Talk:Dutch people/Archive 1

message: Mainly because many Flemings fled to the safer and free North of the Low Countries during the Eighty Years' War. Dutch culture in turn has influenced Flemish culture ever since the 16th century.
It is an anachronism to speak about Flemings and Flemish in these lines. In those days the term Flemish was used for inhabitants of the County of Flanders (the Belgian provinces West Flanders, East Flanders, the southern part of the Dutch province Zeeland and a region in Northern France).
84.193.165.47 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Loose comments moved from top of page

message: Well, but you do know that Afrikaans are only partly of Dutch descent? There ancestry is actually pretty equally split between Dutch, French [Hugenots], Germans and Walloons. See Afrikaners.
--Lucius1976 22:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the given number of 5 million people in South Africa being of Dutch descent is false - the number is indeed lower due to the prevalence of Hugenots, Germans, Walloons, Scandinavians and others included into the white Afrikaans-speaking population of South Africa. Rick86 10:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Afrikaans Statistics

message: 13 million Dutch in the Netherlands, of 16 million, so 3 million people in the Netherlands are non-Dutch? That seems wrong.  Piet 17:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is supposed to be about ethnically (and culturally) Dutch people, rather than Dutch nationals. Of course, there's no clear definition on what counts as 'ethnically Dutch', leading to problems such as illustrated by other comments on this page. Junes 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are about 3.1 million post war immigrants and descendants in The Netherlands, including the refugees from Indonesia.--MWAK 11:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I understand 10% of Dutch nationals (people who vote...) are first of second generation immigrants mostly from Morocco and Turkey, very many also from Surinam, Aruba, etc.. Considering the large number of people of Indonesian, Moluccan.. ancestry and the nowadays large number of "ex" Europeans, Anericans, South Americans, Chines,... I have no difficulty in believing that 3 million of us are not ethnic Dutch where I define that to mean: most of whose ancestors alive in 1900 were in the Netherlands. I think that roughly between 1800 and 1900 there hasn't been so much immigration as after (though I also know Dutch people whose ancestors were German puritans who didn't have enough money to take the boat from Rotterdam).Gill110951 08:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the numbers go with the CBS definition, where those who are Dutch are those both whose parents were born in the Netherlands (so that would include 3rd generation immigrants - as their grandparents, the original immigrants were born abroad). Arnoutf 08:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Netherlands statistics

message: It's a pitty this page is protected, because I just wanted to fix a grammatical mistake but can't:
:Dutch people were forced to work together to rebuilt their country, which was almost completely destroyed and without resources around mid 1945.
When it should be
:Dutch people were forced to work together to rebuild their country, which was almost completely destroyed and without resources around mid 1945
Kyle sb 14:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, as this is a housekeeping task, not changing the content. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the page 

message: i would like to see more in this article about dutch people such as the culture, population density, diversity within the country etc
That's not a question, just a remark. Nevertheless I'm sure it will be fixed soon. You could even do it yourself.
Rex 11:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

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

message: Under the image with 'The Greater Netherlands, also called Dietsland', I added the explanation that this is not an actual country, but just the area where Dutch is the official language. This explanation was almost immediately removed by Rex Germanus, although both terms are explained nowhere. I really think the image is very confusing for people who do not know the geographical location of The Netherlands or Belgium. Worse, I have never heard of these terms 'Greater Netherlands' or 'Dietsland' even though I'm Dutch myself. The corresponding Groot-Nederland-article on the Dutch Wikipedia has an oversized and controversial smell, too; the subject has hardly got any attention in the Dutch media in the past years, afaik.
I fear this is going to be an edit war, but I really think it is best to either explain the image much better, or leave it completely away and not cause confusion. Stonehead 9 september 2006, 20:48 (CEST)
:I really trust that people have some idea where Belgium and the Netherlands are positioned and that they can see that Dietsland is spelled differently. Of course Dietsland isn't a county, it's a concept. I'm Dutch too and I have heard of this, and I'm sure people who are interested (thus click on the link) will be properly informed.
:Rex 20:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they do not. Most citizens of the USA have no idea of all these countries in Europe (my personal opinion; I could probably prove it if I had the time to Google). For quick readers, I find it misleading to introduce the little-known Dietsland-'concept' in a geographical picture at this very general and real Dutch people-article. If there should be any map at all, it should do justice to all of these 'Dutch' groups listed. For the Dietsland-article, the picture is great, but please, only refer to this 'concept' in a link here. Stonehead 10 september 2006, 12:57 (CEST)
I think you've heard too much stereotypes, the average American might not know where Moldavia lies, but I'm quite sure (based on my own experiences) that they know where the Netherlands and Belgium are.
Rex 11:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think a bit more explanation of the Dietsland concept may be in place if we want to use the term. The concept is relatively little known; and of course as an encyclopdia, wiki should be directed at the interested general public. Arnoutf 11:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should ask some Flemish people about their opinion on the relevance of the concept. On nl.wikipedia I saw various Flemish people using the term "Groot Nederland" (Greater Netherlands), but the term is hardly known among the Dutch. Probably the term Dietsland is also more familiar to the Flemish than to the Dutch. SietskeEN 15:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I have reverted three recent revision by Epf. I will shortly motivate here why I reverted the first and third (the second being a minor textual change).
 
