Talk:Netherlands/Archive 4

message: Did the spelling of the word 'Friesland' change in English too? I know the official Dutch spelling is now Fryslân, which is quite ridiculous if you ask me, because it's a Frisian Word. Are we going to call Germany 'Deutschland' in English? And Sweden 'Sverige', and so on? This really makes no sense! I would strongly suggest to use 'Friesland' instead of 'Fryslân'!
:Evil1980, the Dutch spelling for Friesland is still Friesland. The Dutch government however also uses Frisian in Friesland and therefore Friesland is called Fryslan there. More over wikipedia refers to the province as Friesland.
:Note that you can sign posts by adding for tildes after your post ~~~~ which will have the following result: C mon 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However this article is about the whole of the Nehterlands; where Frisian is not in general use. Anyway, I do not see what this would change. Arnoutf 20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frisian is in used much in a part of the Netherlands (Friesland), so it should be mentioned. Ajox 20:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is mentioned, only not used for the name of the provinceArnoutf 05:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: See below where this issue is discussed in much detail. Arnoutf 08:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fryslân/Friesland 

message: About half of the last 50 edits are vandalism, should the article be semiprotected or not?
: I am not overly fond of (semi)protection. I think the article is on sufficiently many watchpages to be 'selfcleansing'. Arnoutf 11:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not fond of it either but there are almost no usefull edits made in this article, mostly they are vandalism en the reverts of vandalism. All good contributions are done by registered members. Let's have a short span of semi-protection and see if the harassing of the article stops. If it does, the semiprotect should be removed. I hope people agree with this. If there are any problems I would like to hear about it. Regards, Daimanta 13:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Indefinitely would be perfect. --User:Krator (t c) 21:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is. A month was granted meaning a month of peace in this article :), Daimanta 00:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: article prone to vandalism? 

message: Several discussions (or worse: undiscussed edits) seem to reappear from time to time on issues that have been debated thoroughly and solved in relative concensus in the past. It seems fitting to compile a list of those discussions to prevent good willing (new) editors from reopening these debates. Here's a few that immediately pop in my head
* Article name: Netherlands or The Netherlands?
* Article name: shouldn't it be Holland?
* How to deal with the issue of Holland v Netherlands in the article itself.
* Capital: Amsterdam or The Hague (or both)?
Please add issues or comment on the idea--Dengo 00:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, my take on the situations.
The Netherlands or Netherlands?
My idea: Officialy the name is "Koninkrijk der Nederlanden" which represents the Netherlands, Aruba and the Dutch Antilles. Without Aruba and the Antilles it's "Nederland" because it is ONE nation since the time of cooperating provincies have come to an end. Netherland has my preference but it will confuse a lot of people, so I am going with Netherlands.
Holland?
No, just no. Holland is a combination of "Zuid-Holland"(South-Holland) and "Noord-Holland"(North-Holland), which are two provinces in the Netherlands(EU). Refering to it as Holland is simply incorrect and undiserable.
Capital: Amsterdam or The Hague (or both)?
The Dutch constitution states very clearly that the capital of the Netherlands is Amsterdam. The word capital means most important city and does not have to have the government seated in it. It should be noted that The Hague houses the government.
Daimanta 15:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think most was already treated since. I agree with most of Daimanta's summary except for Netherland; that is just not an English word; it has to be Netherlands including the 's'. The 'the' issue is treated further below (wiki policy issue). Arnoutf 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Creating this paragraph at the top was my attempt to prevent 'resolved' issues from reappearing as new editors join the wiki community. --Dengo 13:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  solved discussions 

message: I'm trying to find a good source for the etymology of the Flemish surname "Ruysbroeck."  Can anyone here comment on its origination, or where to go about finding it out...?  Thanks much, --AustinKnight 04:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not found any definitive internet-sources, but I am pretty certain the name comes from the town called "Ruisbroek" in Flanders. "Broek" in placenames in the dutch language sphere always refers to a particular type of watersurface. On the meaning of "Ruis" I am less certain. In modern day dutch it litterally means "rustle" (like bushes in the wind) or "static" (on a radio). However, both the placename Ruisbroek and the surname (Van) "Ruysbroeck" have had several alternative spellings in history, such as "Roosbroeck" which could just as well refer to "Rose" (the flower). Good luck on your quest. Start here for some alternative spellings: nl:ruisbroek--Dengo 16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, Dengo...that was quite helpful.  --AustinKnight 17:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A "broek" is a low-laying area; "ruus" is the reed growing on it.--MWAK 14:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of a Flemish name 

