, which is 'national' rather than 'cultural'. This is logical considering the earlier conclusion that no cultural, linguistic or religious line could be drawn. This 'nationalistic' factor, is tricky as we're dealing with an ethnic POV in this article ...

So the question is; how do we stress the common ground while still explaining that, in spite of that ... the majority of the Flemish considers themselves to be, well for lack of better words, like the Dutch, but not Dutch? Your thoughts please. HP1740-B (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the paradox is quite easily resolved. You state that there is only one Dutch culture which is shared by Dutch and Flemish. I tend to disagree with that. Dutch and Flemish may share a language, but they do not share a culture. Dutch and Flemish are different cultural groups. C mon (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I'd suggest you read some of the past discussions concerning this article. Then I'd like you to name such a cultural divide. Preferably, please place it in a separate section as this one isn't really appropriate for that discussion.HP1740-B (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I also don't agree that "there is only one Dutch culture and language". There are two, significantly overlapping cultures, somewhat comparable to the British and American cultures. To give but one example: when you look at the bestselling books, we often buy the same translated books (just like therest of theworld, actually), things like Stieg Larsson, Twilight, or Khaled Hosseini. But when it comes to the original Dutch language books, Flemings buy Flemish, Dutch buy Dutch. In the official sales figures for January-June 2009 of boek.be[3], we encounter authors like Pet Huysentruyt, Pieter Aspe, and the comics of Merho and Hec Leemans. In the top twenty of comics only (page 8), there is not one Dutch comic, but the top 4 are comics which hardly sell anything in the Netherlands. There is (if I recognise the names correctly) only one Dutch author in the Literature top 20 (page 9), Vuijsje on #18. Even our cooking books are all Flemish. On the other hand, where are the Flemish authors here[4]? Even the genres we buy are different, with cooking books prominent in Flanders and nearly absent in the Netherlands. This seems to confirm the prejudices about Flemish Burgundianism and Dutch cuisine (oops, a cultural difference?).

As for one language: yes, in writing, but not when spoken. Dutch TV series are subtitled in Flanders, Flemish TV series are subtitled in the Netherlands, and major animationmovies (and DVDs) often get two separate voice casts, one Flemish and one Dutch.

And I do believe that a discussion of the cultural divide between Flanders and the Netherlands is perfectly appropriate in a section based on the false premisse that "there is only one culture", which tries to restrict the problem to one of self-identification (even though that is of course a very important aspect as well) and tries to ignore the more objective differences like cultural preferences. Fram (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Flemish are Flemish, that is all we can say until we have our definitive source stating that they are part of a Greater Dutch culture, which we will probably never find. Someone ought to write a Wikipedia article about the Wikipedia article "Dutch people" and its many recurring talk page discussions... Iblardi (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If we abandon the ethnographic first principal illustrated by Fram ("Relations between peoples are determined first and foremost by the comics they read and the amount of cookbooks they buy anually") and look at the broader picture, instead of the smallest possible differences and presenting them as cultural rifts of cataclysmic proportions. When you do that you'll have to acknowledge the following facts:

• When concerning the Dutch language, there is only one language; Dutch. The dialect of Putte and Baarle does not follow the border. You can walk from Den Helder to Nieuwpoort without ever noticing people's speech changing abruptly. The main difference in language, concerns the standard pronunciation. In the Netherlands, Standard Dutch is mainly focused on Hollandic dialects, while in Belgium Standard Dutch pronunciation focuses on Brabantic dialects. This is specifically stated by the Dutch Language Union.
• The Dutch and Flemish do not have different surnames, nor do they stop at the border.
• There is no religious border between the Netherlands and Flanders.
• Dutch culture magazines and (very respectable, mainstream) organizations such as Ons Erfdeel, Septentrion, the Algemeen-Nederlands Verbond, the Orde van den Prince, and the Marnixring use Dutch culture in the wider definition. The latter (an originally Flemish organization) even specifically states its mission is to "serve the Dutch cultural and linguistic community". Also take account of the various Cultural Treaties between the Netherlands and Flanders. This, together with the impossible task of defining separate 'Dutch' and Flemish cultures, make it basically impossible to deny that Dutch culture does not encompass/include Flanders.

The truth is, that Flemings (caused by the Belgicism of the past) have a very stereotypical image of the Netherlands, one that is very much entirely false, especially in the border regions. To use an 'example' you used, to be precise the one to which you added the childish "(oops, a cultural difference?)"; North-Brabant and Limburg (two provinces directly adjacent to Flanders and housing 3,5 million people, but that do not come to your mind when you think of "Holland") are also considered to have a 'Burgundian lifestyle'.

Further corrections to your comments/examples;

• On t.v. shows; Dutch t.v shows are not subtitled as a rule in Belgium, and neither are Belgian series in the Netherlands. Some networks, such as BVN, don't subtitle them at all. Most Dutch programs that are subtitled are subtitled because of "dialectal speech"; a feature much more common on Flemish t.v, for example with Limburgers or West-Flemings, than on Dutch t.v.
• On Dutch literature; have you ever heard of the Prijs der Nederlandse Letteren, the Libris Literatuur Prijs, Herman de Coninckprijs or Humo's Gouden Bladwijzer to name a few? Those prizes, and the people who've won them, destroy your entire (nihilistic) argument based on book preference.

Please disprove any of these statements before continuing to claim there is no such thing as Dutch culture.HP1740-B (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Many names are clearly recognizable as Flemish though. We don't have that many Ludo's, Guys, Lucs and Anns around in the Netherlands, nor many Vander___es. Also, polderen, a Dutch keyword, is hardly applicable to Belgian politics and business life... Iblardi (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to explain that through a quick note. Those differences are due to a different spelling at the time of registration. In the French-annexed Austrian Netherlands, the Siegenbeek-spelling was used, while 15 years later the Northern Netherlands used a different spelling when they had to give up surnames. Claes is still Klaas though.HP1740-B (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but how does this affect the above? In fact I consciously avoided the ae-example for this reason. Iblardi (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if the names had been pronounced differently, it would have been an issue. But they're not, so I don't see the problem. Also, to avoid future arguments over this; in the Austrian Netherlands they allowed for "dialectal" variants whereas those were not allowed in the Batavian Republic. Which resulted in surname cognates such as "De Smet/De Smit".HP1740-B (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you continuing about spelling? That was not the point at all. What about first names? Are they not part of culture? Or are they chosen at random? Iblardi (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I focussed on your Vander___e-remark. On first names, well I personally know a couple of people named Ludo and Guy, and I didn't think of those names as Belgian. When you think about it, it is logical some names occur at a higher rate in different parts of a country or group. I don't think many people in Zeeland are called Servaas or Sjeng for example. I just did a quick internet survey on the most common names in Flanders, and I personally didn't see a name that would raise my eyebrow.HP1740-B (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah! And scouting, another such phenomenon. Popular in Flanders, marginal in the Netherlands. A marked cultural difference, if you ask me. Iblardi (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the Dutch scouting organization they have 90.000 youth members. It seems quite present. But please, what is the true point of these things in light of the broad view? HP1740-B (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