The first revision that I reverted was (again) the removal of Anne Frank and Spinoza from the section Contribution to Humantiy. Eopf gave the following edit summary Contribution to humanity - i have gone over this again and again and we still havent resolved it, view my comments on Rex' talk page. If you include them, you can include anyone anywhere.
I agree that Epf has gone over this again and again and that we still have not solved the issue; which centers largely on the definition of an ethnic group (see a lot of debate on the Dutch people talk page). In my opinion text should not be changed before the issue is solved. This is my main reason for the reversion. Furthermore the comments of Epf on Rex' talk page are completely irrelevant. If Epf thinks there is a good argument to be made, he should make it on the talk page of the articale, not on the personal page of one of the editors. - But I see now he did; although very lengthy.... I will have to have a look....
The other revision was the addition of the banner . Although I agree that this article could benefit from good cites, I still deleted the banner as I cannot exclude that Epf added the banner to shed doubt on the quality of the article more out of frustration for not getting his point of view accepted by other editors; than because of a jsutified concern for the quality of the article. No offense meant if I am wrong. As the unreferenced issue has no history for this page, the more decent way to introduce this would have been through a topic on this talk page. Or if you really can not live with a specific bold claim in the text the addition of in text calls for reference using the   template; which helps subsequent editors to improve the text much better than a vague overall lack of reference banner. Arnoutf 07:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert of recent revisions

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

message: Epf once again reverted Rex' inclusion of Spinoza and Anne Frank to contribution of humanity with the edit summary: rv POV; i thought this was ettled. Clearly Rex has soem agendaon the issue with his insistence on including these particular two people. However reading all debate above I cannot agree this issue was settled. There is still no clear definition of ethnic Dutch and the most recent comment above by Epf:  "....The common descent of the Dutch is those who can trace at least a significant degree of their ancestry...." (without specifying what significance means) indicates that at least Anne Frank due to Dutch ancestry may be included. As I have stated many times before, without a clear definition of the Dutch ethnic group this issue cannot be settled. Arnoutf 07:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest I am not convinced neither by you (exclusion of Spinoza and Anne Frank) nor by Rex (inclusion of both). I think we made some progress with the definition, but the definition is still a bit ambiguous. Personally I am more in favour of the broader interpretation of the definition (which warrant inclusion), and I still think your (Epf) interpretation of the definition is a bit too narrow. But that is my personal opinion. I think that Spinoza and Anne Frank are not clear cut cases; so they may or may not be included depending on consensus. I will no longer revert edits either including or excluding them, but hope that this can be resolved. I would be happy if some other editors besides the three of us (Rex, Epf, Arnoutf) would share their opinion on this issue in this talk page, so we can really see where this should be going from here. Arnoutf 08:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: These deletions are needed in the interest of accuracy and neutrality:
*claims that there are Germanic peoples in modern Europe. Germanic is a linguistic term, Germanic peoples are pre-mediaeval historic groups.
*claims that the Dutch people are a Germanic people.
*claims of special affiliation to other Germanic peoples.
*history of the Dutch people before circa 1500. No 'Dutch' ethnic group before the 15th century, and no reliable source uses this terminology. Treat as History of the Netherlands, which also covers material on Flanders.
*Afrikaans-speaking population listed as ethnic Dutch
*claims that Frankish is Dutch, no reliable linguistic source
*claims that the Franks changed their name and called themselves Dutch, no source for this pseudohistory
*claims that Flemish cities are 'Dutch'
*claims that a single Dutch ethnic group existed around 1550 in both Flanders and the present Netherlands, and claims that this single group was partitioned in 1648
*unqualified claims that a Flemish people or Flemish nation exists (controversial, neutrality issue)
*unqualified claims that the Flemish people are part of the Dutch people
*claims that the entire population of the Low Countries, and of modern Belgium, are ethnically Dutch.Paul111 12:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly suggest you stop reverting until you bring something substantial to this talkpage paul111.Rex 12:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The references in the recent edits by Paul111 are as weak as any on this page. This is especially disappointing from someone attacking this page (partially) on the weakness of its sourcing. Please provide high quality scientific (ie not internet, or hearsay or anecdotes but published by a respected scientific publishing house or in a reviewed scientific journal) for each controversial edit. Arnoutf 12:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions from the article

