Talk:Greater Netherlands

message: As there are Dutch-speaking people in Surinam (which has become a member of the Dutch language union, but isn't considered part of "Dietsland"), I changed "all Dutch-speaking peoples" to "most Dutch-speaking peoples". D.D. 21:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Older comments

message: "The idea is also current among members of several right-wing parties including the Vlaams Belang in Flanders and Hilbrand Nawijn and Nieuw Rechts in the Netherlands.
Gradually there has been a shift to more moderate politicians who advocate this concept, like Bart De Wever (N-VA), Andries Postma (CDA), Erik Jurgens (PvdA) and Jan Terlouw (D66)."
Do we have any source on this?Evilbu 17:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed as unsourced. Vlaams Belang supports Flemish independence. There are no doubt some 'Diets' nationalists in the party, and in Nawijn's party and in Nieuw Rechts, but a source is needed for what significane they have. It is highly improbable that the others named would ever support anything 'Diets'. This article is being quoted as a source at Dutch people so it needs more accuracy.Paul111 20:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claims about politicians' opinions 

message: The article in its present form implies that there is a real country called Dietsland, whereas in reality it is simply a political claim with no corresponding pre-existing geographical name or territory. There never was an entity called Dietsland.
The article falsely claims that 'Dietsland' originates in the 16th century, whereas its usage is 19th century and especially 20th century.
The current intro falsely presents the term Dietsland as a synonym for Greater Netherlands, whereas they have different connotations.
Using an unreliable source (a pamphlet supporting a Greater Netherlands) the article attributes support for "Dietsland" to politicians who would not use the term, and implies support is widespread among political parties in the Netherlands, when in fact it is confined to the fringes of Flemish separatism in Flanders itself. The article also downplays the use of the terms Diets and Dietsland by national-socialist parties in the 1930s, which is the main reason why it was discredited after the war.
All of these points can be quickly corrected, since it is a short article.Paul111 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article implies no such thing, refrain from making up these kind of remarks.Rex 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below.  Those opposing the move didn't really give reasons not to move, so much as point out that "Dietsland" is a more specific topic than "Greater Netherlands".  This article, it seems, aims to be about the larger topic, so it makes sense to have it at the title with larger scope. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and accuracy disputed 

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Weak Support. The article says that this is largely a 1930's movement, as I skim it, so the link to fascism appears to be real. However, Greater Netherlands would be more intelligible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I can see the connection; it is natural that some speakers of Flemmish or Dutch would entertain a desire to unite nationally. The only thing is that the markings come to an abrupt halt at the western end of the horizontal line where Belgium meets France, but the speakers of the Dutch/Flemish dialects do not stop there because the French department of Nord (accross from Belgium) is traditionally Dutch/Flemish speaking. There is a significant population in that region today, and in previous years, the number was greater (obviously, some were dissimilated as a result of French centralisation). Does anyone wish to cover the French department in red too? Or is it documented that those at the heart of Netherlandic nationalism have decided that only Belgian areas would be their goal? (It is possible as the same thing happened with Serbia: in the 19th century, such a state would have annexed areas in what is today Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, where-as the revised ideas of the 1990s simply concentrated on areas lost within Yugoslavia). Can anyone throw any light here? Thanks. Evlekis 09:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most speakers of Dutch and Flemish have no interest whatsoever in political unification of Flanders and the Netherlands, and do not see themselves as a single nation. Only a tiny minority hold these views, and an even smaller minority believes that French territory should be annexed to a Greater Netherlands.Paul111 12:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the map of Holland and Flanders 