message: The politics section has a photo of queen Beatrix. Which makes some sense because the king is the official head of state. But that's just in name. In relaity the king has no power at all, so that's misleading. The most representative image of Dutch politics would one of the parliament. There's one at the Dutch wikipedia, which is supposed to come from the English Wikipedia, but I can't find that. Anyone know where it is (ie, what it's called)? DirkvdM 11:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The king has some official power. I don't know the details, but it has to do with the formation of the parliament, the king does this together with the "formateur". I think she has the final say in it however. And this is an encyclopedia so it keeps things official. Just my opinion(MrDeBeuker 03:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already changed the photo. For the power question see 'political power of the queen' below. DirkvdM 06:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The King has some political power; according to the constitution he is head of state as well as head of government. In practice though, this role is limited to the official appointment of what turns out to be the prime minister. Apart from this, the King is also presiding the "Raad van State", the State Council, which drafts advises and recommendations regarding legislation. In practice, this council monitors legislation and checks it for feasiblity and compliance with the constitution. In practice, the council's sessions are presided by the council's Vice-President. Oh, and when the king is not able to govern for some reason, and there is no legal child or other relative to succeed him, the council will act as regent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.126.150.25 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  These political powers of the monarch are restricted by the constitution (hence constitutional monarchy). The actual power is limited. However, by being involved in government discussion, and appointing informateur, the monarch has a certain influence. Arnoutf 20:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics photo 

message: Many of the related main articles are not very developed, especially in comparison to the main article. Perhaps we can set up a project to do something about this? Articles from Dutch can quickly be translated with Babel and fixed to proper English. We could also ask at nl.wikipedia for help. gidonb 15:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Associated articles

message: The Prime Minister of the Netherlands is NOT the head of the government he is only the chairman of the council of ministers. The Queen is NOT the head of the government either. The Dutch government does NOT have a head.
(AA-NL 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know the King is the head of state. The King is a member of the "regering" but not the "kabinet"
I got this from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3204.htm
"Branches: Executive--monarch (chief of state), prime minister (head of government), cabinet. Legislative--bicameral parliament (First and Second Chambers). Judicial--Supreme Court." 
Indeed, the Prime Minister IS the head of goverment, albeit primus inter pares. Daimanta 22:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever the US dept of foreign affairs sais, the Dutch govt website states (http://www.regering.nl/trefwoordenregister/42_7608.jsp): 
"De minister-president is de voorzitter van de ministerraad en minister van Algemene Zaken. Hij is ministerieel verantwoordelijk voor het optreden van de leden van het Koninklijk Huis. De minister-president is als minister gelijk aan alle andere ministers......" 
Which roughly translates as: "The prime minister is chairperson of the council of ministers and minister of General Affairs. He has the ministerial responsibility for public actions of the members of the Royal Family. The prime-minister as a minister is equal to all ministers" This would go against the p-m being head of govt. Arnoutf 20:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Prime minister of the Netherlands is obviously the head of government. In parliamentary systems prime ministers (the chairs of the cabinet) are always the head of government, the collegiality is no reason to deny this. See also the wiki article on head of government section on collegiality. C mon 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok fair enough, does not really matter more an issue of wording than of content anyway. Arnoutf 08:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prime-minister NOT head of government. 

message: Having read the discussion above I will not change anything to the article concerning the capital question. I personally still think the English definition of the word capital should be followed. Okay, the Dutch can choose what to call their hoofdstad, but the English can choose the meaning of the word capital city, right? It is an English Encyclopedia. Btw, in Belgium we speak Dutch too (without being bound by the Dutch constitution :-) ) and we are taught that the hoofdstad of the Netherlands is The Hague! But anyway, enough has been said already. What I do have a problem with is that the discussion is only on the Talk page. If you claim that Amsterdam is the capital without being the seat of government, then this has to be explained. There is a contradiction in the article now, and an explanation in the Talk page is not enough. Why not something like "Amsterdam is defined by the constitution to be the capital city, but the seat of government....". At least this provides some explanation. Or call it "constitutional capital" like in the info box.  Piet 14:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the meaning of the word is, isn't important. Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, and The Hague is the seat of the government, that's it. If we (the Dutch) want to make Rotterdam the capital, than Rotterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, and The Hague will still be the seat of the government (and not the capital). You are in contradict with our constitution, by saying The Hague is our capital – (empoor) 17:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If people want additional background information; we just got a beautiful article on the Dutch Wikipedia about the whole situation. Hoofdstad van Nederland is in Dutch, but maybe translating it to the English Wikipedia (or use an electronic translator, hehe) – (empoor) 00:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The article has been created under Capital of the Netherlands. Piet 09:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital again 

