Talk:Dutch people/Archive 2

message: I moved this to an archive as the first effort at archiving was largely undone by copy-pasintg old stuff back in the new discussion. Arnoutf 13:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Some new edits speak of a pre-20th century broad definition of the Dutch people and the term Dutch. No source is given. As I indicated this is accurate enough for the period of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, 1815-1830. Otherwise it is problematic, especially if it implies that a single Dutch people pre-dates the Dutch Republic. To start with, the source should be given.Paul111 19:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am getting so incredibly tired of this. The source has been given stop this ridicule.Rex 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Again: Nobody claims there were a single Dutch people, not even during the Republic. I think the Kingdom of the Netherlands is an especially problematic era (rather than an acceptable one) because an artificial state was formed for a short duration; in which different population groups were forced together. Arnoutf 19:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nonsens. The information was sourced, and when you remove sourced information whilst not giving (proper) arguments then that's vandalism. I told you many times before (but you continue to "ignore" it) that Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden speaks of Nederlanders from the end of the Franks and speaks of Belgians (as a nationality) from its independance, it then continues to speak of "(Zuid)nederlanders" untill the early 20th century when Fleming in its modern meaning appears.Rex 14:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to gree with Paul111 in ths]is case for two reasons. First of all Paul111 removed only one line that (IMHO) was not at all essential to the message given (so it did not unduly influence the article), and second, I agree with Paul111 in this case, that the claim was fairly bold; and therefore needed a specific reference. Arnoutf 15:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broad definition of Dutch people 

message: On the issue of wheter Dutch-Americans should be included in the 'Dutch', see the original US Census question: at US Census. The question in the 2000 Census asks:
: What is this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin?(For example: Italian, Jamaican, African Am., Cambodian, Cape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian, Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.)
Most reported ancestries correspond to one existing state, but some (Scotch-Irish, Arab, Slavic) do not. Multiple reporting is possible, the largest single combination is 'Irish-German' . The Census question does not in itself provide a source for the claim that there are 5 million Dutch people in the US. It indicates what it says on the question, ancestry or ethnic origin.Paul111 19:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch-Americans 

message: The present text says that there are genetic mutations unique to the Dutch. The cited source does not say that. It says that there are founder mutations present in the Dutch population. It does not say they affect all the population, and the implication that there are genetic markers that can positively identify an individual as 'Dutch' is also false. Any suggestion that there is a DNA test for Dutch ethnicity should be avoided. The text should be rewritten to clarify the point.Paul111 11:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. How about this? Hence the Dutch share a lot of their genetics with other European people, nevertheless there are some mutations that arose among the Dutch. (only changed the last part of the sentence. If arose is to archaic, feel free to change to originated or something similar. Arnoutf 11:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic uniqueness of the Dutch 

message: Some items which were deleted as unsourced were re-inserted in the article. I undid these edits, while retaining the new image placed by the user. Wikipedia deletion policy is that unsourced material can be removed. All of this was discussed above, including the lack of source per item.Paul111 14:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. The information was sourced, and when you remove sourced information whilst not giving (proper) arguments then that's vandalism. I told you many times before (but you continue to "ignore" it) that Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden speaks of Nederlanders from the end of the Franks and speaks of Belgians (as a nationality) from its independance, it then continues to speak of "(Zuid)nederlanders" untill the early 20th century and only then does Fleming in its modern meaning appear.Rex 14:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And where would you like such a broad source like this then?Rex 14:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material re-inserted, 21 January 

message: I think we are not yet ready for A quality. Among others because the article is not stable. More importantly I think it would be a good idea to ask a non-involved editor (ie someone who has not made major contributions to this article) to give the quality labels to prevent biases. Therefore, I reverted Rex recent A-class label to B-class. Of course, if you would recommend the grading to some uninvolved editor and (s)he assign the A-class I would really be pleased. But please be carefull with rating own work, as objectiveness is easily lost that way. Arnoutf 17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I compared this article to the other A-class articles and just thought it was way better than those ...Rex 18:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Quality 

message: User Sander/Rex Germanus moved the reasons for disputing accuracy to an archive page, and  then removed the accuracy-disputed tag on the ground that there was no explanation on the talk page. He also removed citation-needed tags, and then used the lack of these tags as a reason to remove the accuracy-disputed tag. The reasons for disputing the accuracy are still much as they were. The main issues are:
* Greater Netherlands irredentism, specifically the claim that Flemings and Dutch constitute one people
*the related claim that a single Dutch people existed prior to the Dutch Revolt and was divided by it (ethnic irredentism)
* any claim for a 'Dutch people' prior to around 1550
* the claim that the Dutch are a Germanic people, a terminology confined to the far-right
*inclusion of Flemish and Afrikaner populations in the table, leading to inflated population figures.
To address these issues the following deletions are necessary:
* Historically the Dutch chiefly lifed the Low Countries and Northern France but have since the 12th century spread all over the world No Dutch ethnic  group lived in Northern France. No Dutch people existed in the 12th century and therefore they did not go anywhere at that time. No source is given for these claims, except this article itself. 'Source' means an external reliable source, see WP:SOURCE.
* 30 million Dutch: no source
* Flemings listed as Dutch: no source. Cited CIA Factbook simply says that 68% of the Belgian population are Dutch speakers. It does not say they are Dutch.
*5 million Afrikaners listed as Dutch: no source. Cited source simply says they are of partial Dutch ancestry.
* Afrikaners generally do not consider themselves to only be ethnic Dutch. Delete word only, it implies they do consider themselves to be Dutch. No source. If they are Dutch, then why do they call themselves Afrikaners?
*Dutch immigrants went to Brandenburg in 1157. No source for existence of a Dutch people in 1157.
*Dietsland name for image: article has been renamed.
*the (future) Dutch were led by Germanic chieftains. If they were not Dutch, then they were not Dutch. No source.
* the Dutch now answered to the East Frankish and later German King, which continued until the Dutch revolt. No Dutch people at that time. No source.
Most of these points have been discussed already, and no consensus has been reached. The procedure for an editing dispute should therefore be followed.Paul111 19:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said below. YOU follow YOUR OWN definitions. We have provided sources and references for every statement above. YOU are the one who keeps SPAMMING this talk page with your own bias WITHOUT SOURCES. Delete referenced information or replace it by your own bias unreferenced information and I'll report you.Rex 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy disputed 