message: I think the time is overly detailed. We are not interested in the History of the Netherlands, only of these bits of importance for the emergence of the current Dutch people. I would suggest to change it to the following
For the history of the region before the Dutch Revolt, see History of the Netherlands and Low Countries.
*Ancient times, several tribes (Belgae, Batavii) and partial Roman occupation.
*At the end of the Migration Period the Frisians, Saxons and Franks inhabit the Low Countries.
*843, the Treaty of Verdun is signed. The Carolingian Empire, is divided into three kingdoms among the three surviving sons of Louis the Pious; Charlemagne's grandsons. The Low Countries become a part of Middle Francia, the realm of Emperor Lothair I.
*962, the Holy Roman Empire is established with the coronation of Otto the Great. Most of the Low Countries states/fiefs are a part of this multi-ethnic empire. With the decreased central powers the low countries drift apart and form semi-independent fiefdoms. 
*1300, Flanders is one of the most urbanised regions in Europe, with the cities of Ghent, Bruges and Ypres. Irrelevant for the Dutch peoples 
*1384, The dukes of Burgundy started to unite the Low Countries (until 1473)
*1517, Lutheranism makes it way into the Low Countries, starting in the South.  Irrelevant for the Dutch peoples
*1549, the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549, issued by Charles V, established the Low Countries as the Seventeen Provinces (or Spanish Netherlands in its broad sense) as an entity separate from the Holy Roman Empire and from France.
*1566, iconoclasm. A wave of destruction aimed at the Catholic Church sweeps through the Low Countries. Unofficial start of the Dutch Revolt against Habsburg Spain.
*1568, the Battle of Oosterweel, the official start of the Dutch revolt. Level of detail to high for this article (in relation to previous line)
*app. 1580, de facto independence of the Northern Low Countries. Becoming arguably he first republic and nation state of modern Europe. (The Dutch republic). De facto establishment of the Southern Netherlands as an independent entity.
*1584, start of the Dutch Golden Age. relevance?
*1585, Fall of Antwerp to the Spanish. Flemish intellectuals start to migrate to the Northern Netherlands. 
*1630, slow development of the worldwide Dutch Empire. 
*1648, Peace of Westphalia, the end of the Eighty Years' War. Offical geopolitical division of the Dutch and the Flemish, the Dutch-speaking inhabitants of modern Belgium.
*1702, end of the Dutch Golden Age. relevance?
*1789, start of the French Revolution.  immediate relevance in relation to next few lines?
*1795-1806, establishment of the Batavian Republic with French assistance. End of the Dutch Republic. immediate relevance in relation to next few lines?
*1806, the Netherlands become part of the French Empire.
*1813, the Netherlands become an independant state once more.
*1815, In an effort to reunite the seventeen province the United Kingdom of the Netherlands is proclaimed.
*1830, Belgian revolution. The Southern provinces secede; de facto restoring the situation from before 1806.
*1839, The independence of Belgium is acknowledged. 
And I think we should also do something about more recent developments, that resulted in the Dutch multiethnic society...
*1949, The independence of former colony Indonesia is acknowledge. Dutch Indonesians migrate to the Netherlands
*1950's-1970's During the blooming Economy large number of immigrants came to the Netherlands, first from Italy later predominantly from Turkey and Marocco. This same period saw the start of emigration of Dutch farmers, looking for larger pastures to especially Canada and Australia.
*1975, Independence of Surinam. Dutch Surinams move to the Netherlands
Arnoutf 14:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: Hi Paul, I can see what you want with the introduction, but am not very happy with the current one as it is rather vague:
* The Dutch people (Dutch language het Nederlandse volk) is an ethnic and national group which forms the majority of the population 83% as reported in the CIA factbook, reference date 22 September 2006  in the Netherlands. The term is normally applied to those resident in the Netherlands, but exactly who is included varies according to the context and intention. (National identity, and the issue of who belongs to the Dutch people, are controversial issues in the Netherlands). Outside the Netherlands, the English-language exonym Dutch also refers to an ethnic group descended from emigrants from the present territory of the Netherlands. The corresonding endonym "Nederlanders" is used in the Netherlands itself as a synonym for het Nederlandse volk. The Dutch language names are derived from Nederlanden, "low lands", now also used in the singular Nederland as the short version of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Kingdom of the Netherlands includes Caribbean islands with an ethnically distinct population, and they may or may not be included in the term "Nederlanders".
I would like to propose the following edits (the between bracket controversial issue statement is a POV and should go):
* The Dutch people (Dutch language Nederlanders) is an ethnic and national group which forms the majority of the population of the Netherlands83% as reported in the CIA factbook, reference date 22 September 2006 . Exactly who is included varies according to the context and intention, mainly whether referring to the ethnic or the national group. The ethnic Dutch group is closely related to other north-western European ehtnic groups, especially the Germans and the Scandinavian peoples. Outside the Netherlands, the English-language exonym Dutch also refers to an ethnic group descended from emigrants from the present territory of the Netherlands. The corresponding endonym "Nederlanders" however, is generally used differently in the Netherlands referring to the national group, which is used for the residents of the Netherlands with the Dutch nationality. The Kingdom of the Netherlands includes several semi-independent Caribbean islands, whose inhabitant have the Dutch nationality but consist of an ethnically distinct population. They are sometimes included in the term "Nederlanders".Arnoutf 15:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok bad translation of status aparte voor Antilles. About Nederlander - that is indeed tricky. We could distinguish between legal (all those with Dutch nationality); official political doctrine autochtoon-allochtoon (2nd generation issues); popular use (which I am afraid may remind of right-wing sympathies; so perhaps we should not, but then again the Fortuyn wilders stuff....) I think the last is most important but at the same time most controversial. I think the introduction should not be overly long. Arnoutf 15:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to say that I do not like this new intro. This article is on the Dutch as an ethnic group not as a group of people with the same nationality. I think a section explaining the differences is fine, but not in the intro. Rex 18:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough that's why I put it here first, although what exactly an ethnic group is is also object of debate. I think this ~much of text can be used in a first section though.Arnoutf 20:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How about this: 