message: I think the move to Groot-Nederland was not a good idea, as there are clear Wiki policies to use the English name if it exists (i.e. the Hague instead of Den Haag). In this case there is such an English phrase so we should use it (for Heel-Nederland there is not such a phrase). I would suggest to move it back ASAP. In any case, moving a page is to important to be done on a whim (as seems to be the case here) and it needs at least discussion. Arnoutf 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially since there was a move request as recently as December. Olessi 17:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to Groot-Nederland because it seemed more cohesive with "Heel-Nederland". Also, the Greater Germany used a German title, as does Kleindeutschland. Not that justifies anything, but ... I also question the "greater netherlands" translation, because I think both could translated as such ...Rex 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I see your argument, I am not convinced. However I agree a generic approach should be adopted. E.g. if everyone is allowed to use its own language, should we use Chinese characters for Greater China?? I think this is something to try to achieve an international consensus on through [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries]. Arnoutf 10:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the thing is, there isn't a thing like "Smaller China" so there is really only one entity which can be called Greater China. But we could go with Greater Netherlands (Groot-Nederland) & Greater Netherlands (Heel-Nederland) and turn Greater Netherlands into a disambiguation.Rex 10:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent move to Groot-Nederland

message: Heel-Nederland is only a two sentence explanation of Heelneerlandisme along with a list of organizations promoting it.  As with Groot-Nederland, it is easily incorporated into the topic of Greater Netherlands.  Many single articles discuss various, sometimes contradictory, facets of a topic (e.g., exonym and endonym).  —  AjaxSmack    20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Groot-Nederland and Heel-Nederland are not exactly the same. Groot-Nederland = Netherlands + Flanders; Heel-Nederland also includes Wallonia, Luxemborug, Nord Pas de Calais in France and sometimes even South-Africa. Though an article about different greater Netherlands idea would be interesting. 217.169.236.12 08:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge request

message: "Given the failure of Yves Leterme to form a government following the June 10, 2007 Belgian elections" I think this sentence might be POV, Yves Leterme didn't fail to form a government, he's still in the process of forming one. --Ganchelkas 07:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Given the failure of..."

message: By mentioning the link to extreme right fascist organizations and the listed individuals in one section, it seems like these individuals support a fascist ideology, which is untrue. ZuperB 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I also doubt seriously than someone like Jan Terlouw has any intention of annexing the Pas de Calais or so. Things are being lumped together here that really should not be and the result is potentially libellous.
Jcwf (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not to forget that "Fascism" is just a Marxist propaganda term and only used by Marxists and their useful idiots, except in the context the term originated from (Italy). --41.15.130.98 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fascist organizations

message: The page is a straight translation from the original Dutch page, as evident from the similar structure. The article is laced with Nenglish expressions and grammatically incorrect sentences. Some of them do not make any sense; Example: 
Dutch: Een echt duidelijk patroon tekent zich dus niet af in de peilingen. Wel is er sinds 2007 in de media meer aandacht voor de idee. Dit komt onder andere door de 6 maanden durende politieke crisis die België heeft doorgemaakt, waardoor men meer naar alternatieven is gaan kijken. Sinds de vorming van de interim-regering is de discussie (voorlopig) weer gaan liggen., 
Translation: A clear pattern emerges really is no different from previous polls. However, since 2007 the media has given more attention for the idea. This is partly due to the 6 months long 2007 Political crisis in Belgium has created, providing more alternatives to look.  Profani (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nenglish 