HP1740B, don't make up quotes and caricatures. If your level of discussion drops to "If we abandon the ethnographic first principal illustrated by Fram ("Relations between peoples are determined first and foremost by the comics they read and the amount of cookbooks they buy anually") and look at the broader picture, instead of the smallest possible differences and presenting them as cultural rifts of cataclysmic proportions.", it only looks as if you can't dispute the actual facts and examples and use different tactics (see also the section above, where the same happens). I started my statement with "There are two, significantly overlapping cultures". They are not wholly separate at all, but they are not one either. I have proven the latter, you have proven the former (of which I was already convinced). There are common things, there are separate things. If, despite some common awards (and there are separate ones as well), despite magazines and organisations aiming for a common culture, the majority of the people are for the most part only interested in their (part of the ) culture and not in the other (part of the) culture, not based on some genre, level, ... but purely based on origin (Flanders vs. the Netherlands), as evidenced by sales figures, then there is at least for that aspect a cultural difference. I fail to see why that would be a nihilistic argument. It's pragmatic, reality based, not based on the ideals of (part of the) intellectual elite. We should not report what people would want the sitaution to be: we should report what the actual situation is: two separate but in significant parts overlapping cultures. Fram (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No Fram, you didn't prove anything. I've shown/proven that Dutch culture is larger than the Netherlands. That despite internal differences there is one gradient culture. Not that it is, as you personally claim, a "significantly overlapping culture" (again this would need major unique characteristics of "Flemish culture" which you refuse/fail to provide. It is sad that in the face of all this evidence you still cling on to your own (unsubstantiated) ideas for whatever reason. Another sad thing is that I came here with good intentions, trying to seek consensus before editing the article. But your questionable behavior is starting to convince me that my old method is perhaps to be preferred.HP1740-B (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think HP1740-B's remark "gradient culture" is exemplary of the difficulty. Yes there is a gradient culture from the Netherlands into Belgium. But does it stop at the Flemish-Wallonian border or does it extend further (say including France). And if there is a gradient into Belgium, there is definitely one into (protestant) Germany, most likely extending to Denkmark.

Culture seems indeed a gradient rather than something with discrete, and easy answers.

The problem now is what "slope" the gradient must have to consider a break. Is nationality enough (which would limit this to the Netherlands), or language (which would include Flanders), or do we need stricter criteria; e.g. religion (but that would mean Brabant and Limburg people are no longer ranked among the Dutch --- mmmmm perhaps a good idea;-); or looser (but then we might end up calling people from Orange, Vaucluse Dutch (pun intended ;-).

This is a subjective decision, that is probably not sourced, yet one that must be taken, or discussed in the article.

In my view there is no easy solution. Arnoutf (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I could name two major cultural borders that would make those lines more visible: Dutch and religion. Except for a limited (catholic) border area, nobody in Germany or Denmark speaks Dutch and the religious divide between Calvinism and Lutheranism is almost identical to the Dutch border. Those are 2 clear divides which are present between the Dutch and Germans and Danes, while being missing between "the Dutch" and "the Flemings". There might not be an easy solution, but there is at least one solution, however complicated it may be.HP1740-B (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point, we are talking gradient.

Everything about culture or ethnicity is a gradient even language and religion (religion as you yourself illustrate is not a simple dichotomy as it has levels (Christian vs rest; Catholic vs Protestant; Calvinistic vs Lutheran; Hervormd vs Gereformeerd etc.) - language is also more or less a continuous thing (at least spoken language) as border dialects in Twente and Southern Limburg are very close to the dialects across the border; closer together than to their "official" mother language (e.g. as a Hollandic Dutch speaker with several years of living in Eindhoven I still hardly understand a person from Kerkrade). Even these simple topics are somewhat of a gradient; and each kind of seperation along the gradient will be somewhat arbitrary. This is simply no black-or-white issue. Arnoutf (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I get your point. I'm just pointing out that despite it not being black/white, there are certain glosses that make the Netherlands and Flanders more uniform in terms of color, than the Netherlands and the Western German countryside.HP1740-B (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but there also some "glosses" that set the Netherlands and Flanders apart. Arnoutf (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, please name those and add value to them.HP1740-B (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nationality, and most post 1600 history(e.g. the Dutch have had the: VOC, Republic stateform, Far east and american colonial empire, and were not in WWI). Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

HP-1740B, I'll ignore your personal comments and focus on what is actually the relevant content of your reply. You claim to have shown that there is one culture, but you haven't. You have given a number of examples which are common between the Dutch and the Flemish, and I have given a number of examples which are different. Sticking e.g. to the literarure, there are a whole number of authors (literature, comics, non-fiction) who are very popular throughout the whole of Flanders but virtually unknown in the Netherlands. Similarly, there are whole ranges of "celebrities" (BVs and BNs) who are not known beyond the border. In sport, the people supporting for the "United Dutch" (i.e. both the Dutch and the Flemings) at e.g. the Olympics, in cycling or in football are rare. The Flemings may sympathize with the Dutch when there are no Belgians to cheer (which is sadly often the case), but the vast majority of Flemings will prefer a Belgian over a Dutch sporter or team to support. The Dutch TV spends hours and hours on skating, while Flemish TV do the same for cyclocross.