*The Dutch people (Dutch language het Nederlandse volk) is an ethnic and national group which forms the majority of the population in the Netherlands (13 million in 2006) 13 186 600, autochtone population at 01 january 2006, Central Statistics Bureau, Integratiekaart 2006,  . The Dutch are related to other peoples in North-Western Europe, such as the Belgian, the Germans and the Scandinavian peoples. The term can have several complementary meanings dependant on context of use..
While putting the rest in an explanatory section. Arnoutf 21:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I am not sure this is useful as the official definition states that you are autochtoon if both your parent were born in the Netherlands (2nd generation issue). However, this also implies that if your children are born during our holidy (or your foreign temp-job); your grandchildren will be allochtoon (ie not both their parent were born in the Nl). I seriously doubt whehter we should go into these murky waters; of official definitions..... Arnoutf 15:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok bad translation of status aparte voor Antilles. About Nederlander - that is indeed tricky. We could distinguish between legal (all those with Dutch nationality); official political doctrine autochtoon-allochtoon (2nd generation issues); popular use (which I am afraid may remind of right-wing sympathies; so perhaps we should not, but then again the Fortuyn wilders stuff....) I think the last is most important but at the same time most controversial. I think the introduction should not be overly long. Arnoutf 15:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to say that I do not like this new intro. This article is on the Dutch as an ethnic group not as a group of people with the same nationality. I think a section explaining the differences is fine, but not in the intro. Rex 18:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough that's why I put it here first, although what exactly an ethnic group is is also object of debate. I think this ~much of text can be used in a first section though.Arnoutf 20:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How about this: 
*The Dutch people (Dutch language het Nederlandse volk) is an ethnic and national group which forms the majority of the population in the Netherlands (13 million in 2006) 13 186 600, autochtone population at 01 january 2006, Central Statistics Bureau, Integratiekaart 2006,  . The Dutch are related to other peoples in North-Western Europe, such as the Belgian, the Germans and the Scandinavian peoples. The term can have several complementary meanings dependant on context of use..
While putting the rest in an explanatory section. Arnoutf 21:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Again there is no general self-identification as Dutch in Flanders and no description as such in the Netherlands. The small minority that thinks this way should be identified as a small minority, and their claims not presented as fact.Paul111 11:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To both your above claims I agree, although histroically related we are now not one group. I think my recent edits to the timeline (eg addition 1795 as separation S-A and the Seventeen province splits) reflect this issue. I think that by listing it this way in the timeline, and removing too strict claims otherwise from the text we show both the relation (which I think you will agree is there to a certain level) and the separation (which is also clearly present). However, some references for your recent additions on the main article (esp. the Flemish and Afrikaner sections) would be very helpful. Arnoutf 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: As I read it Rex reference covers both claims (is this the case Rex?). And I see no quotation marks in Rex' text; so apparently the phrase "united and free" is not a literal quoatation of the 16th century language. This may be a conclusion drawn in the book cited by Rex, and we have to trust Rex to have adequately used his source here. So really you do not have apoint there Paul. Arnoutf 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When reviewing this issue I noticed you removed the book provided by Rex without any discussion. Please do not do that again; you ask for references, you get in this case a respectable one (Bloms'history of the Netherlands is a serious book), so at least have the decency not to remove it on your own initiative. Arnoutf 11:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, it disappeared during your last few edits, so I thought it was intentionally deleted; apparaently not, so no problem there. I put it back in. Arnoutf 12:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Euhm I think the quote is a bit overdoing it it does not change the point, only now it is not your own text but a literal quote. Worse however is that there is now another unsourced pov in the line, namely that A Th. Leersum is authorative. Is (s)he? Why doens't (s)he have a Wiki article? Why can't I find this person on Google with the string Leersum-Historian or Leersum-Historicus? In that light I think the current version is even more biased than before. Arnoutf 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I would say, leave it up for now. Once the current storm of content revisions is over we can start polishing style issues like this. Arnoutf 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flemish not Dutch

