Talk:Dutch people/Archive 4

message: No longer am I going to be irritated publicly by you Paul111. I have set a goal for myself with is to give this article a featured status, and you're not going to stop me. No matter how many more lists you create/duplicate or how long you're going to make this talk page: it is all futile. I, and others, will prove you wrong... time after time after time.Rex 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Personal approach

message: Like Arnoutf already said any of the above ínaccuracies are presented out of context and/or mutilated out of recognition in their representation on this talk page, nevertheless I have replied to all. None proved to be "inaccurate".Rex 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact list

message: I think I'll just be honest about it, but I don't like Paul111 very much, and I don’t think I’m the only one. As someone named  R9tgokunks remarked, there are about 5 people here, who think the article is just fine. Paul111 is the only one who doesn’t agree. From his talk page and this talkpage I’ve noticed that Paul111 is not willing to resolve this matter as he declined something called RfC and a “mediation”, which were meant to resolve things. Rex G seems to have proven that the reasons why Paul111 thinks the article is inaccurate are flawed, and he, together with Arnout remarked that they were out of context. I propose to remove the template whenever Paul111 adds it again. Not very nice I know, but at least the article will get better.213.125.116.112 08:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Liking or not liking another editor should not matter. The article is in a reasonable state now, calling it just fine is going a bit too far, much work needs to be done. But I agree that Paul111s claim of inaccuracy are not as strong as he himself thinks they are; therefore I would not mind removing the template; but this is IMHO not worth going to edit war about. Arnoutf 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy '''not''' disputed. 

message: I think the map of Artois in the history section should be removed for several reasons.
First of all, the map really does not add anything to the text (which states that Artois - Northern France) was considered part of the LowLands and used the Dutch language in the early middle ages. More importantly, although it is not a false map, I still think the map is an example of overemphasising the Dutchnes of that region (Artois). Now it seems like Artois was a central part of the Netherlands/Lowlands while it has always been peripheral. Looking at the edit summary of DutchBloke putting it back in but it gives a visual on the Dutch language in the 8th century doesn't it I would thus answer with a clear NO it does not. The image only shows the southern extreme of the Dutch language by that time (ie. None of the Holland Zeeland Utrecht or Guelders regions are on the picture). Hence I think this image, well meant as I know it is, distorts the image we want to present. I think it would be nice to include an image of the LowLands to the history, but that should not focus on N. France alone. Arnoutf 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a locator map. Hope it helps.Rex 11:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the locator map alone would be even better. The caption can then be something like 'Spread of the Dutch language by the 8th century (note that this includes parts that are currently in France and Germany).Arnoutf 14:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I found a map on commons, but it was rather bad in quality. I've made a new one. Tell me what you think.Rex 10:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good to me, much more informative than the Artois map. Good work. Arnoutf 16:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of Artois in History section

message: Hi; posting this here because there's not a Talk:Dutchman page and it's folks around here who are going to care; I'm not sure what to do about a secondary meaning of "Dutchman" in North American English, specifically on the western frontier (including British Columbia and Alaska) and borrowed by default into Chinook Jargon - "Dutchman" in the old West could and often did mean a German, and in the case of the Chinook Jargon "Dutchman" could be used for any other European people not already specified by the Jarogn, e.g. Moravians, Poles etc were called Dutchman in the Jargon, because they weren't Pasiooks (the French/Metis - "cloth people") or Kinchauch ("King George", British) or Boston/Bostonman (American/US).  I realize this might be a sensitive issue in Europe, and it's not really article worthy, except for there being various famous characters who might warrant articles some days, e.g. some guy named "Dutchman Bill" or for short "Dutch Bill", who was maybe actually German or even Hungarian; can't think of anyone important/notable right now but I know there are some; but it's how to include the definition on the disambiguation page that I'm wondering about here; that in the 19th C and in some remaining frontier areas, "Dutchman" doesn't necessarily mean the person is Dutch..... ;-) Skookum1 07:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps an additional line together with Pennsylvanian Dutch, which is already mentioned on this page. This has to do with the etymology of Dutch in English. Some explanation maybe relevant, but I agree confusion needs to be prevented Arnoutf 15:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the only definition of Dutchman=German/European is from the Chinook Jargon; I do know of books that might say, in passing "the Dutchman was really German, but everybody called him a Dutchman", but I don't know if citable dictionary definitions are available for that context, i.e. frontier English vs Chinook.....although in some areas the line between those two was very blurred....Skookum1 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess Malay Dutch are covered, as being part Dutch; I just happened to have had an aunt, sort of, who was Malay Dutch, over more than one generation too I think; not sure if they constitute a separate group or the family ref. there "Malay Dutch" isn't a group, it just meant that Aunt Nellie was part Malay, part Dutch.  But it's got me wondering about other localized uses of Dutch out there, other than in expressions like "go Dutch" and "double Dutch" etc......Skookum1 18:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again etymology of Dutch in English language. Originally from early Germanic languages meaning 'the people' becoming a synonym for the Germanic people (ie more or less Germans, Dutch and Flanders) but later (1600 onwards) exclusively for the Netherlands Dutch. In this light, confusion is understandable as migration to the Americas was well advanced before the use  became disambiguated. Perhaps worthwhile enough to develop a paragraph in this page on this? (PS the Malacca area in modern day Malaysia has long been a Dutch (Netherlands, not German) colony, so partial Dutch ancestry is to be expected; not truly a distinct group though as far as I know) Arnoutf 19:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Dutchman]] disambig