message: Given that the Greater Netherlands does not exist and is therefore not particularly notable in its own right, would it not make more sense to follow the lead of NL:WP and re-focus this article on the political ideology? I'd suggest that Grootneerlandisme (or an English equivalent) would be a good substitute which would push this article away from the WP:SPECULATION from which the article currently suffers. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Greater Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20140529174426/http://www.123exp-government.com/t/03774497199/ to http://www.123exp-government.com/t/03774497199/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. 2nd rm with the same outcome - more consistent with "Greater X" articles - further discussion may be more productive if it approaches this naming scheme as a whole (closed by non-admin page mover)  ASUKITE 14:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Greater Netherlands thought →  – "Greater Netherlands thought" is simply not a good title. No other article in Wikipedia about an irredentist movement uses "thought" as a title. "Greater Netherlands" would be consistent with the many other irredentist articles we have on Wikipedia: Greater Iran, Greater Israel, Greater Yemen, Greater Bulgaria, Greater Albania, Greater Croatia, Greater Finland... , who moved this article into this new title (after I had moved it to "Greater Netherlands" from "Greater Netherlands movement", admittedly without a discussion), argued that the subject of the article is the ideology and not the hypothetical polity that would be resultant from it. I disagree with this as we have articles on movements supporting hypothetical scenarios that don't have "movement", "thought" or other extra words on their titles (examples: Unification of Albania and Kosovo, Unification of Romania and Moldova). I still understand their point and propose "Greater Netherlandism" (which is in fact the title of the article on Dutch Wikipedia) as a second option in the case "Greater Netherlands" is rejected. Super Ψ Dro 16:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I think "simply not a good title" sounds like a species of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Its significance is that it is a direct translation of the Dutch term Groot-Nederlandse gedacht. I don't object to "Greater Netherlandism" but I do strongly disagree with the other titles. The notable subject here is not a hypothetical polity but the political movement that sought to achieve it - anything else is frankly WP:CRYSTAL and will simply recreate the (since 2011 rather embarrassingly dated) article Partition of Belgium. Contrary to the suggestion above, there is certainly precedent for such ideology-focused articles on Wikipedia such as Pan-Germanism and most of the other "Greater Foo" articles listed above are actually a fragment of a "Fooian nationalism" page which is not applicable here. To my mind, the sole consideration should be whether Great Netherlands ideology, Greater Netherlands thought, Greater Netherlandism or whatever has more currency as a WP:COMMONAME. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Greater Netherlandism (Grootneerlandisme/Groot-Nederlandisme) isn't commonly used in Dutch media. Usually Dutch texts talk about the ideology by saying a group is Greater-Netherlandic (Groot-Nederlands) like with the recent Bart De Wever controversy. Greater Netherlands Thought seems to be the only commonly used term for the ideology since that's what Pieter Geyl used and it is still used in media to some extent like in this article. "Greater Netherlands ideology" isn't used. The only other relevant title could be "Greater-Netherlands Movement" but this term is only really used for when it was an actual movement around the interbellum, so you can find it in some university papers. SteffooM (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So how about "Dutch irredentism"? And yes, WP:IDONTLIKE this title because I just have never seen an article of this type using the word "thought" on its title, although I see it is apparently used in the Dutch language so I apologize for ignorance but still believe we can find many better alternatives that are more consistent with the other irredentism articles we have. Super Ψ Dro 15:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could just name the article "Greater Netherlands" but slightly rework the article. Dutch irredentism doesn't make much sense since there are Dutch irredentist movements that aren't Greater Netherlandic per se, like the Dutch claims on bordering German territory or the "AllDutch Movement" claiming all Low German peoples. My vote goes to either Greater Netherlands Movement/Greater Netherlands Thought or just Greater Netherlands + reworking the article or atleast the intro. SteffooM (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind Greater Netherlands Movement - certainly the most common in Flanders, by analogy with the Flemish Movement. Dutch irredentism is unsuitable for the reasons set out above - it could equally be seen as a form of Flemish or Afrikaner irredentism... —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Most people agree with Greater Netherlands so I am supporting this now as well. Super Ψ Dro 10:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, c'mon. The RM discussion you cite took place in 2006 when Wikipedia was a very different animal from what it is now. Virtually no serious reasoning was advanced at the time, as the discussion makes clear. My move in April 2021 sparked no interest at the time or for the four following months. Equally, it followed a suggestion I left Talk:Greater Netherlands thought#Title on the talk page as early ago as 2016 (!) which sparked no opposition from the editors who have  previously shown an interest in this page. Please don't depict this as some kind of POV-pushing exercise on my part. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not depict it as POV-pushing, but a previous RM discussion at any time is res ipsa loquitur evidence that a title change could be controversial and I'm not aware of any expiry on RM closures.  The suggestion you made in 2016 could have easily been accompanied by a RM request.  I have "previously shown an interest" in the page and would have appreciated the wider announcement that the RM process entails.  —  AjaxSmack  19:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 August 2021