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

message: No source was provided for this figure, which seems absurdly high, given that there are only 5 million self-identified 'Dutch' in the USA. No source was provided for the other 500 000 Dutch in the 'rest of the world' either.Paul111 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 million Dutch in Brazil? 

message: I propose to remove or heavily qualify the following items:
Afrikaners listed as Dutch: they are Afrikaners, see talk. The table even says they are a "related" group, so they can not be the same as the Dutch.
25 million Dutch: unsourced. Totals in the table don't add to 25 million.
34 million Dutch: unsourced and improbable.
"Generally, the term "Dutch" refers to all people who inhabit the Netherlands and have the Dutch nationality." Many people think otherwise, see Allochtoon.
"Until the late 19th century the Flemish and Dutch were regarded as being a single people." No source despite several requests.
"The area inhabited by the "Dutch people" historically did not coincide with the boundaries of the current country of the Netherlands": implies Dutch people preceded Dutch state, for which no source was given despite request
"various Germanic tribes invaded what is now Western Europe": dubious old-fashioned version of what happened
long footnote on Frankish history: belongs in article on the Franks.
"The Dutch were an economical and military superpower" : an ethnic group is not a superpower
"Until 1830, the Dutch and Flemings (who live in Northern Belgium) were generally considered as one single people": no source
popular sports: no source that these are ethnic-specific
Category:Germanic peoples. No source for the claim that Dutch are Germanic.Paul111 20:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may want to consider rephrasing a few rather than just removing. With regard to your last line; the category includes a fair number of modern ethnic groups (besides many ancient ones). Among those modern groups are the Frisians,Flemish,Danish,Swedes,Norwegians,English and Germans. I think you should get all of these groups out of this category at the same time as you get the Dutch out, because if there is one group of ethnicities the Dutch belong to, these are bound to be the other members; so I would go a bit carefully there. Arnoutf 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ps, I'm getting really agitated by your wikipedia-style, you are claiming the article is unreference but add large new unreferenced sections with a clear bias yourself and yet continue to demand what needs to go ... I smell revisionism.
Rex 20:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: As suggested above, I have removed the modern nations from this category. In some cases, the modern name also applies to the appropriate period, (Icelanders) so I left it in. Minor groups such as the Goralenvolk were left in, I don't know enough about the issues there.Paul111 20:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This behaviour is unacceptable. You just cut and slice your way into wikipedia and expect others to expect. Like I sais on your talkpage (below the civility warning) you might have your own personal definitions of words, scolars tend to agree, stop these kinds of changes. Discus for christs sake.Rex 21:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My suggestion was mainly to show that you are really pushing your opinion on Germanic people. But if your removals are accepted (which I doubt) perhaps that is the correct POV. I hope at least you have been polite enough to place an argument why you removed these modern nations on each of the relevant talk pages; and if consensus arises to restore them you will agree the Dutch should be added as well? Arnoutf 21:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I propose to use a page intro similar to this one at English people:
:This article is about the English as an ethnic group and nation. For information on the population of England, see demographics of England.
This will allow the Dutch people to be treated as both a national and ethnic group, without conflicting with the intro text. The English people article does this already: it opens "The English are an ethnic group or nation..."Paul111 21:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would get far too confusing. I you want to create such an article I suggest a move;
Dutch people ↔ Dutch (Ethnic group) and the creation of Dutch (Nation)
Rex 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Rex, the English are an ethnic group and a nation; however not a country (that refers to the UK which includes e.g. Welsh and Scots). By the way, nation in this context raises more right-wing connotations. This is different for the Dutch as the Netherlands includes Frisia where Wales and Scotland are no part of England. Arnoutf 21:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually England (like Wales or Scotland) is undoubtedly a country not to be confused with a state. Nation is a matter of identity and unlike ethnic group extends to religious, linguistic and cultural ties. In the case of this article it should be about ethnicity, nationality and preferably also citizenship.--Caranorn 22:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops sorry, indeed state; my mistake. In the Netherlands the provinces like Holland, etc. are however neither nations nore countries. While the whole of the Netherlands is a country and a state Arnoutf 08:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top of page intro 