message: While I agree Islam is a well represented religion when one looks at all inhabitants of the Netherlands, I think the number of ethnic Dutch that adhere it is neglible. What do you think Arnoutf? Rex 12:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops you are right. Sorry, just followed the source (RIVM) and did not distinguish between Dutch ethnic and allochtone. Problematic though is that now the source is not well-defined as this source does not distinguishes allochtone autochtone. For example all catholics may also be Polish immigrant workers (far fetched but still). I think this is kind of a problem. But can live with taking out islam again. Arnoutf 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Almost all Moslims in the Netherlands are immigrants from especially Turkey and Morocco, very less ethnic Dutch are a Moslim. Ajox 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam as a religion of the ethnic Dutch 

message: this article is more of a laugh to me. i find it very amusing that there are people out there that consider us to consider "<I>extravagantly flaunting ones emotions (whether positive or negative) as lack of control or even as having a psychological disorder</i>". 
and
"<I>Americans are typically also thought to be principally "good" people, though somewhat uneducated, unsophisticated and badly guided by their politicians.</i>"
well trust me, we all think a whole lot more negative about them. for one we think of americans as extremely (yes extremely) arrogant, just like people of any other country in the world would (yes, any other, aside from the brittish perhaps).
but anyway, beign informative without adding seeming pov or hardly verifyable contend is probably really hard to do in this kind of article· Lygophile has spoken 18:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't meant to make you laugh. The section on emotions was about how others perceive the Dutch. Apparantly the truth hurts. As for you attack on the americans. I think it was fine as it was, there was no need for that all out attack based on nothing.Rex 20:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest, I think some fine-tuning of these sections may be in order, as they indeed read not too seriously. Arnoutf 08:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's another matter, the main point is that the section as it is now, is referenced. We must not let it be turned into a unsourced rant.Rex 09:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: truth hurts? nah, i just never knew we were considered as such, i dont mind. and i did not attack americans, and what i said was not pov. i didnt say the americans were that (which would be pov), i said dutch people see them as such, which they do. iv never met a single dutch person that does not think of americans as arrogant, and everyone around here knows they are helplessly decieved by their propoganda machine. heck its even in the news from time to time. should i say, "truth hurts"?· Lygophile has spoken 09:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No you should say "This is what I claim, and here are my references". Which you're not doing.Rex 09:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no should not say this is what i claim in an article, as you well know. and no references are cited as it is anytway, so why should i?· Lygophile has spoken 09:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (Personal attack removed). i only made one edit to the talk page of america, i have not repeatedly attacked that article. and aermica is NOT a liberal democracy, not at all· Lygophile has spoken 09:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: stop this nonsense. what this about my spelling? do you know how many people say "to" io "too", mix up "there", "their" and they're", and say "who" io "whom"? your just bating me to come up with i dont speak your language as my first so you can come up with how you are dutch as well. i did say it is not a liberal democracy, which i never said i didnt in fact i repeated it, but i have not repeatedly attacked the article. if you continue to come up with lies, you may be blocked before me. and if you think "your full of shit" as a respons to spreading lies about me is a personal attack  (now thats a personal attack)· Lygophile has spoken 09:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, read my comment. I was speaking about you attacking Americans and the USA in general, not that particular article. Which was merely a representative example. As for your personal attacks, this time I'm not going to warn you; I'm reporting you.Rex 09:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you do that. lie about me, provoke me, and then report me upon respons. you do that· Lygophile has spoken 09:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did. All my claims about you are supported by your own actions, for everyone to see in your edit list. You yourself found the need to say that I was "full of shit" and "a whiny little bitch" saying you got provoked to say such things is ridiculous.Rex 09:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: at the time you said that about me i had made 1 edit only to the talk page of USA only, which wasnt even an attack on teh US since many people would agree with me. i have never made an edit to the actual article. you keep by the same argument thats completely false, and whine about me saying you are full of shit. im tired of you· Lygophile has spoken 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Come on guys (Rex and Lygophile) no fighting please. The current Dutch view on others is based on the Xenophobes guide. However, the new claims by Lygophile go beyond those. They maybe true, but in that case we need a source that confirm that Dutch see the Americans as such. i.e. we need no source for the Americans being something or another, but we DO need a source if we state how the Dutch see others Arnoutf 09:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I already explained to , but instead of finding references, he chose to offend me by calling me "full of shit".Rex 10:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: because you are, but now youv taken it out of context. please, shut up.· Lygophile has spoken 10:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can go all day with this. Reporting you once more.Rex 10:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if you stop coming up with shit about me it wouldnt be necessary. whats your game here?· Lygophile has spoken 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That "shit" happens to be your own contribution to wikipedia. You may call me a liar and deny you made personal attacks, but your edits say otherwise. My game here, is to make a good encyclopedia. This means contructive editing, sourced/referenced information and no personal attacks. You seem to be incapable of doing either of those at the moment.Rex 10:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I know, but I think there was some confusion about what the reference should be about; the Americans actually being those things, or the Dutch having this image of the Americans. PS Tone of voice matters in defusing things; although I have to admit I got carried away myself yesterday on another issue. Arnoutf 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: this article needs a "''this article is percieved as not entirely serious''" tag