Yes, you can find counterexamples, but there are so many aspects of our cultures that are vastly different, while being much more continuous inside Flanders, that the claim that the Flemish culture is not the same as the Dutch culture is not farfetched. This is achnowledged by the fact that next to common awards, there are also separate Flemish cultural awards, e.g. those of the Flemish Government[5]: "With these awards, the Flemish government acknowledges the people and organisations that help put Flemish culture on the map." This book describes the language situation I indicated above, with the general Flemish "tussentaal" as used on TV (and subtitiled in the Netherlands): this is not some more regional dialect, but the language that most Flemish people use when they don't speak their local dialect (if they even still know and use that). It is not in use in the Netherlands. As the book states: "since World War 2, the Flemish elites have been tryinbg to achieve a larger cultural integration with the Netherlands". This means that a) there was (or is) a separation of the cultures (otherwise there was nothing to integrate), and b) that this movement for integration was not a mass effort, but an elite effort (through awards, MArnixring and other organisations, ...). And this describes an earlier situation: "Meanwhile, the political autonomy reached by Flanders has produced a shift in discourse from Dutch to Flemish culture." So even the elite efforts for integration have diminished and acknowledge more and more the separate Flemish culture.

And this was a Flemish book, but the Dutch state the same: the 2004 book "Dutch Culture in a European Perspective: Accounting for the past, 1650-2000", states at page 26: "Despite the common language there are important cultural differences between the Netherlands and Flanders. This was one of the reasons why a decision was taken to restrict the research program to the culture of the Netherlands." The book then goes into greater detail as to why this may be, and what differences and similarities and gradients there are.

So we have different reliable sources supporting the statement that Flemish culture is not the same as Dutch culture. Fram (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you have a source that says that there are cultural differences between the Netherlands and Flanders which isn't contrary to what I say. In any case, you've inspired me. You've inspired me to go into the library and search the internet once more to prove my point; to prove your personal POV wrong. This article will have an accurate section on Flemings, and your OR will lose from my sources. Every time. HP1740-B (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

HP1740-B, may I ask you what your educational background is? Is it more science- or more humanities-oriented? I ask this because your approach of classifying people and their cultural areas is something that is hardly done in cultural studies nowadays. There is no such thing as a "taxonomy of cultures". Iblardi (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I think it would be helpful if everyone involves discloses her/his educational background, so we can interpret whether these difference are (as Iblardi suggests) disciplinary or not. My background is Consumer Psychology; so that tends towards humanities (actually social sciences, reflecting the simmilar Dutch distinction Art and Humanities=Alpha; Natural Science=Beta; Social Science=Gamma). Arnoutf (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I forgot to do that. Without going in too much detail, my background is exclusively Alpha: language, culture and history, as reflected by my contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia. Iblardi (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

HP, this isn't about winning or losing, this is about collaborating to create the best possible article. This is not about my POV and shouldn't be about yours. My sources state that there are important cultural differences between the Netherlands and Flanders, that there was an elite in Flanders trying to integrate the two cultures, but that even this elite has shifted more towards a Flemish culture. Now, you may be able to produce (preferably recent and neutral) sources with a different POV, but the best you will be able to do is to show that there is a difference of opinion between the sources. You will never be able to conclusively show that, according to the sources, there is only the one culture for the Netherlands and Flanders, since we have reliable sources stating the opposite. The end resuly will either be that there is no one single common culture, or that the opinions are divided.

And if you consider the second source I gave to not be contrary to what you said, then you really have to reinstate your position, because I can't harmonize the quotes given and the position you started from at the beginning of this section. Fram (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

At Fram and HP1740-B. Fram's remark just above this is in my view why it might be illuminating if everyone disclosed their backgrounds following Iblardi's suggestion.

In social science and humanities context is usually everything and whatever empirical data is out there is heavily influenced by the context; and is almost never replicable. In natural science an experiment should deliver one set of results however often it is repeated.

It appears as if (especially) HP1740-B has a personal background that is close to the latter (there is one truth). By disclosing backgrounds we may try to find a way to communicate and locate the diferences in style and opinion in the relevant context (yup, social scientist speaking ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My background is humanities. I'm not going to elaborate on this though. Fram (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

New image, infobox

I searched Flickr, and found this image. This one is most certainly usable (PD) for Wikipedia. It's basically the same image as before. We see a Dutch city, in this case Middelburg, with some typically Dutch features; you have the architecture and the bike, but it doesn't look old fashioned or 'anton pieckish' because of the modern/everyday clothing the people wear. I imagine every Dutch person has in his or her life seen such a scene. Adding to all of this, and the main reason I think to choose this image over the other is that this one is colour ... in a way, probably the time of the year, reminds me somewhat of a vermeer painting. Any comments will be appreciated.HP1740-B (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Specific sourcing

Could people please try to be more specific when they source things? A reference like "^ Dutch Culture in a European Perspective; by D. Fokkema, 2004, Assen." doesn't help, since it is a 400+ pages book edited by Fokkema. Which page(s) support the referenced statements? Better still, provide a quote! Fram (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Being the 'people' meant here, I'd like to say this. I edit wikipedia, because I enjoy it. I haven't edited in a while, because I found that others; principally you, took away the joy for a while by constantly looking for conflicts. You are an administrator with a clear agenda; in fact your partiality towards me is no secret. In my opinion, an administrator who is involved to such a degree in a certain article should either refrain from editing it or refrain from using his or her administrator-status to pressure other contributors. A quick look on your talk page shows you have a history of making uncalled threats, as indicated by fellow administrators. Comments like the one on my talk page recently are belittling and menacing, and if you have something to say to me; you can do so directly, instead of hiding behind 'anonymous' notices on talk pages and lecturing me on supposed wikipedia policy, eventhough you can't even hold on to the actual and moral rules of this project yourself. Good day. HP1740-B (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not used (or threatened to use) any administrative powers wrt you or this article. My note on your talk page can be read and judged by everyone: [6]. I don't think I can make it any more neutral and factual than it was, and fail to see how this can be judged to be "menacing" in any way. I have not commented on the editor, but on edits. A reply about those edits would be most welcome. Fram (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to validate your 'defence' by replying to it. I'm here to edit, not to vent personal problems through conflict with others.HP1740-B (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Frisians

I undid the undoing of this edit. Although I acknowledge it's not the best-written piece ever produced, it's certainly an improvement to the old version which:

• contrasted 'Frisians' to 'Dutch', while it's perfectly possible to be both Dutch and Frisian at the same time, which is how most Frisians perceive their ethnicity nowadays anyway; Frisian being a 'sub-ethnicity' of the Dutch ethnicity, as it were. As can be read in the article, this is also reflected in the treatment of Frisians in the official statistics;
• claimed that "Frisians speak West Frisian", which is like saying that "Irish speak Gaelic": too generalized. Only some (around 60%, if I recall correctly) of Frisians speak Frisian, just as some Irish speak Gaelic.
• claimed Frisians speaking West Frisian as a "difference" to Dutch people, which is not the correct choice of word, as it again generalizes Frisians as a monolingual Frisian-speaking people who thereby are distinct from the Dutch-speaking Dutchmen.

- TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your first sentence just uses more words and a lesser style to convey the same message already there, with the exception that it now less detailed. Your second sentence/change is based on your own asumption; namely that the article seems to claim that Frisians only speak Frisian. Which it does not say at all. Also, try not to confuse 'Frisians' with 'people from Friesland'.HP1740-B (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox pictures

why there will be no pictures representing famous Dutch people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.217.18.251 (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would there be such pictures?

But truly this is a discussion of the past, and as far as I recall we decided the nature of the Dutch is better presented by a typical Dutch scene than some famous Dutch people (let alone the discussion whom we call Dutch, limiting it to the foundation of the Netherlands in 1830 loses our most famous people; extending it beyond that time raises the issue how to deal with non official Dutch). Arnoutf (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Restore/Rewrite 3-5-2010

Quite some time has gone by since I last edited this article, having promised myself not to edit Wikipedia for a few months to see how the article would fare. I was rather pleased to see that it was still in more or less the same form as I left it. (Excluding the undiscussed removal of certain subsections and POV rewriting of a few sentences.) But ... on the whole, I'm quite happy with it.

If anyone wants to remove those sections in question again; they'll now try so the legitimate way I hope; which is here on the talkpage. Same goes for other changes.

As for the missing or poor quality sources; not editing doesn' t mean I haven' t been busy, and I'll be adding them ASAP.HP1740-B (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, but the actuak cycle is WP:BRD. You boldly insert sections, they get removed, then you discuss on this talk page why you want them anyway. Same goes for removing fact tags without adding sources instead. I have reverted edit 3 (a 1935 source? I'm sure you can do better than that...), the Bruges image (in the 13th to 15th century, Bruges was a French, Flemish and Burgundian city, not a Dutch city), and a few other edits. As has been discussed ad nauseam here, the Flemings don't belong to the Dutch people, but are a closely related group. Fram (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it does work like that here. Because that section was there, unchallenged on talk, for a very long time. It's sourced, it's there untill you can prove otherwise or challenge (ON TALK) its relevance.HP1740-B (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and just for the record, on Flemings. You do understand that you need to prove your statements as well don't you? I mean, for everything I write in the article; I try to find sources ... and nearly always succeed. So remember, if you make a claim that "Flemings don't belong to the Dutch people, but are a closely related group." and go on to remove Bruges as a Dutch city ... then you'll need to prove the existence of a Flemish ethnic group in the 14th century ... Good luck with that. HP1740-B (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are changing things which stood for three months without a problem. You are challenged on these changes. You need to discuss them here, not impose them by revert-warring. You have to indicate what the link is between the history of Belgium, and the struggle between Walloons and Flemings, and the Dutch people as an ethnic group. You have to provide evidence that the Flemings are a part of the Dutch ethnic group. This has been challenged on thisvery talk page, and you haven't been able to convince people of your position then. And I absolutely love how you can remove a "citation needed" because you just know that the challenged statement is included in the source[7], but that you are blissfully unaware of the fact that that "1990" source is actually from 1935[8]. Considering that the author of that book died in 1944, I think that you will have to retract your claim that I lied about the source. As for Bruges being a Dutch instead of a Flemish, French and Burgundian city in the Millde Ages: yeah, right... "Bruges was the wealthiest Flemish city" it says in "Medieval France: an encyclopedia" by William W. Kibler. Fram (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"you'll need to prove the existence of a Flemish ethnic group in the 14th century ... Good luck with that. " What about e.g. "The van Arteveldes of Ghent: the varieties of vendetta and the hero in history" By David Nicholas, with quotes like "[...] while the lower orders, consisting largely of textile workers in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, came to view their Flemish ethnic heritage as both a cultural and a political identity". Or "Music in late medieval Bruges" by Reinhard Strohm, which states "The name of 'Flanders' is used in this book as denoting the political unit, the county of Flanders, which from 1384 was ruled by the dukes of Burgundy. The adjective 'Flemish' however is used for the whole ethnic and linguistic area of the Southern Low Countries". Fram (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And the Flemish as a separate ethnic group? We have discussed this before, and plenty of sources were given then, but some more are easily available. "Languages in contact and conflict" by Sue Wright, Helen Kelly discusses how "Flanders may indeed be considered a textbook case of successful ethnic revival [...]" and "[...] an ethnic identity is a psycho-social construct than can be created and promoted. And that is exactly what happened with the Flemish identity in the 19th century." Or "The National question in Europe in historical context" By Mikuláš Teich, Roy Porter, stating "So between 1890 and 1910 there was a shift from language to ethnicity. One can perceive the emergence of a new Flemish ethnic identity, which for the first time could be separated from the Belgian identity." Or perhaps "Geopolitics in the Danube region: Hungarian reconciliation efforts, 1848-1998" by Ignác Romsics, Béla K. Király, which states that "After Switzerland, Belgium was established in 1830 as the first state in Western Europe to include two relatively similar ethnic groups, the Flemish and the Walloons, with two quite different languages". Fram (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

On Frams attempt to prove something on the Flemish

It's so sad and funny at the same time to see that you seem to think that all the "yeah, buts" and "true, howevers" don't apply to you as well.

You're mixing sources, presenting doubtfull sources and sources which bear little to no authority on the matter at hand. Do you honestly think you can base your point on one sentence (without any context) from a Hungarian-written book on the geopolitics of the Danube region?! Do you think you can combine that with another source of yours which clearly says Flemish identity is a 19th century construct?! Do you think you can combine a book on the 14th century in Ghent (in which Flemish refers solely to the inhabitants of the county) to a 16th century reference (in which Flemish has become a cultural marker for Southern Dutch) with the modern term, that of the Flemish nations?! Honestly; how dare you present this after all the demands you've made on the Dutch 'bewijslast'.

