Talk:Frisians

message: "They have a reputation for being tall and light-haired people" Sorry but, living there myself, i can say thats completely rubbish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.211.23 (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Where did the Frisians come from? Do we know anything about them pre-roman? Redge(Talk) 14:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they came out of Denmark and moved along German wadden sea to friesland. but i i am not sure so dont put in article 81.69.203.77 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that before the roman times there was the Frisian realm, an ancient kingdom which was eventually conquered. it spanned from modern day North Friesland to around Zeeland. --Mike Oosting (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-Roman

message: According to this map, a small part of Frisia is in Denmark. Do these Frisians speak Frisian or Danish or both? --Khoikhoi 07:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon looking at the map again, I'm not really sure if that very tiny green spot in Denmark is actually significant. --Khoikhoi 07:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge (the best of it), the tiny portion of historic Frisia that extends into Denmark has no significant ethnic Frisian (including Frisian-speaking) population. This coastal strip and adjoining islands were under Prusso-German rule from 1864 to 1920, during which time both Frisian, Danish and Low Saxon speech was fiercely discouraged in all spheres of society (see Germanization). The map shows present Frisia; historic Frisia extends from northeast of Amsterdam to northeast of Esbjerg. //Big Adamsky 16:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There is an ethnic Frisian population on both the North Sea islands of Germany and southern Jutland, however the number of Frisian speakers is unknown. Whether the peoples there speak mainly Frisian or not, it is safe to say there are peoples there who are descended from ethnic Frisians. Epf 05:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no frisian-speaking population in Denmark. Just a small number of towns between the german border and the town of Tønder has ethnic frisian population (around the Vidå). Bernd, 09:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't any Frisian Speakers left in Jutland, but there are a small amount of ethnic Frisians, and according to the Friisk Foriiing, some of these ethnic frisians are relearning their language --Mike Oosting (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Danish?

message: The tiny minority in this tiny piece of Denmark isreally irrelevant; what is relevant is the fact that Frisian people cover the whole German Bight from the western end in Holland to the northern end on the Danish border. This surely makes the 85% majority of Frisians part of Germany and Frisians part of the ethnic people inhabiting Germany - it are also mostly German politicians who promote Frisian language and culture. (the remaining 15% are Dutch with 0.2% Danish)
:What is you point? Krastain 12:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German! 

message: I changed the Religion table to Diverse after someone changed it to "Athiest" Agnostic, et cetera.  Greater Frisia covers a rather diverse area including parts of Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, et cetera, and it seems foolish to try to lump it all into one religious category.  Besides, the ancient Frisian tribe would have been Norse pagan in orientation.  Please provide consensus discussion.  Athiest is not a religion anyway.
Sandwich Eater 19:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the modern Frisians - the ancient Frisians are their ancestors. How does "Mostly Christianity" sound? Saying "diverse" is way to vague - how many Buddhist, Shinto, Rasta, and Muslim Frisians do you know? --Khoikhoi 01:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article goes way back to Tacitus and ancient times, and lists several somewhat ancient dukes/princes.  Surely the scope of the articile goes well into pre-christian times.  Perhaps something like "Traditionally Christian", or Culturally Christian but Diverse?  I would just delete the religion category altogether but it seems to be a permanent part of the template.  Sandwich Eater 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information in the text box is modern information - "current" population, the languages are those currently spoken in the region, etc. Therefore, I think the current "Religion" information is fine. People will just have to assume that the region was not Christian during the pre-Christian era; those users who have trouble with that should refer to the article Common sense.--Roland 17:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: "The people began to be a distinctive tribe in around 200 BC. They were displaced from their homeland to Flanders and Kent, England due to heavy flooding in 250s. Habitation of the area remained impossible for the next 150 years. When some of the Frisians returned in 400s there were already Saxons and Jutes settled there, and the Frisian people merged with them, maintaining the identity and traditions of the Frisian tribe." This part I think a bit strange. First, I'd like to see a source for the claim that they began to be a distinctive tribe around 200 BC. Second I'd like to know how the author knows that the people returning to Frisia were the descendants of the ones who left 150 years earlier. Third, how does he/she know that there even was something like a Frisian identity and traditions? Krastain 14:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt that the early Frisians moved around a bit in Western Europe, I doubt that 'they' came back to Frisia.  Krastain 12:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frisians BC?

message: Why isn't the fact that Frisians are a Germanic People mentioned? I added it at the beginning of the piece. Saxons, Franks, Angles, Jutes, Bavarians, Visigoths, etc. are all noted as being Germanic People. Surely it should be added in the article about Frisians as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abu Musab al-Suri (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germanic People 

message: The article says the difference between the major and minor Frisians is the type of soil they till. In wich work does Tacitus mentions this? Krastain 12:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sand and clay Frisians? 