message: I propose to revert the move by user Rex, to rename this article Dutch people, to reinsert the top-of-page text which identifies the Dutch as both an ethnic group and a nation, and to delete administratively the disambiguation page for 'Dutch people'. Please indicate Agree or Disagree below.Paul111 13:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree--Caranorn 13:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to say I am not completely happy with the name change myself. Howver I propose to have a look how the other peoples articles cope with this. If the consensus over all articles seams to be ethnic group should be added, then I go with Rex, otherwise I would say, change it back (sorry no time to do the field work right now) Arnoutf 14:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I already explained, you usually don't split an article before the necessary material is available and someone has volunteered to actually complete the split. All you did was change the article's title, create a new disambiguation with the old title and leave all the original material in the newly named one. In the case of ethnicity and nationality (not to be confused with citizenship), both can be easily treated in a single article (and that doesn't concern only the dutch, the same applies to most modern ethnic groups) as it's a closely related topic. By the way, from your 14:13 contribution to this discussion I wonder whether you don't still confuse citizenship (or statehood) and nationality (in common speech similar to identical, in scientific use quite different).--Caranorn 16:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: The Old Situation:
              |                                                   |
       Dutch people                        Demographics of the Netherlands  
              |                                                       
              |                                                       
              |                                                    
       (Effectively treating:)                                       
              |        
     Dutch (Ethnic group)                    
As said by Caranorn, demographics, ethicity and nationhood are 3 different matters; hence the current situation:
                                     Dutch people (disambiguation page)
                                            |  
                                            |  
               _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
              |                             |                             |  
              |                             |                             |  
   Dutch (Ethnic group)              Dutch (Nation)       Demographics of the Netherlands
Would qualify as being the best  solution.
In my view, a country's demographics and "nation" are far more related than "ethnic group" and "nation".
Hence this would be another possibilty
                                     Dutch people (disambiguation page)
                                            |  
                                            |  
               _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
              |                                                         |  
              |                                                         |  
   Dutch (Ethnic group)                                   Demographics of the Netherlands
                                                                         +   
                                                                Dutch (Nation)
This however this (BELOW), is not acceptable. Eventhough I know that "Dutch people" has different meanings in both English and Dutch I'm conviced that in the light of all this the name of the article should be changed, not it's content. 
                                     Dutch people (disambiguation page)
                                            |  
                                            |  
               _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
              |                                                         |  
              |                                                         |  
   Dutch (Ethnic group)                                   Demographics of the Netherlands
             +   
     Dutch (Nation)
Rex 15:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's all very simple

message: The "Iranian peoples" article was recently (today) featured on the Main page, this article deals with an ethnic group. Maybe we should take a good look at that particular article and use it to improve this one.Rex 14:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice idea, I see some practical problems, mainly as the Iranian people article avoids a lot of the more difficult issues by talking about a group of ethnic groups. That does not seem a good idea for the Dutch..... (Would that be Hollandic, Sealandic, Brabant, Flemish, Limburgin, Guelders, Frisian up to 1800 and afterwards only Flemish, Duthc Frisian.) I think not a fruitful direction to even think about.Arnoutf 16:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting and possibly helpful event