message: I have merged the Jews in the Netherlands article with the "Religion" section in this one.  aliceinlampyland 11:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I am a little late with my reaction, but I have a little problem with this merge: as a result I feel that Judaism as religion gets too much attention in relation to it's relative size in the Netherlands. Of course it's only a few lines, but it's more than the Muslims with almost a million followers. In addition the Jews in the Netherlands article now redirects to the entire Netherlands article, which doesn't seem very correct. I am going to shorten the part about dutch jewry a little and keep the reference to History of the Jews in the Netherlands which contains all the info. I will also make Jews in the Netherlands redirect to History of the Jews in the Netherlands. Lemme know what you think. --Dengo 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In 1568 the Eighty Years' War started after the entire population had been condemned to death by the Holy See and confirmed by the king
hydkat 17:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, of course this isn't true. What happened was that after a bout of iconoclasm Phillip II of Spain sent Alva to reorder the country in a short time. Alva didn't want to be hampered by legal niceties, so he demanded the entire population was put under suspicion of heresy so he could arrest and question anyone at will. About 8950 persons were arrested by the Council of Troubles and over a thousand executed, most for high treason. Any religious misunderstandings could normally easily be solved by openly stating you were a faithful catholic, or, in case you hadn't been, reconverting to the true faith.--MWAK 20:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I changed 'Constitutional Monarchy' to 'Parliamentary Democracy' in the infobox, which  User:Empoor then changed back. Now the Netherlands is officially a "Parliamentary Democracy and a Constitutional Monarchy". This is too long for the infobox, I'd say, so it makes sense to choose between the two. The 'Constitutional Monarchy' bit is just confusing because it has no effect on politics and doesn't say much about the Netherlands. But, more importantly, it obscures the fact that the Netherlands is a Parliamentary Democracy, which is rather useful information, I'd say. See also the 'Political power of the Queen' thread above. DirkvdM 07:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a smaller font-size would help, then you can include both. Like with Canada. Intangible 16:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it. Check it out. NielsFTalk to me.. 04:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parliamentary Democracy and/or Constitutional Monarchy 

message: The title of this lemma is "Netherlands". I would propose to make it "The Netherlands", like it is also "The Gambia". The term "Netherlands" without the word the word "The" is technically incorrect.
Thanks.
Michael
:Fundamental changes like that have probably been discussed a long time ago. If the article is still under this name it is probably because a consensus was reached. See above or maybe in the archives. Piet 09:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of Lemma 

message: Could anyone take a look at Geology of the Netherlands and make it into at least a good stub? There's link that will give a few hints but watch out as I don't think it's in the public domain. Piet 09:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What geology? Isn't it one big muddy floodplain? ;-) Fedor 19:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only the western part of the country :-P Rick86 11:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geology of the Netherlands

message: This article begins:
:The Netherlands is the European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is formed by the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.
But then the factbox seems to be about the "Kingdom of the Netherlands". Surely if it is the "Kingdom of the Netherlands" that is the overall sovereign state and this article is just about one component of a federation then that infobox should go in the Kingdom of the Netherlands article. I assume the Netherlands (component part) uses the same flag and symbols as the Netherlands (federal kingdom)? Iota 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparent inconsistency

message: Recently Lower Saxon was added as official language in the Netherlands. Can someone confirm these eastern dialects are actually part of the official language lower saxon; and whether the Dutch versions are recognised as official regional language. Thanks Arnoutf 15:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now Netherlands is listed as German speaking country (together with Denmark). Except Denmark all other countries have High German as an official (regional) language. Denmark and the Netherlands a low german dialect. Do we want this category on (if so, shouldn't it be so for Canada, Uruguay and th US as well??). Arnoutf 16:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lower Saxon German Speaking countries 

message: Would anyone object if I moved some of the discussion on the naming convention to a separate page (the Netherlands (terminology), for instance analogously to British Isles (terminology)), because it's getting rather long. I'll wait to days for an objection. C mon 13:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention 

message: It seems to me that the Netherlands (as the European part of Kingdom of the Netherlands) and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are mixed up in this article. Shouldn't this one be entirely about the Netherlands? (see the infobox) Can they be seperated in the first place? - Ilse@ 09:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netherlands versus Kingdom of the Netherlands 

message: why is the motto in french?
Because it is. The Netherlands have a French motto, strange as it may seem. It is in fact the motto of the House Orange-Nassau, adapted from the motto of the house of Orange by Willem van Oranje-Nassau (William of Orange-Nassau). (Data taken from Dutch Wikipedia, Je Maintiendrai) --82.195.46.24 11:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not as strange as it seems, the US's motte E Pluribus Unum is Latin after all and isn't the motto of the British Royals in German?Kalsermar 15:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One can note that the highest Prussian medal for valour - the Blue Max - in the First World War was called Pour le Mérite (a French name). French was the language of court in Prussia. It would appear the same applied to the Dutch at soem point.Michael Dorosh 15:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not that strange if you consider that William of Orange was prince of Orange (provence, France), raised in Brussels at the court of the Burgundy emperor Charles V, where indeed court language was French. His personal control of French was probably better than his Dutch. Arnoutf 19:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  motto 