Your proof is a collection of loose sentences, taken out of context, from books which have hardly any to no scientific standing on the subject. So try again, this will not do. HP1740-B (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your mission

You need to provide sources on these matters:

• The existence of an "Flemish ethnic group" in the 14th century. That means exact information on its defining characteristics (language, religion, food culture, descend, etc.) and the rangeof this supposed group.
• Undisputable sources on true "ethnicity" on the current inhabitants of the Flemish region. That means source material; which indisputably talks about ethnicity not nationhood. Big difference, there and a lot of authors will use them interchangibly. When an ethnic group is formed in the " 19th century" -- we' re, in 99,99% of all cases, talking about nationhood. And given that I don't dispute Flemish nationhood ... that is rather irrelevant.
• You should also carefully think about, and thoroughly explain, why your given defining charactaristics are defining.

HP1740-B (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are mixing the evidence I provided that Bruges in the 14th century is regarded as a Flemish city, with evidence that many sources consider Flemish as a separate ethnicity. As I said, the second group is just a random sampling of additional examples added to the authoritative ones presneted to you by me and others in earlier discussions here, to which you generally have replied something similar to "I'll present my sources very soon" before disappearing again for weeks or months, only to restart at your reappearance as if nothing happend and without any of the promised sources. You do exactly the same again here.

On the other hand, when someone offers you something to discuss, you dismiss the sources as "doubtful" (which ones, and why?). What does it matter if "Fleimsh" in the book about the Arteveldes refers to the county? You asked for a source that Bruges in the 14th century was Flemish, and I provided it. Or are you denying that Bruges was in the county of Flanders at the time?

This is your usual tactics all over again: demanding that your edits are treated as sacrosanct and that all reversions or edits to them get discussed first, even though you are not available for months on end and ignore most requests for sources for your edits and don't come through on promises you make about providing such sources. You have done the same at e.g. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive76#User:HP1740-B: you don't provide evidence for your statements, making it impossible to have a fruitful discussion with you. Fram (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are completely reversing the roles here. If you want to include things in this article, the WP:BURDEN is on you do to what you have described here. I claim Bruges should not be added, Flemings are not part of the Dutch ethnic group, Belgium therefor is not relevant enough to get a whole section here. You want to include those things anyway, so you have to present the necessary evidence. Fram (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No it is you who's attempting to reverse the roles here. A sourced section stood for over six months and you deleted them without discussing. It's as simple as that. You acuse me of POV and not using arguments, but you (while I thoroughly deny so doing myself) do the very same thing me. You're not going to get away with that.HP1740-B (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Final request for Fram.

Final request for Fram to stop pushing his version. You version might have stood for little over 2 months, the previous (current) version stood for over 6 months. You deleted sourced sections without discussing anything on talk; and in a number of cases, did so based on remarks for which you have yet to provide proper sources.

Stop reverting and discuss matters on talk. You might be an admin, but the same rules apply to you as to anyone else.

Continue reverting and I will report you, and your behavior to the incident notice board.HP1740-B (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My version stood for three months without challenges, yours stood for less than a day. You are up to four reverts, so feel free to report whatever you like, but don't be surprised if it gets you in more trouble than it does for me. You have not provided one supporting source here yet, I did, even though the burden of doing so lies with you. And speaking of lies, how's your 1990 source from an author who died in 1944? Fram (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your version removed whole sections of sourched material without discussing it on the talk page. You can deny it as much as you like, but that's the fact of the matter. Now you can either discuss whatever problem you have with it here, or you can leave it alone. That's your choice. I'm willing to give every piece of information in that article a second, third or even fourth look; but I will not stand for the despotic behavior you've displayed today.HP1740-B (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh and about your accusation on me supposably lieing about a source ... ever heard of reprints?HP1740-B (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of supposedly lying, you stated that I lied in your edit summary ("Please don't lie about the source. There's no 1935 source there."), but couldn't be bothered to acknowledge that you were obnviously wrong there when it was pointed out to you again. And I didn't remove "whole sections of sourced material", I removed one long section with a single source halfway through, not because it was unsourced or not sufficiently sourced, but because of WP:UNDUE: sourcing a section doesn't make it any more relevant for this article. Fram (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see it is back to the old question; are the Flemings a part of the Dutch ethnicity or are they a separate ethnic group. With the essentially ill-defined nature of the term "ethnic group" this is not a simple yes/no question, an I think the current polarisation is not constructive at all.
In my view it is clear that neither editor involved can see any merit in the position of the other, and the current talk is polarising rather solving the dispute. Perhaps it would be an idea to involve external editors, e.g. through a WP:RFC request for comments procedure or another Wikipedia:Dispute resolution approach. However, that would demand from both parties to accept the outcome of such procedure. Arnoutf (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it comes down to HP-1740B promising forthcoming sources (as always) without much results in the end, while he ignores every source that opposes his point of view. I still have to see any decent argument indicating that Bruges in the 14th century was not a Flemish city, or one source indicating that it was a Dutch city at the time. As long as HP-1740B remains so sloppy with his sourcing, refuses to follow WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD, needs constant supervising when he is around, and leaves for weeks and months halfway through a discussion only to return as if nothing has ever been discussed and his version is the universally accalimed one, I don't think any progress can be made. I have no problems with an outside RfC on this article and have no problem respecting t, but I believe that a user RfC on HP-1740B would be more useful, since he runs into trouble on nearly every article he edits and with nearly every editor he encounters. Fram (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think such issues could be raised within a RFC, or another dispute resolution approach, but these procedure can only work if both sides agree to accept the outcome of such procedure. Fram has agreed to accept this, so we have to wait for HP-1740B now. For the time being I reverted back to Frams revert following Iblardis content edits. Following the WP:BRD we should be discussing rather then reverting. Arnoutf (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is better to have (if needed) two separate RfCs. If HP-1740B agrees with an article RfC, where we'll ignore everyone's editing habits and just focus on the article contents (and sourcing, placement, ...), and if everyone afterwards accepts and respects the outcome of the RfC, then no user RfC will be necessary (I hope). If someone ignores such RfC and continues to edit contrary to it, then a user RfC may become unavoidable. But in general it is better if we can avoid that, of course, and stick to constructive discussion of the article. Fram (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. I can not participate myself I think, as I am not neutral towards this article (being Dutch myself) but have no very strong feelings in this particular case.