message: These issues have been discussed extensively, see the archive. The fact that Flemings are called Flemings, and Afrikaners are called Afrikaners, is in itself an indication that they are not seen as Dutch. Self-definition is an important aspect of ethnicity, and if the Dutch regarded the Flemish and Afrikaners as part of the Dutch people or nation, then the article should say so. But they don't, they see them as foreigners. And if they are Dutch, then why are no Afrikaners or Flemings listed as famous Dutch painters or philosophers, and why is Afrikaner culture not included in the culture section? Because people don't see these groups as Dutch, that's why. They see the Dutch as a group associated solely with the present territory of the Netherlands, and that is the way the Dutch themselves think, with the exception of a tiny minority of irredentists.Paul111 19:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and the fact that a English horse is a "horse" and a Dutch horse is a "paard" means they are 2 different species. Great reasoning there. The article makes it perfectly clear that Flemings nor Afrikaners aren't Dutch. Read the frickin article before you start another talk page discussion in which you express YOUR opinion and refuse to react on our comments.Rex 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flemings and Afrikaners are not Dutch 

message: The cited source (Britannica) does not say the Dutch are a Germanic people. It identifies the Germanic peoples as historically existing Indo-European peoples who later assimilated (by the Middle Ages). It does not say the Dutch are an Indo-European people, and it does not say that speakers of Dutch belong to a Germanic people.Paul111 19:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dutch speak a Germanic language and are hence a Germanic people. Period. It doesn't matter you associate "Germanic" with the Germanic SS, it's a fixed definition and you'll just have to live with that.Rex 19:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch are not a Germanic people 

message: Some deletions of unsourced material were reverted by Sander/Rex Germanus  using the argument that the deletion was 'unsourced' and that no arguments were given. No source is required for the deletion of unsourced material, and no arguments are required, see WP:DELETE. The onus is entirely on the editors who want to retain material to provide a reliabel source for it. Very dubious political claims have been inserted into this article, and despited repeated requests no source has been provided for most of them. Deletion is then necessary.Paul111 19:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fedd up with this. Delete referenced information once more with no other arguments than your own opinion and I'll report you as a vandal.Rex 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We already did that. Learn to read.Rex 19:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia deletion guidelines 

message: Below here is a list for Paul111, may he read them, and never mention them on this (or any) talk page again.
*Dutch people before 12th century.
:Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden. As said so many times before, it speaks of the Dutch after the start of the Holy Roman Empire. (early 9th century)
::::Where is Paul111s source that no Dutch people existed before the 12th century? (revisionism?) 
*Dutch people before the Dutch revolt.
:See source mentioned above.
::::Where is Paul111s source that no Dutch people existed before Dutch revolt? (revisionism?) 
*Claim that Flemings and Dutch constitute one people
:The article specifically mentions the Flemings and Dutch are nowadays 2 separate countries. Wikipedia is meant to represent multiple SOURCED views. Not Paul111s unsourced view.
*30 million Dutch
: All explained in the article, this is when the Flemish are added. 
*Flemings listed as Dutch
:False claim by Paul111. Nowhere in the article are the Flemish listed as Dutch.
*5 million Afrikaners listed as Dutch
:Sourced information, purposely ignored by paul111, it concerns Dutch ancestry.
*Afrikaners generally do not consider themselves to only be ethnic Dutch. Delete word only, it implies they do consider themselves to be Dutch. No source. If they are Dutch, then why do they call themselves Afrikaners?
:Made up claim by Paul111. It isnt in the article, hence I will not answer it. 
*Dutch immigrants went to Brandenburg in 1157. No source for existence of a Dutch people in 1157. 
:Onbekende buren, source already given and in article.
*the (future) Dutch were led by Germanic chieftains. If they were not Dutch, then they were not Dutch.
:They are the ancestors of the Dutch, hence future. 
Paul111 continue to deny the herritage of the Dutch (revisionism?)
*the Dutch now answered to the East Frankish and later German King, which continued until the Dutch revolt. No Dutch people at that time.
:See first remark above. 
::::Where is Paul111s source that no Dutch people existed? (revisionism?)
Rex 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List for Paul111