message: --Greasysteve13 13:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has already been discussed in detail on this talk page (now archived) see: Talk:Netherlands/Archive2 (Netherlands v. the Netherlands) Arnoutf 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Discussed at length: yes. Unanimous decision reached over what the title should be: no. In fact, in that discussion a few trustworthy sources are given that spell "The Netherlands": Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encarta. MrTroy 19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's 'The Netherlands'. Like the article 'The Bahamas' , and not 'Bahamas'. It needs to be corrected.Marminnetje 16:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also The Hague. So, we have The Gambia, The Bahamas and The Hague. It seems like The Netherlands is the exception to using "The" in the article name when a place is always referred to as "The something". -- Kjkolb 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This particular case is used as an example in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) and in Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Avoid the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name. The rule of thumb is "If the definite or indefinite article (the or a) would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name." AecisBrievenbus 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't this ''[[The Netherlands]]''? After all we have ''[[The Gambia]]''. 

message: "On February 7, 2006, the Second Chamber introduced the citizens' initiative right at the national level."
What exactly is this sentence supposed to mean, could somebody either clear it up, or delete it as it doesn't make much sense on its own.
:The Second Chamber passed the bill of citizen's intiative which allowed citizens to put a subject or matter on the political agenda on the national level, so that the Dutch people will have more effect on politics. --Soetermans 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I've replaced "21th" with "23rd" but I'd like someone to confirm it. I've also replaced the heading "art" with "Art".
I wonder about the section "Culture". Should it be there? It seems more opinion than fact. Can there be such a thing as national traits?
: I agree that the "culture" section seems to have been written out of opinion instead of 'fact'. I propose the culture section to be rewritten. Rick86 15:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree it should be rewritten; but I think a culture section should be in the article Arnoutf 18:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree. I think the section about bluntness should stay. You wonder if there is such a thing as 'national traits', which is a good point. However, the opposite, which would be the absence of any defining characteristic of a nation, is also equally unrealistic. I lived in the Netherlands for 14 years and can only agree with the view of bluntless. However, I believe it wasn't always so and is more a chracteristic of the babyboomer-offsping, ie people born in the 60s and 70s. Does anyone agree? Vince 02:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think there is bluntness (offensively meant) and directness (non-offensively meant). A nice example (from the undutchables book I think) is that when a friend turns up when you are about to serve diner asking whether it is ok for him to visit, any Duthc person may state that it is not the best time as (family) diner is being served. In any other country you would be invited for diner; this is however not meant to be offensive although it may come across as blunt. In the same vain a Dutch person probably says 'No' when he means 'no' going around social conventions in many other countries. This is no meant offensive, but is blunt to many foreigners. On the other hand 'Yes' in Dutch almost implies you have entered a binding agreement. So after you were turned down for diner by your Dutch friend, he may want to show he likes you (since his earlier utrning you down was not meant to be offensive) and may invite you to coffee next afternoon at say about three o'clock. If you agree (out of politenss and thinking to acknowledge that the Dutch man tries to solvage some of the relationship), you'd better turn up at about three because you WILL be expected (some effort is probably invested in buying biscuitts to go with the coffee). So yes a certain level of directness is part of Dutch culture, and yes it may acome across as bluntness in many cultures. But anyway I am not sure it should be treated without good references, and whether it should be under culture... Arnoutf 08:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  In brief: Keep it short, there is a dedicated culture of the Netherlands article so this one should be no more than a summary. Of course language textbooks use culture as illustration, so your sources may not be the best. I agree the Unduchtables (although nice and not far off in many cases is a bit over the top). I will have a look, but please accept if I trim it substantially (because of the larger article already in place).Arnoutf 14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I'm not trying to undo your edits; I'm lagging you. Gaviidae 14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gathered that much by now, no offense taken (neither I hope given) Arnoutf 14:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None taken at all, this is wikipedia; btw hope you don't think I'm being gross with the toilet section but it's damn strange to hav a shelf in the thing-- haven't seen that ANYwhere else. The verjaardagkalendar is also hilarious and seems only Dutch Gaviidae 14:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Also, I had been looking at the culture of the Netherlands and there's no mention there at all of sambal, pinda saus, Thai vissoep...  I can't eat anything here (near Gorinchem) without someone wanting to cover it in pinda saus. Gaviidae 14:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I left some of it in, but you might want to have a look at Dutch cuisine although we decided not to put on too much reference to the peanut sauce issue. (French fries with peanut sauce and mayonaisse is also interesting Dutch thing I guess)Arnoutf 15:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  For references use the  Insert the exact reference text or hyperlink between these tags ie here  tags. The correct reference will automatically appear in the references section at the end of the article.Arnoutf 14:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thx,should I do that with the bicycle statistic?  It's actually rather old, dunno if the cbs does bike statistics (mine were from a list of all european countries, bike usage vs inwoners) Gaviidae 14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For consistency please use the ref tags. I think CBS will have some numbers (but in Dutch); I do not think much has changed recently so older numbers should be reasonably ok. Arnoutf 14:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture and Changes 