message: According to the Dutch wikipedia and "Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities":
"In Nederland wonen twee erkende bevolkingsgroepen. Naast de Nederlanders zijn sinds 2005 de Friezen erkend als nationale minderheid"
Situated in the Netherlands are 2 acknowledged ethnic groups. Aside from the Dutch, the Frisians were given the status of a national minority. 
And according to the same page I found this table:
Aspect           	Group             	absolute  	relative                     	Date of source	
Population size  	                  	          	                             	              	
Population size  	men               	8.078.888 	49,5% van totaal             	june 2006	
Population size  	women             	8.256.621 	50,5%                        	june 2006	
Population size  	total             	16.335.998	                             	june 2006	
Number allochtoon	western origin    	1.428.968 	                             	2006          	
Number allochtoon	non western origin	1.722.534 	                             	2006          	
Number allochtoon	total             	3.151.502 	19,3% of the total population	2006          	
Population growth	totaal            	29.983    	1,8‰ per year                	2006          	
From which can be concluded that there are approximatly 13/12 million ethnic Dutch in the Netherlands.
Rex 14:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is whether that makes the Frisians a recognised ethnic or national group. By the above wording I'd expect national.--Caranorn 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Information on the Dutch ethnic group

message: The map needs to be improved, so I removed it temporarily. It incorrectly showed the south of Zeeland as Catholic, and omitted Catholic concentrations in the west.Paul111 12:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know Zeeuws Vlaanderen has been Catholic; furhtermore I think the Catholic concentrations west (I guess your are referring to small communities such as Volendam) are too small to depict on the map. I go with you that it has to be imporved as is not clear at what moment in time this geographic division occurred. A source (e.g. historic atlas, or old CBS report) would be a good addition to conclude this discussion. Arnoutf 12:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The map gives no sources. I'd recommend you add those to the file. Until that time it would be fair to remove the file from the article or propose it for deletion from the commons. Dates would also be appropriate (I assume it's late 1940's or early 1950's).--Caranorn 12:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Thanks.--Caranorn 15:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, minor suggestion, perhaps you can remove the Noordoostpolder and the Flevopolder from the map (or make them grey to indicate no religion) as these were water in 1899. However if you keep it as it is I have no major problems as these regions are clearly protestant Arnoutf 16:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of religions 

message: Alright, as no one seems to be planning to make a Dutch (Nation) article, I'm going to do the following:
Dutch people will redirect to this article, which will still be called Dutch (ethnic group) as English usually uses "the Dutch" and not "Dutch people", especially when refering to what's described in this article and it will at the same time be more fair to the inhabitants of the Netherlands who aren't of Dutch decent (but who are Dutch people nevertheless as they have the Dutch nationality). 
If someone starts the Dutch (Nation) we will reimplent the current (but soon old) situation.Rex 21:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moves

message: This might sound a bit nordist ... but what if we could find information on for example the appearance of the Dutch, like haircolour, height etc. Should we implement it?
Rex 21:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm, I doubt the relevance, any way those kind of very sensitive stuff should be sourced with refs at least as good and neutral as CBS. Arnoutf 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: *Planet Internet article, originally a The Independent article. It says the Dutch have 43% brown, and 40% blonde hair and thus 17% other.Rex 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statistics quoted do not refer to the Dutch ethnic group. The hair colour figures do no come from the Independent, and refer to the entire population - De meest voorkomende haarkleur in Nederland. The CBS statistsics refer to the entire population, no to ethnic Dutch. The skin colour map says nothing about ethnic Dutch, and does not even show the Netherlands separately. It is not in dispute that ethnic Dutch are white, but detailed pseudo-descriptions do not belong here. The article ought to concentrate on more important issues, such as the ongoing debate on national and ethnic identity.Paul111 12:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect the figure given on hair to be part of the larger european test as refered to in the Independant article.Rex 13:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: tot dusverre