To HP1740B, for what it is worth, my opinion. According to WP:reliable and WP:truth an editor has to be willing to support each and any contested statement with a reliable source. The WP:burden burden is with the editor wanting to have the text in, never with the editor wanting the text out. Any texts that are not provided with reliable sources may be deleted even without discussion. Fram is asking you to comply to these core policies and you are not taking that well, but that is your problem. (Of course the same goes for any edits Fram wants in but getting that solved that would require carefull discussion rather than blanket reverting of Fram's version). Also your rather blunt way of editing can be considered outright hostile by others, even if this is not your intention; by working inside an international (English) context you have implicitly agreed to adopt internationally acceptable forms of discussion style, so you should be following those here, even if you can be as blunt as you are in the Netherlands (which I doubt) without upsetting anyone. Arnoutf (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

When a text is sourced, then it is up to the editor to explain, on talk, why it supposably doesn't belong in the article. It is not a question of WP:Burden, as we're talking about sourced sections.

Same goes for stating opposite opinions in the article. If you, hypothetically, replace a section that says "The Flemish are Dutch" (which isn't to be found in the article) by a section that says "The Flemish are not Dutch" then you'll need as much proof for that as you do for the first one. Fram cannot change the text to his or her own liking without providing sources. Just as much as that goes for me.

It's a very complicated situation; because Fram continues to claim that I have yet to bring forward sources that say that the Flemish and Dutch belong to the same ethnic group. Which is blatently untrue as I have done just that.

The fact that Fram can come up with sources (be it of a lesser quality) that state the opposite (I'm talking about the ones already in the article, not the ones he found google-searching yesterday and almagated into what is a blatent violation of synthesis of sources) to me indicates that this is a very complicated issue ...

Now I say it doesn't have to be a problem, as I think taking into account both Dutch ethnicity and Dutch and Flemish nationhood; one can present the current reality fairly accurately. Supported by all availably source material.

But Fram closes that door immediately by saying "Flemish are not ethnic Dutch". Well then it's very clear for me, I'm not going to back of just because some quasi-agressive admin claims one extreme POV is the truth.

I really want to discuss this point; but I will only do so when people are suseptible to arguments on both sides.HP1740-B (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

When you present arguments, I will take a look at them. I have not seen any logical or verifiable arguments from you in this discussion though. You have not presented even one source to support your position, no matter if it is already in the article or not. The only thing you do is ignoring and/or ridiculing the sources presented after you requested them, and shifting the goalposts to ridiculous heights: while you have done nothing to support the inclusion of Bruges as a medieval Dutch city, youexpect me to prove "The existence of an "Flemish ethnic group" in the 14th century. That means exact information on its defining characteristics (language, religion, food culture, descend, etc.) and the rangeof this supposed group." Despite what you claim now, it is very obvious that you don't want to discuss any point, but that you just want to have it your way. Fram (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What you see, or choose to see, is not my problem. You don't understand your position here. You're not the one who sits up high above the rest and "will look at sources presented to you" you have to realize that your personal POV is just as extreme as "mine" and that it too requires as much sourcing as does mine.HP1740-B (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If the energy spent in personal attacks would be directed towards finding logical arguments and sources this might actually benefit the article. Arnoutf (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If all the energy you spent in making allegations of personal attacks would be spend on providing diffs for said attacks you probably'd feel less tired.HP1740-B (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

what source establishes Flemings as part of Dutch

To HP1740-B, help me please with pinpointing the specific source that fits with your above statement "I have yet to bring forward sources that say that the Flemish and Dutch belong to the same ethnic group. Which is blatently untrue as I have done just that." because I cannot distill from your edits which source that would be. Arnoutf (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to give that to you earlier, but the section suddenly vanished. The source quote "Er valt heel wat te lachen om de wederwaardigheden van Vlamingen in Nederland en Nederlanders in Vlaanderen. Ze relativeren de verschillen en beklemtonen ze tegelijkertijd. Die verschillen zijn er onmiskenbaar: in taal, klank, kleur, stijl, gedrag, in politiek, maatschappelijke organisatie, maar het zijn stuk voor stuk varianten binnen één taal-en cultuurgemeenschap." Summs it all up for me.HP1740-B (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues with that:

1) Your quote is part of a line where the opposing views are highlighted as acknowledged in the reference.(Nederlandse en Vlaamse identiteit, Civis Mundi 2006 by S.W Couwenberg. IBSN 90 5573 688 0. Page 62. Quote: "Er valt heel wat te lachen om de wederwaardigheden van Vlamingen in Nederland en Nederlanders in Vlaanderen. Ze relativeren de verschillen en beklemtonen ze tegelijkertijd. Die verschillen zijn er onmiskenbaar: in taal, klank, kleur, stijl, gedrag, in politiek, maatschappelijke organisatie, maar het zijn stuk voor stuk varianten binnen één taal-en cultuurgemeenschap." The opposite opinion is stated by L. Beheydt (2002): "Al bij al lijkt een grondiger analyse van de taalsituatie en de taalattitude in Nederland en Vlaanderen weinig aanwijzingen te bieden voor een gezamenlijke culturele identiteit. Dat er ook op andere gebieden weinig aanleiding is voor een gezamenlijke culturele identiteit is al door Geert Hofstede geconstateerd in zijn vermaarde boek Allemaal andersdenkenden (1991)." L. Beheydt, "Delen Vlaanderen en Nederland een culturele identiteit?", in P. Gillaerts, H. van Belle, L. Ravier (eds.), Vlaamse identiteit: mythe én werkelijkheid (Leuven 2002), 22-40, esp. 38. (Dutch))

2) This assumes that the combination of language and culture is defining for ethnicity, which in itself is a bold statement that requires explanation at least, and likely a reliable source.

Especially the fact that your single source is put into perspective by opposite views from other sources makes the issue undecided and point to treating the whole Flemings issue with the utmost modesty and care. Arnoutf (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but isn't the true question; if a common culture and language supposably do not make one (at least a loose) an ethnic group ... then what does it make one? I see this all in line with 19th century nationalism. 1 culture, 1 language, (at least) 2 identities ... Apparently that's unacceptable to some; without explaining why or providing sources to support those views mind you.HP1740-B (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with ill-defined constructs (like ethnicity) is that the specific working definition adopted always requires explanation. The more so, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should be clearly understood by readers who are not experts on the topic.