message: "The current borders were formed in 1839."
I wonder if this refers to the sea border, in which case "formed" might be correct, or to land borders, in which case "set" or "established" would be better. Biruitorul 06:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It refers to the land border with Belgium; the independence of Belgium was recognized by the Netherlands in that year. This ignores the fact that a part of the border was only defined in the Treaty of Maastricht in 1843, the border dispute around Baarle that ended in 1995 with the transferral of one meadow to Belgium (), the situation around Elten and the Selfkant, and the (ongoing?) border dispute around the sea border in the Dollard. But those are just details. Eugène van der Pijll 16:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borders 

message: Shouldn't the infobox say "Nederland/The Netherlands" and not "Koninkrijk der Nederlanden/Kingdom of the Netherlands"? I'm just wondering because Netherlands (nl:Nederland) is not the same as the Kingdom of the Netherlands (nl:Koninkrijk der Nederlanden), it is only the European part. —MC 17:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native name/long name 

message: It looks like this page is being vandalized by someone at 209.43.2.10 --Brinkie 16:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly this sometimes happens; part of Wikiediting is reverting vandalism. If the vandal was the last editor, just open the entry before the vandalism in the history tab (otherwise you may want to consider other edits after the vandalism occurrence). Click on Edit for the older page, and save it; in the edit summary, just add something like: Rev vandalism by USER. You can indicate to other editors a user is a vandal by pasting a vandalism warning into the users talk page . Arnoutf 07:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the hints Arnout, I was a bit reluctant to revert immediately (so I reported the vandalism here first), but will do next time the way you describe it. Do you know if there's an easy way to report abuse? This particular IP address belongs to a school and has been involved in previous vandalism. I'd reckon they never read their User talk page... (I did read mine, thanks for posting your welcome template ;-)) --Brinkie 09:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The warnings are as much to other editors, and to administrators so theyo know how bad the vandal is. The log of warnings is also important for admins to decide if and if so how heavily an account should be blocked. The link to the vandalism templates also tells how to report a vandal to admins with blocking privileges. Arnoutf 11:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by 209.43.2.10 

message: :the Dutch have a 'friendly' reputation in other countries, to the point that bearers of a Dutch passport often have relatively little difficulty getting into other countries, for visits or even for emigration purposes
This seems unlikely to be universally true, especially in Islamic countries after the recent controversy.  Is there a source for this?  -- Beland 00:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is unlikely, and even if it is true, then this is more due to the good standing of (reasonable neutrality) of the government, and its good contacts all over the world, leading to treaties with many governments about allowing Dutch citizens access, then the friednliness of individual Dutch citizens. Arnoutf 07:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not only the dubious claim. I don't think the extended section about religious freedom and catholic churches belongs in the Polder model.~The whole section is a candidate for a re-write. Bikerams 06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Unlikely...but not impossible... (unsigned by anonymous IP 212.203.11.187) signature added: Arnoutf 14:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nothing special. I imagine most citizens of the West and other stable nations can travel abroad quite easily as well. I have therefore removed the unsourced statement. Have also changed the sentence structure in the passport section a bit per Bikerams - hope it makes more sense now. Feel free to change though Dennnnis 12:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious passport claim 

message: I trimmed substantially in teh recent edits in the culutre section by User:Gaviidae.
*I removed the whole paragraph about colourblindness as this is both unreferenced and irrelevant. Any conclusions about racial make-up are not culture but (at best) politics
*At biking I removed the reference to the school bus as this is an americanocentered view. Scholbuses are not common in Europe
*At the flowers section removed obsession as POV. Rephrase the section to remove POVs, and remove the Gardeing as national pastime (that is more UK than NL)
*Remove ambivalent plant-flower reference. It is quit common to bring a plant for housewarming- for normal visits flowers are the thing to bring along.
*Trimmed the food section as it was now confused about general influence of colonies (no example) and specific food. 
*Removed reference to clothing etc. That is really tourist trap stuff and was not coherently written. What there is of value to that was already in the culture of Netherlands main article
Arnoutf 12:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, was still making changes and didn't see your edits.  Revert as needed Gaviidae 14:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: also clothing wasn't mine nor was Sri Lanka. Also, are you saying bringing flowers when visiting is a normal European thing?  It's very different from Finland or the US or Mexico.  Gaviidae 14:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem, I will look back in later. I think it is pretty Dutch to bring flowers when you visit. Two different customs got mixed up though; that was my main problem - Bringing a houseplant for housewarming (or first visit to new house) is pretty customary. Bringing flowers on any occasion is too (but houseplants are far less customary on normal visits). Arnoutf 14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Good. In a couple days I will take out the unsourced material from the culture section. Dennnnis 10:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reading it agains I even more agree, it seems more a section on National Identity or something similar than on Culture (perhaps rename the current section and start from scratch??). Dutch culture should (IMHO) list painters: Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Appel, music: Concertgebouworkest, (modern as well?? Golden Earring; triesto; 2 unlimited?); architecture and design (we are pretty big in that worldwide) Rietveld, Koolhaas, etc. literature: Vondel, cinema: (Oscarwinners) Aanslag, Karakter (ao); Sports Hockey, Soccer, Speedskating; Media: BigBrother?? Hope you can do anything with my suggestions, but I think this project will take a while anyway so I may discuss and co-edit later on Arnoutf 12:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But how will a National Identity be different from the Dutch culture page?  It's hard to see what's major and minor in culture when it's something recent, but certainly "culture" is more than ancient paintings, classical music and centuries-old buildings, yes? Gaviidae 08:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits to culture 