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox 

message: I fail to see why a picture of a descendant of Grutte Pier should be added to this page. This page is about an ethnic group and its contents should be restricted to that. A picture of a descendant of one of its historical figures is in my opinion not to the point. I suggest it will be removed from this page.
Pmviersen 10:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: "Of the many tribes mentioned, the name 'Frisii' is the only one that is still used"
Suebi or suevi derived from the protogermanic swēbaz, where their name survives in the historic region of Schwabia. Mentioned in paragraph 38 of Tacitus' Germania.
:I suppose reference is made to the survival of Frisii as an independent ethnic group. "Being used" are lots of other Germanic names, from Andalucia (Vandals) to France (Franks), and even Schwabia does not boast an independent ethnical identity derived straightforward from their "Suebi" ancestors.Rokus01 23:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it seems that only the Frisians are capable of such gullible ideas ;)Krastain (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tribename

message: User:Bloodofox put in this
 rels= Indigenously Germanic paganism, later forcefully Christianized into Protestant Christian
This is too much detail for the info box, and they were probably converted into catholicism not Protestantism, only later changing, not necessarily by force! Graeme Bartlett 23:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: religion

message: Some people here want to cite a book (published 1939) by Carleton Coon as a valid source. He may have been a reputable anthropologist for some while, but was very much proven wrong on every point in his later day. (see his article) With that in mind and given that the source is over 65 years old, yet wants to portray the claim as fully up to date ... I really think we should drop it.Rex (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't just drop sourced information. You could try to prove a statement wrong by finding sources that forward another view, for instance saying Frisians have always been predominantly short of statue and dark. Or you could try to find other research to support the statement. Whatever the current anthropological status of Coon, he was contemporary to Frisians and as such counts as a historical source. The source was inserted because somebody once contested the Frisians to be of this specific physical description, and whether or not you might agree this was a silly thing to do, please don't invalidate the statement by recurring to a personal point of view concerning the validity of this particular observation of Coon. He might have been wrong in other approaches, this is a far way though from the invalidity of his empirical observations. The description of Frisians being tall and blond go back to Roman times. You might come forward with superior modern sources, or dedicate a new seccion to contrary views, however, I repeat, there is no reason to drop sourced information. Morover, this would be vandalism. Rokus01 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How am I dropping sourced information? I don't think the information is sourced at all. Nor do I see, in any way, how this is vandalism. The book is far to out of date to be presented as fact today. Also, linking the Roman 'Frisii' to today is also quite daring don't you think?Rex (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't try to push your personal point of view. Coon is a reputable anthropologists and his work is valuable, no matter what your POV would be. This is getting very boring. If you want to make a statement, please come up with sourced evidence. To start with, anybody that know Frisia would know the statement does not have to be sourced at all. Obviously you don't know Frisia and still you don't bother sources to refresh your opinions. Rokus01 (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you get it. Coon is dead, and on many fronts discredited. Recap for a moment. A reference from 1939. Get real.Rex (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not me who discredited Coon. You seem so obsesses with NPOV, but really, with this source I wonder who's most trustworthy. Antropology in the early 20th century isn't generally counted among the most objective literature of the field. (That's sarcasm btw). Anyway, if you are unwilling to comply in any way, then I see no other option then to take this matter to other wikipedia institutions.Rex (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Rex Germanus that Coon might not be a good scientific source for the statement that Frisians are often tall and blond. Better, newer and more scientific evidence on this (obviously true) statement might be around. Krastain (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coon reference 

message: Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA process, any article with cleanup or expansion banners - such as the one in Friesland in the Middle Ages - must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please address any issues brought up by such banners and remove them before renominating. There also seems to be an on-going content dispute (above thread). Please note that instability is also a quick-fail issue. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky Talk 18:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick-failed "good article" nomination