However, your response does not address my main point, the obvious disagreement between Couwenberg on one hand, and Beheydt and Hofstede on the other. Arnoutf (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article; though those various categories, has provided the best possible framework for defining ethnicity. As for your other remark; the reference to Hofstede I cannot check. Beheydt refers to him supposably agreeing with him ... but I have no way to check that. The comment of Beheydt itself is rather incomplete too. Its subject is "language attitude" not ethnicity. It's without context; so again I wouldn't know how to interpret them. Couwenberg leaves little room for inclarity on the other hand ... Or do you see this differently. HP1740-B (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to get away from implicit assumptions in this case, and the structure is implicitly defining things, so I do not agree with you there.

I don't have Hofstede here, but if I read the quote Beheydt I read that he has studied whether the use of the same language between Flemings and Netherlanders is indicative of a shared culture, and concludes it is not (i.e. a carefully limited study to one of the elements of ethnicity). Then he refers to Hofstede, who apparently has shown other cultural differences between the groups. Agreed it lacks a bit of context, but so does the Couwenberg claim. I really do not see either source as being better/stronger defending the point. Together they nicely show that there is little agreement to whether the Dutch and Flemings are one group or not (not so strange in the context of the muddled European history and the lack of positivistic truth in social sciences). Arnoutf (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I very much disagree with your last comment. I've read Couwenbergs book; I even think it's largely online by the way, and this quote is his final conclusion. It is very much usefull. I'd like the full context of Beheyd (I assume that providing that is the reponsibility of the editor who added it) before I make up my mind on that. I have read Hofstedes work; but I don't think its applicable here ... "culture" in Hofstedes field of expertise has to do with attitudes; risk avoidance, masculinity, etc.

Again I ask, why not intergrate these sources? Couwenberg after leaves many a room for differences, large and small. A common culture and language are a basic premise. I don't think one can prove the opposite. The dialect situation of Dutch doesn't allow for a "two languages" argument, and because of the Southern provinces in the Netherlands you can't prove that there is some kind of mayor religious or cultural divide. The only true difference is political and national development since the 19th century ... which has just been a world apart; but that's not enough to be a separate ethnic group. I see explaining common culture and language on the one hand, and separate national development on the other hand as the only true solution. HP1740-B (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think one can prove a common culture though, just like Americans, Canadians, British people and Australians don't have a common culture. They are separate cultures with alot in common, and a lot not. Couwenberg sees mainly the common things, Kossmann sees mainly the differences. Anyway, we've had this discussion before, and I recall that you reject every difference as irrelevant, so let's not go there again. The major aspect of being an ethnic group is the self-identification: "An ethnic group is a group of people whose members identify with each other [...]" (from our own article Ethnic group, not a reliable source but filled with reliable sources). Do the (majority of the) Flemish people consider themselves to be Dutch? It doesn't matter if the Dutch consider the Flemish as Dutch, theFlemish have to agree for it to bea reality. Fram (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got the examples or context of Kossmann; while Couwenbergs information is all in the open. I will hence not treat them as either "opposites" or "equals" for now.

The comparison to Anglophone cultures. That's a flawed comparison. Australians, British and Americans live on different continents. If I get into my car right now, I can be standing in front of Antwerp Cathedral in less than 20 minutes. Furthermore; Americans and Australians have a large immigrant base from all corners of the world. The Dutch and Flemings have lived in the same region for the last 1500 years; perhaps even longer. The landscape and climate (which is of huge cultural influence) is identical between the Netherlands and Flanders ... try comparing the Scottish Highlands to the Great Dessert or the Wetlands of Florida. The Austrialians, Americans and British don't form a dialect continuum. The Dutch language does. You cannot compare these things.HP1740-B (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would prefer to use sources written by outsiders, i.e. not by Dutch or Flemish people, since many of them have a stake in the debate. E.g. Couwenberg (and the ANV source used in the article) is a known defender of the Greater Dutch cause. To use him as evidence that we are one ethnicity is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy (just like using hardcore Belgicists to prove that the Flemings are ethnically Belgians would be unwise). Anyway, even in Couwenbergs writings, we find plenty of evidence of opposing views (I am wary of using him because he is openly partial in the debate, I'm not claiming that he isn't knowledgeable at the same time). E.g. here, one can find statements like "De vorig jaar overleden historicus E.H. Kossmann karakteriseerde de Nederlands-Vlaamse betrekkingen eens kort en klaar als twee culturen naast elkaar, maar niet in gesprek met elkaar." Two cultures, not one. And Couwenberg continues with his opinion on this "In grote trekken is dat nog onverminderd het geval." The whole of thta text he wrote indicates that he believes that the Dutch and the Flemish should have one culture, and that such unification is perfectly possible, but that it is far from the current reality nevertheless. Butas I said, let's hear from external sources, outside Belgium and the Netherlands. Fram (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a game I will not play. Couwenberg and the modern ANV are cultural organization. Void of any political aspiration. In the magazine of ANV for example; you'll find articles on Dutch and Flemish carillons or language situation on French Flanders. You will not find bold rhetoric calling for the end of the Belgian and Dutch state. He, and the ANV are cultural organizations; and not partial. Also, Belgicism doesn't advocate a Belgian ethnicity. It advocates Belgian nationhood. Big difference. HP1740-B (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No person in the world is strictly neutral, as that would not be human. In science strict neutrality does not exist either, even less so in social sciences where interpretation and collection of evidence will (almost) inevitably reflect the point of view of the researcher. Therefore we cannot take one source as definitive, and I think the current reference highlighting the opposing view shows that. Neither source is completely right, neither is completely wrong; the issue remains undecided. Arnoutf (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)From the top of the Couwenberg page linked in my previous post: "De inhoud is mijn visie hoe Vlaanderen en Nederland staatkundig samen binnen Europa kan bestaan. Vlaanderen en Nederland verenigend in een staat (een unitaire, federale of confederale), Groot-Nederland. Ook de cultuur, taal en de geschiedenis worden belicht als hoekstenen van onze gemeenschappelijke identiteit." Are you seriously claiming that he is not a defender of the Greater Dutch cause, and isn't partial? Fram (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Being partial, or rather, being a supporter of a cause, doesn't mean you can't be objective anymore. Besides, this article doesn't (and should never) take stance on any Grootneerlandische issues. Adding to that; Grootneerlandism doesn't make you see cultural similarities; it's seeing the similarities that make you a Grootneerlandist. We at this article shouldn't be interested in whether it's a good thing to disolve Belgium and/or merge The Netherlands with Flanders. We should look at the reasons (and this man is a scholar so please do cut him at least some slack) Couwens presents why it should work culturally; because a lot of those apply to the problems and questions we're facing here.HP1740-B (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's distinguish a few points here:

(1) No scholar is completely objective in selecting topics, theories and approaches to an issue; and all decent scholars will agree to that. After the more or less subjective choice of topic, theory and approach, the subsequent analysis of evidence should be objective, and all good scholars would agree to that. The point with ill-defined topics like ethnicity is that the distinction between approach selection and analysis is a bit shady, introducing at least some subjectivity to enter the analysis (this is the curse of social sciences).