message: The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.
Please support me in maitaining the Netherland's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. The Netherlands deserve no less! JamesAVD 15:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This user has decided to remove references to the EU from the page of every member state. See his talk page for more details. yandman 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not discuss here, but at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries so a uniform decision can be reached. Kusma (討論) 15:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The users above are misrepresnting my actions. Certain non-standard items have been included in the infoboxes of the pages of some European states. I have removed the undiscussed and unsupported changes and started a discussion here on the best way forward. I have in no way 'removed references to the EU'! The EU is an important part of the activities of the governmenance of many European states, to the benefit of all. That does not mean that an encyclopedia should go around presenting potentially POV information of the constitutional status of the EU in the infoboxes of states which are supposed to be standardised across Wikipedia. I'm interested in what users here feel? Please feel free to comment at any of the various pages which Kusma allocates. JamesAVD 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: even there there is no consensus. I think we should redo our province maps to fit the old greyscale maps as they now also deviate. See examples   Arnoutf 14:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As there is still no consensus there; I reverted the map in spite of the new version. Arnoutf 21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted 

message: Just curious, where does the 2.4% Germans come from? Anyone that has a link? It's not that I doubt it, the number would seem correct according to my experience, it's more that I've never have heard this percentage mentioned before. Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 02:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demography 

message: Am I the only one bothered? Why is it needed to post six navigational templates at the bottom of the article? It takes up more than a screen here and it, in my opinion, is useless junk. In the event someone is interested in the EU-countries or current monarchies, why whould'nt he/she visit the category associated with that? I think it's ugly and absolutely unnecessary (especially the countries on the Atlantic template, that's way too big and isn't a commonly used way of grouping countries together). Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 02:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the templates about countries bordering the Atlantic Ocean and the one about Current Monarchies, too far-fetched for me. What's the bleeding point of adding them anyway? Aren't categories better for this sort of use? Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 02:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great; Very good idea, I saw the navigation thingies at the bottom and looked around on other pages (I found it e.g. it on the Croatia (where it even more of a mess and not at all informative). Actually the Netherlands article lists a template countries on the north sea as well as a category. Again over the top... In my opinion the recent option to have hidden templates did not imporve the article as all restraint about adding a ridiculous number of templates seems to have disappeared. The list of templates now takes up the same amount of space the older ones (unhidden). I think we could do with countries in Europe alone for this page. I agree the rest should be in categories. Arnoutf 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation templates 

message: I think the sections on religion, "pilarisation"(I assume, verzuiling) and the Polder Model have little to do with eachother and propose separating them.
I also propose that the section about protestantism, catholicism and Jewery be moved to history or have their own section "religion" where the development of religious tolerance and freedom can be documented better. Think it is an idea to discuss it first though... Bikerams 11:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I made the edits to that section this morning I was thinking along similar lines (but had no clear idea how to). There is some similar ground (not pushing an issues but smoothing it by discussion (and denial)). As I am not a huge fan of short sections, I would prefer to come up with another name for the section. But I agree that polder model does not cover the content. Arnoutf 11:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the section dealing with the Polder Model itself can be brought under the section dealing with coalition governments. The part about pillarisation would probably fit here too. This would leave the rest of the section dealing with religion which is more at home further in the article where all the religions in NL are dealt with. Bikerams 17:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not separate pillarisation from religion as they are fairly closely linked (ie politics: KVP, ARP etc. /media: KRO, EO, NCRV, VPRO) Arnoutf 18:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polder model 

message: The present part about politics states that the economic reforms of Balkenende II/III have been very unpopular with the voters, and that they are now leaning towards the more left-wing parties. This might have been true a year ago, but all recent polls have been showing the left wing to be losing the elections again and the CDA is gaining in popularity.
:Feel free to edit this and other articles accordingly! I'd advise you to wait until the election results, there'll probably by an overhaul of this and many other Dutch politics articles after the election. C mon 11:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And since the elections are now only 9 days away..... Arnoutf 11:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics: present 