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
There are three main issues with this article: inadequate referencing, weasel words/ethnic boosterism, and grammar errors.  I did a bit of a copy-editing as I read the article over, but a native English speaker needs to go through it with a fine tooth comb.  I also added several  tags. Yes, the article has inline references, but every statistic, every description of attitudes, every historical fact needs citation. And statements such as "Although comparatively small in numbers, the Dutch have definitely made their mark on the world, as we know it today" contain several weasel words, to the point of having an unencyclopedic tone.  I also believe that the first two sentences of the "History" section are extraneous. Finally, the one fair use image needs a rationale for its use. -Fsotrain09 04:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, the main editors of this article are all Dutch (speaking), this helps a lot. Rex 11:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I put fact-tags in the sections that I gave the closest reading to. There is some need for more citation in the "History" section, for instance, even though I didn't tag statements there.  I was not attempting to support one side over another in any edit-war or other content dispute. --Fsotrain09 15:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: No source is given for the claim that the Dutch are the descendants of Germanic peoples, and the quoted Britannica article does not say they are, nor does it say that the descendants of Germanic peoples are themselves Germanic. In fact the Britannica article makes clear that 'Germanic peoples' is a term referring to a pre-modern period.Paul111 15:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is given. I'm getting really tired of this behavior of yours.Rex 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch not a Germanic people 

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

message: You've done it a couple of times now, and you keep being reverted, but I'd really like your source that says that the Dutch ethnic group suddenly emerges when the oath of abjuration is signed, which is what you're claiming.Rex 16:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are not required for the talk page, sources are required for the article. Despite requests, no source has been provided for the claim that a Dutch people existed prior to the Dutch Revolt. A compromise text was reached, but now new claims about a "Dutch' ethnic group (before that time) have been inserted in the article. The onus is on the editor who inserts new material to provide a source for the edits, otherwise they may be deleted.Paul111 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Paul111

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

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

message: The Britannica does not say that modern Dutch are a "Germanic people", it says that the historic Germanic peoples spoke a Germanic language. The issue of Afrikaners, Frisians and Flemings being Germanic peoples is not a semantic problem, but a question of sources.Sources are still required for claims on this page, despite discussions elsewhwere. I am not in favour of wholesale deletion, but the claims are inaccurate, a minority view associated with the far right.Paul111 12:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Quoting) Britannica opens with Germanic Peoples also called  Teutonic Peoples  any of the Indo-European speakers of Germanic languages. I do not think there is much room for debate; Dutch is a Germanic Language hence the Dutch are a Germanic people. Arnoutf 17:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides that, the article doesn't say the Dutch are a Germanic people.  It says they descend from them.  The modern Dutch descend from tribes who spoke a Germanic language.  82.93.133.130 17:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Germanic peoples

message: I propose to change the title to Dutch (ethnic group and nation). This is to reflect the reality that the Dutch people (Nederlanders, Nederlandse volk) are both an ethnic group and a nation. At present the article contains almost no information on the current problems and debates in the Netherlands regarding national identity, national language, immigration, and the national identity within the EU. The concentration on the ethnic group only has led to a distorted and incomplete article. (Some of the content, such as details of the verzuiling, is more properly considered as an attribute of the Dutch nation and society, rather than of an ethnic group). It would improve the article if it concentrated on the present Netherlands, and the meaning of 'Dutch people' in that real-life context, as both ethnicity and nation.Paul111 13:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the various past titles, this article has always dealt with the Dutch as an ethnic group.Dutch people can indeed mean both, hence it is now a redirect page (which can be the intended disambig-page when "Dutch (nation)" is created) but I doubt Dutch (ethnic group) leaves much to the imagination. The Dutch nation and ethnic group have a lot in common, but they are not the same.Rex 15:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think a lot of the problems come from the ideaby Paul111 that nation and ethnic group are synonyms; and from my and Rex' interpretation that although similar they are very distinct concepts (eg Flemish will never be part of the Dutch nation; or even be treated as such besides reference to extreme right-wing sympathies by me. However, historically the ethnicity of the groups is very closely related; to such an extent that if there was a Dutch ethnic group around 1600; the Flemish would be part of it (IMHO)). Arnoutf 12:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of title 

message: The Dutch (supposedly) invented the multinational-company, perhaps this qualifies as a contribution to humanity.
This is what the Dutch East India Company page says about it:
The Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie or VOC in Dutch, literally "United East Indies Company") was established in 1602, when the Estates-General of the Netherlands granted it a 21-year monopoly to carry out colonial activities in Asia. It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock
I don't know if it's true or just popular believe in The Netherlands, but is true I would consider it mentionable. After all, considering modern live multinationals are far more important than ancient painters :)145.98.208.243 13:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been debated by the writers of the British East India Company article, that wasfounded in 1600 but did not issue freely tradable stock untill much later, but yes it is true. Whether the foundation of modern capitalism is a contribution to humanity is another issue though;-) Neverthelss I think this addition is a good idea,I added it one paragraph higher under influence on the world. Arnoutf 13:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Contribution to humanity?  

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

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

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