(2) "Grootneerlandism doesn't make you see cultural similarities; it's seeing the similarities that make you a Grootneerlandist." I am not convinced by this reasoning. If this were true it should translate universally for example to "Belief in God doesn't make you see intelligent design; it's finding evidence for intelligent design that makes a believer in God.". I hope you agree that is far fetched.

(3) I do give Couwens some slack, but so should you give Beheydt and Geert Hofstede, who are also scholar. Especially the latter is an extremely well regarded scholar. Arnoutf (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

1) Being selective isn't the same as being partial. Attacking someones credibility on the grounds that (in this case) the man is in favour of a merger/closer ties between Flanders and the Netherlands, that's a bridge too far for me. Now if he had history of making up stuff ... then we should be extra carefull. He doesn't have such a history however, not as far as I know anyway, so there no need for such allegations.

2)Why should it have to translate universally to be true? You don't have to be a Grootneerlandist to see similarities. Nothing particulary peculiar about that. Americans and Brits both speak English ... does that automatically make you favour a merger of their respective countries?

3)I know of Hofstedes reputation, can't say I know the other guy, and I have no reason to distrust them. I have however reason to distrust the citations of their respective works provided here, because the context is severly lacking.I've made this clear before. HP1740-B (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

[e.c.] As to the Bruges issue, how about applying "Netherlandic" instead of "Dutch" for the period before the unification of the Northern Netherlands? This is an existing term[9][10] which does not have the political connotations that "Dutch" and "Flemish" have. (It would of course be ridiculous to speak of the Flemish and the Dutch [including Hollanders, Brabanders, Groningers] as two distinct cultural groups before that time - the differences would exist on a regional level throughout the area.) Iblardi (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As the article explains; at this time (14th century) there is a (diverse) common language and culture but no overarching identity; which was still largely regional at the time. So it is merely meant that Bruges at the time was the 'Dutch' cultural capital at the time. The most common translation of "Nederlandse cultuur" is "Dutch culture". "Nederlandse cultuur" is used in Flanders and nobody takes offence ... why would it really be an issue when translated to English? Why would people then interpret it as meaning "Hollandse cultuur" or whatever? If we thoroughly explain what 'Dutch' in its broadest sense means ... I don't think there will be a need for such psuedo-PC measures. HP1740-B (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

HP1740-B, do you realise that you just made the point Fram has been arguing "at this time (14th century) there is a (diverse) common language and culture but no overarching identity" while shared identity is core to the definitions of ethnicity. So, following your own logic there was no Dutch ethnic group in the 14th century. Arnoutf (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Fram never argued about anything, he simple stated that Bruges was never Dutch. Let's keep that clear.

What I just said is nothing new. In the article's history section (that I wrote) I use phases of development of the Dutch ethnic group used by respected ethnographic works. Overarching identity is one marker, which was limited at the time. But that does't make the city less Dutch in a cultural and linguistic perspective. Bruges was a Flemish city, in the country of Flanders, inhabited by Flemings (people living in said county) but culturally and linguistically ... it was Dutch/Netherlandic. HP1740-B (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The point I think Iblardi wants to make is, that by distinguishing between Netherlandic and Dutch ethnicity you avoid the confusion caused by using Dutch for both pre-80 yrs war part of Habsburg empire and post 1648 Dutch as nation and group. If we consistently use Netherlandic referring to the 17 Netherlands (pre 1600's) and Dutch after formation of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (i.e. 10 were lost!) and the follow up Kingdom of the Netherlands, that would make distinctions clearer. Arnoutf (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Arnout, I have checked it, and Netherlandic is mainly used as a field of studies, not as an adjective to describe people, cities, ... Bruges is always called a Flemish city, never a Dutch city or a Netherlandic city. We shouldn't be making up constructions. Fram (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if you claim it wasn't Dutch (in the way I've just explained how 'Dutch' is intented) then you need to explain, and prove, what it was. HP1740-B (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to continue this discussion with Iblardi, Arnoutf, or any enw editors coming along. I am still open to an article RfC to get this thing sorted. But I don't think it is any use continuing a discussion with someone stating that "Fram never argued about anything, he simple stated that Bruges was never Dutch.", which is wrong on all accounts. I stated that it wasn't Dutch during the 13th to 15 century, not that it was never Dutch. I didn't simply state this, I supported this with a number of sources which you all dismissed for unclear reasons. You, on the other hand, have not provided yet one source supporting your statement that Bruges was a Dutch city during the Middle Ages. This is the same modus operandi you used in all previous discussions, making false and icorrect claims all over the place, only to replace them with different false claims once the previous ones are exposed (but without acknowledging earlier errors), and finally disappearing for a month or so, only to restart from scratch. If anyone is willing to start or to certify a User RfC about HP-1740B, I'm more than willing to join in, as this disruption of all normal consensus building processes has to stop. Fram (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And there you go again; attacking me personally instead of my arguments. You didn't prove anything. I also didn't dismiss your sources, I explained to you, in detail I might add, why they weren't applicable.

In fact, why don't you ask Arnoutf or Iblardi if they think if the sources you presented yesterday are applicable. I'm sure they'll try their very best to assume the best of faith on your intentions and post the most nuanced reply possible. But they will never, ever, agree that those sources prove your point or quite possibly have any authority on the matter.

If you deny that 14th century Bruges was culturally and linguistically Dutch ... then you need to explain what it was then ... Very simple I'd say. HP1740-B (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)