message: The recently added sections Conservatism and Racism are no Demographics. If we decide to keep those they need to be encapsulated under a new header (e.g. Outlook on societal issues or similar) Arnoutf 22:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: imho they can go. They offer no new information - some of it is repetition of points already mentioned. For example. How many times do we need to read in an article how tolerant the Netherlands is and how many times do soft drugs have to be raked up as an example of this tolerance? The section about racism is also imho largely pov. Bikerams 06:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative - Racism are not Demographics 

message: Shouldn't it be noted that non-Dutch people commonly belive the Dutch to be the weirdest people on earth? You could start by citing Austin Powers in Goldmember.--68.149.181.145 23:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a single movy (especially a comedy) is not a source to defend the phrase 'commonly'; if you think can make that claim please provide scholarly articles (antropology or sociology peer-reviewed published). Arnoutf 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Goldmember didn't even mock the Dutch appropriately.  Besides, everyone knows the Icelanders are considered the weirdest, followed by Americans.  Dutch is only #13. Gaviidae 08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird 

message: Recently at the bottom of the page the neighbouring countries template was added. I think it should be removed for several reasons. First of all, it looks very amateuristic; why would we want 2 figures of Armillary spheres on this page? Furhtermore it oversimplifies the situation With the relatively simple geogprahic location of the Nl it is not that bad, but look at what happens in a more complex case such as croatia. Finally the whole template is not more informative than "The Netherlands neighbour Belgium in the south, Germany in the east, and the Northsee north and west" If nobody objects I will remove it in a few days. Arnoutf 10:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. A good-faith edit, but the same data was already provided with the map. Dennnnis 10:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does make navigating from country to country much more simple. The situation for Croatia or even Germany isn't that messy (imho). If it is deleted, then that would make NL an exception. Bikerams 11:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes Nl would be an exception, but that is because the creator of the template has been putting them up all over the world in the last two weeks Swiss is discussing it since. The cross navigation is a fair point though (although I would not use it it may be useful for some). Still looks ugly though. Arnoutf 11:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neighbouring countries template

message: Hi all I removed the Developed Countries template. This template is not informative; all the objective information (HDI GNP etc) is already in the CountryInfobox on the top of the page. This group of countries has only limited coherence, so adding this template is in my opinion a waste of space, and confusing rather then informative. Arnoutf 18:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on templates

message: Although we must beware of overtemplating I think the history template should be returned: it is as logical as the politics template. This article has a long section on it, and there is a good template for it. C mon 23:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Arnoutf has a point. I'm not that familiar with en.wp's policies on this issue, but I think in general templates, especially ones this size, should be used only in the beginning and end of the article to improve readability and accessibility for text-only browsers and such. This sort of templates should imho be used on main articles for the subject, so History of the Netherlands and Politics of the Netherlands in this case. By having multiple templates aligned on the right, first the infobox, then the History template and the Politics template, the text occupies even more screens. Furthermore it reduces the ability to differentiate with the layout, especially the placement of pictures, in the article, making it look messy to me. My two cents Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 01:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My main problem was that when I opened it in a brwoser set at smaller than full screen the templates started to appear in columns making up about half of the available space. Is there a possibility to make 'folding' versions of the templates such as the navigation one at the bottom and the hidden version of the table of contents. In that case I would change my opinion and be actually in favour of adding templates to all relevant subsections. I am not sure whether this is possible though? Arnoutf 08:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History Template

message: In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on the Netherlands at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Netherlands. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject 

message: The following is false:
"Slochteren has the largest natural gas field in the world" 
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_gas_fields
http://entoen.nu/venster.aspx?id=49
Bcastelijns 18:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected, thanks for the heads-up :) Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 18:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slochteren 

message: On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:
*whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
*which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:46 (UTC)
: As wiki is not a democracy and the vote 18(old)-25(new) is a clear sign of a divided opinion; the only conclusion from all exercises above is that there is no consensus on the map issue. Arnoutf 17:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries 

message: There are now four locator maps available for the Netherlands:
Image:locationNetherlands.png|Classic map series
Image:locationNetherlands.svg|Rei Artur map series
Image:Europe location NED.png|Europe location series
Image:EU location NED.png|EU location series: 
In spite of heavy (and heavily debated) polling in the wikiproject countries talk pages; there is no clear consensus which map to use. 
There are some reasons to use the Europe location series: It is much more detailed than older maps. It is put up on most EU pages
There are some reasons NOT to use the Europe location series for the Netherlands: It is overly detailed, Scandinavian countries are distorted due to used Mercator projection, the Meuse river is not on the map, while that one is much, much, much more important compared to many rivers that are shown (e.g. all of the Swedish rivers), it is built in server heavy PNG format; it is being pushed by fanatic supporters who put it up everywhere without edit summary or arguments on the talk pages (I know this is the same argument as the argument in favor...)
The alternative Rei-Artur series has some advantages and disadvantages: Pro: It is not overly detailed, but much more so compared to the old maps. It used .SVG image format. Con: Detail levels are not always precise (e.g. IJsselmeer).
As there is no consensus in the project, I think we will have to decide here what to do for the Netherlands. I would like a consistent outcome over all countries, but the discussion at countries has ground to a stalemate. Arnoutf 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What map to use