message: This article says,
: Tacitus wrote a treatise about the Germanic peoples in 69, describing the habits of the Germanic people, as well as listing numerous tribes by name. [8]   Of the many tribes he mentioned, the name 'Frisii' is the only one still in use to refer unequivocally to the same ethnic group. [9] 
But Old Frisian says,
: Their ancient homes were originally North Germany and Denmark.  The  language of the earlier inhabitants of the region (the Frisians famously mentioned by Tacitus) is not attested.
This should be sorted out.
—RuakhTALK 14:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both references point to i-friesland.com. I don't know how reliable that website is, but I doubt that it can support an extraordinary claim like "the only one still in use to refer unequivocally to the same ethnic group" by itself. It only means that Andrea Mouloud or Punzy Press believe that it is true, perhaps for good reasons, but in that case it would be better to cite those good reasons. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with [[Old Frisian]] 

message: What do the Frisians call themselves in their language? 76.119.245.141 (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on language and dialect, e.g. Friezen, Fresen, Fräisen, Frasche, Freske, Friiske... Frisia (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What do the Frisians call themselves?

message: Sorry but wasn't the Frisian rights supposedly given by Charlemagne to the Frisian people a hoax staged by the ones who wrote the Frisian Law in the 12th Century? Not unlike the 'Gift of Constantine'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.36.113 (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he doesn't need to source his statement, the statement that Charlemagne gave the Frisians rights should be sourced.Krastain (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure but I think Charles the Fat seems to be the real one, who gave the privileges to the Frisians. But in legend it was Charlemagne. But I don't have any sources nearby, I just remember reading it somewehre. Frisia (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Frisian Law

message: Not sure what Wikipedia says about this, but I was intrigued enough by the "Frisian being the closest living language to English" statement (as I heard it long ago and always remembered it) to check the source.  The source however isn't about language, but using DNA markers to track ancient migration.  The statement about languages is a passing reference, sourced itself to
Nielsen H. F., 1985 Old English and the continental Germanic languages: a survey of morphological and phonological interrelations 2nd edition. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck
Should we be using this direct source instead for the statement in the article? I've made no changes.  217.166.94.1 (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the people, but certainly the source used for a statement should support the statement.  And the language similarity should have a ref.  Although is this the best ref? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the current source is fine for any statement re migration of Frisians in the history section.  But I don't have access to the sourced source (Nielsen re language) so I can't check it to verify that the DNA-article writer didn't make a mistake. If anyone can get an online copy of that source I think we could switch that for the other (and find a place for the current source, it can be citation for plenty other facts in the article). 217.166.94.1 (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of a Source

message: Was he really Frisian? He was born in Peperga. The dialect spoken there is a Low Saxon one. (Pindanl (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Peter Stuyvesant]]

message: I think it is time we made a separate List of notable Frisians out of that. The current listing only clutters this article and there are some names that may need further reference to proof any Frisian origin. Judging from the names of emigrants to the Americas is close to OR, even though West Frisian family names are quite unique and will be recognized by those in the know. Therefore I suggest to split this section off to a new list article with references and keep only, say, two or three notables per century over here. De728631 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Frisians 

message: Why there is no such way for South Frisian--68.185.9.3 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there are no South Frisian people there is also no such language group. There were no permanent settlements of Frisian people further south than modern (West) Friesland and East Frisia or Saterland, so the distinction between West, East and North Frisian languages was apparently always sufficient. Geographically one could arguably group East and West Frisian into a southern group as opposed to North Frisian but to my knowledge this has never been done by linguists. De728631 (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[South Frisian language|South Frisian]] 

message: I have removed the number of Frisians in the USA from the table of significant Frisian populations. I believe it is [WP:UNDUE]. Here are my reasons:
# Why single out the US? The Dutch population in Canada is also huge. I suspect only the US was listed as there were only figures for the US, but if we had the US we should be listing other countries with large Frisian populations.
# The numbers were generously interpreted. The source lists first and second ancestry, and the combined figure was listed. However, second ancestry should probably not be included, so the number is just of over 2,000
# So the number 2,000 is not that significant across the whole US or compared to the other numbers. It is an order of magnitude lower, and disappears in the rounding.
# There is no evidence presented that there is any kind of Frisian community in the US. This appears to be people just spread out across the whole (huge) country. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That doesn't really answer any of points 1-4. Was it valid? Yes. It was a survey that people had answered. It was probably not comparable to other figures though. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Human Taxonomist has been CU blocked. Meters (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frisians in North America 

message: There is a discussion about whether there is a linkage between Germanic, Frisian and English peoples and languages at Talk:English people#Germanic and Frisian links. It would be helpful if editors could hold fire on making edits related to this topic until a consensus has been reached. Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  English, Frisian and Germanic links