message: I can accept many things but have very very major problems with a linked in map legend that is primarily in German, with English translation; at least I cannot accept that on English wiki. For the Dutch locator map I would accept legends with only English; or multilanguage legends that have English and Dutch, or even Turkish, or Arab. Any reference to such a legend is clearly POV pushing and should be reverted. Arnoutf 21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map legend in German

message: I am of Dutch origin, and I think the text under the map showing different cities is wrong. It sais the black spots show larger Dutch cities, but I believe it to be culturally or economically relevant cities. (Delfzijl for example has less than 30.000 inhabitants).
Second, the text mentions the saying: "God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands". This however is not a Dutch saying for the only people to use it are not Dutch.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.242.186  (talk • contribs) 
: Please add new talk subjects at the bottom of the page (which I did in this case).
: I half agree with you; Delfzijl. Isn't Delfzijl the second largest city in the province Groningen though? Because if you look at it, every province shows at least two cities. 
: I also half agree with you comment on the proverb; I have heard it in Dutch once or twice along the lines of "God creeerde de aarde, behalve Nederland, dat deden de Nederlanders zelf", however I would hardly call it a proverb. How to call it? I am not sure. Oneliner /  statement / joke? Arnoutf 11:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor suggestions 

message: I was wondering why this article doesn't stand on "The Netherlands" with a redirect from "Netherlands". "The Netherlands" is the proper name of the country as far as I know. Atilim Gunes Baydin 01:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The country is indeed called the Netherlands, but the use of the word "The" in article titles is to be avoided on Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). AecisBrievenbus 01:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply, and I am sorry for realizing too late that this same subject has just been discussed a few entries above. Atilim Gunes Baydin 02:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Netherlands" / "The Netherlands"

message: Since this seems to be a point of some dispute I am willing to rework the German-English legend to either a Dutch-English or English-Dutch legend for use in this article. Please state which you would prefer, I prefer English-Dutch as this is still the English wikipedia, but either works for me.
Before reworking the image I will post the suggested translations I come up with so any language changes can be made before I upload. --Noira 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks I do not have the graphic skills. I would suggest an English only version as that can be universally used for all European countries on English wiki. Arnoutf 00:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair point and it would require no additional translation work. I'll try to get an English-only version of the legend done ASAP (possibly this night). If after that there is high demand for a bilingual version one can be made aswell. --Noira 00:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: English-only version of the legend is now up and linked to from the main article. Hope this finally settles the legend 'battle' that has been going on for a while :) --Noira 01:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks a lot good work Arnoutf 09:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking current map legend 

message: Please do not add citation needed tags inside the infobox, it is full enough as it is. 
Is the lion the national animal of the Netherlands. This is slightly complex. Here are some of its meanings Leo Belgicus, the Lion of the 17 Netherlands became the symbol of the revolution during and after the Dutch revolt. The Dutch coat of arms depict the lion of the house of Nassau. The highest civilian (medal) order is the order of the Dutch lion. For all of these refernces can easily be found. Is ti essential to add them in the infobox? I think not. Arnoutf 14:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. We don't have a national animal. The fact that it's often depicted on coats of arms is does not make it a national animal. If we were asked at gunpoint, we might come up with a lion, but it could as well be a Frisian cow. I say delete.--Dengo 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would prefer the Lakenvelder but we might also consider the Korenwolf or the Oostvaarder plassen Zeearend. But skipping the kidding, I think when forced to give a national animal most people would indeed give lion. But if asked the question 'what is our national animal' it would most probably evoke more of an '.....euhm......., well if any.... tis probably the ......euh.... lets say lion'. In other words I agree, and as most other countries don't have it in their infobox. Lets delete. Arnoutf 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National animal

message: I think the infobox is getting seriously overfilled. This to a level that it is no longer informative. Right now this box (on my screen/browser) spans about one and a half to twice the height of full screen. I am pretty sure that has never been the intention of the box. 
I think we need to bring the length of the box back to about one screen height maximum. Do you people agree??
If we agree on this, that will imply some content has to be removed. Personally I think the box could do without: ethnic groups, regional languages one of the two GDP numbers (that are basically highly correlated duplicates). Of course these information should not disappear altogether from the page, it can be taken up in the relevant sections of the main article. Arnoutf 08:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox length