Talk:Netherlands/Archive 3

message: I have a little trouble with the whole subsection 'languages' in 'demographics' Although the information is very interesting, I feel that this part is a tad bit too extensive for a general article, given the fact that language (to my knowledge) is not really an issue in the Netherlands, at least not to the extent it is in Belgium or Spain. Let's face it: the Netherlands have one language (dutch) that is well spoken and understood by close to 100% of the population. An unsuspecting international reader might get the wrong impression that people in Netherlands speak some 5 different languages. I don't propose skipping the whole section, but I feel that it would be sufficient to point out the official languages Dutch and Frisian and briefly mentioning the other languages and dialects (of course with wiki-links for anyone interested in their history and relation to other languages etc). Any comments? --Dengo 12:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  languages 

message: 82.73.16.178 wrote in the article that a possible reason for Fortuyn's murder was that Volkert van der Graaf was a defender of animal rights. Now that's rather far fetched. Apart from that hardly being a reason, certainly for an educated person like van der Graaf, gave as the reason that 'he saw Fortuyn as a steadily increasing danger for vulnerable groups in society, namely Muslims' (from the van der Graaf article). You also cahnged 'this' to suggest that the two murders were linked, but it was a reference to xenofobia. Maybe that should be put more clearly. DirkvdM 18:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  he came up with the 'I was protecting vulnerable groups in society' defense AFTER he did what he did and then only at the instigation of his lawyer, Britta Böhler, a notorious lawyer who defends  radical left wing criminals.--Marcel1975 20:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah, well, I made a change before I read this :) . I made it shorter still. What I removed was rather obvious or unintelligible due to poor English. DirkvdM 08:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  no problem, this only makes it better. If you look at some of the changes that have been reverted in the last days, you will see what I am concerned about ...--Dengo 09:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortuyn's murder 

message: I have a problem with the following sentence in the section "Naming Conventions":
In some countries, however, embassies of The Netherlands use Holland as the name of the country they represent.
I think it is highly unlikely that embassies of the Netherlands use the term Holland when they formally represent their country and government. On the other hand, the statement is so vague (some countries ..) that it is hard to come up with concrete arguments why this is incorrect. I do realize that the embassies use "Holland" when marketing tourism to the Netherlands in their guest countries, but that is for marketing purposes only, not as formal representation.
Comments?  /Dutch-Bostonian
:Yes, very unlikely. And indeed the burden of proof lies with whoever put that there, so I'd say if there is no affirmative reaction after a week of so, remove it. DirkvdM 08:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course, that makes sense for countries that do not have an equivalent of 'Netherlands'. No choice there. (This, however, leads to the question what the provinces North and South Holland are called in such languages?) Anyone know any cases of languages in which there is such an equivalent but 'Holland' is used nevertheless? If not, that could be given as an explanation.  DirkvdM 07:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Almost two weeks have passed since the last comment on this matter. I will now proceed to (provisonally) change the sentence under discussion. I did, however, put the question to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague, which promises to answer me within 48 hours. --Dengo 07:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embassies of the Netherlands using the name Holland 

message: In the phrase ...rules coming from the EU such as the obligated privatising of the energy market... Rich Farmbrough changed 'obligated' to 'obliged'. But if I'm not mistaken (which I very well may be because I am Dutch :) ) 'obliged' is more moral and 'obligated' is about following some rule or law. And this is about following rules laid down by the EU, so it should be 'obligated', right? DirkvdM 18:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  oblig(at)ed 

message: Who f#cked up this page! does not show much respect for this country nor the fact that there are people that want to find correct information
:See my comment in next thread. DirkvdM 08:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  haha very funny NOT!!! 

message: Hey, I saw today a few times "Kingdom of Urban Warriors" on this page and I cannot indetify that with The Netherlands.. There were a lot of things who seemed to be quite odd to me. I really need some information about The Netherlands but I start to doubt this encyclopedia for its credibility!!
:Well, you just happened to be faster than the serious editors, who this time took 46 minutes to revert that vandalism. One suggestion if this irritates you. Become a serious editor yourself and don't wait for someone else to revert vandalism. Remember that this encyclopedia is still a work in progress for most articles. Every now and then an article is considered 'finished' and receives a featured article status. Eventually this should happen to all articles, which might then be 'locked in principle' so they can no longer be vandalised. Give Wikipedia a break. It's been around for four years now. How long does it normally take to compile an encyclopedia? However, in the meantime most articles are largely correct (more correct and complete than most other webpages on a subject) because any vandalism is quickly reverted, as you could see here. DirkvdM 08:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also if you doubt the correctness of an article, click the "History" tab
 and check older versions. It is fairly easy to spot vandalism and filter it out to get real information. Felsir 17:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban warriors?? 

message: The article states: "The Netherlands possessed several colonies, most notably the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) and Suriname (the latter was traded with the British for New Amsterdam, now known as New York)".
I'm starting to believe that the story about Suriname being traded is only a myth. Because i can't find any sources to support that story. Trustworthy sources tell a different story. This is a quote from the site of the "U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs" : 
"The Dutch settlements had, as a general matter, been ruled by autocratic governors appointed in Europe. Over the years, the local population had become estranged from them. As a result, when the British colonists began encroaching on Dutch lands in Long Island and Manhattan, the unpopular governor was unable to rally the population to their defense. New Netherland fell in 1664. The terms of the capitulation, however, were mild: the Dutch settlers were able to retain their property and worship as they pleased."
I know about the claim that it was traded under the treaty of Breda as it is stated in wikipedia: "...the Treaty of Breda in which the Dutch gave up their claim to New Netherland in exchange for Suriname".   
But also stated in wikipedia is: "During the negotiations, the English commissioners offered to return the New Netherlands in exchange for their sugar factories on the coast of Surinam. The Dutch side declined". 
And so it seems to be the case to me; that nothing was traded at all. New Netherland stayed British, and Suriname stayed Dutch. There wasn't any trade involved.
Also, the article mentions "New Amsterdam" only. While that was merely part of the Dutch settlement called "New Netherland". Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware became part of New Netherland at some time too .
Could some serious editor please look into this.
:Perhaps the point is that in the same conflict during which the English took New Netherlands, the Dutch took Surinam. What was traded were the mutual claims for retribution. Each party kept its gains and the territories in the end changed side. The latter happened only in 1674 though, after the next war. --MWAK 13:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but I always thought they were "just" traded, Till I did some investigation. There seems to be some misunderstanding with the general public about this if you ask me. And I really think this is one of the things were an encyclopedia comes in to help the truth from fading away. Can't the part were it says that they were traded be expanded by -lets say- 2 lines so the real way things went on becomes clear?(83.118.38.37 11:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Amsterdam 

message: In the Netherlands, "Netherlands" is sometimes used as an adjective.
What is meant by this phrase?
The origin of this local usage
What local usage? gidonb 22:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed odd. Of course in the Netherlands we don't use an English term. It is however occasionally used as an adjective in English. The name-thing is spread over three sections, the first just above it in the intro. Let me do something about this. See what you think. DirkvdM 09:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I will read your new texts. Until recently I was very unhappy with the texts in this article, as Dutch users would every now and then stop by and increase the bitching of those peoples who use terms like Dutch, Holland and THE NetherlandS in their languages. These terms are officially used by the Netherlands just as well. Evidence to that account from Asian countries was thrown out of the window. What do these persons assume, that the whole world uses or should use the same phrases as they hear in their direct environment? As a Dutchman living most of his life abroad, I felt emberassed. gidonb 12:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Dirk, since you make many wrong assumptions on the naming conventions of the Netherlands outside the Netherlands, try not to use such strong bitching terms as you do time and again. This is an international encyclopedia and you are writing in the English version of it, NOT a place where we belittle the population of the world for not speaking Dutch. Thank you. gidonb 13:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As these were factually wrong and used a totally inappropriate tone, I have rewritten all the sections on naming conventions, loading the important facts - the naming conventions in English - upfront. gidonb 23:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, that was uncalled for. When have you seen me using 'bitching terms'? Time and again, no less. But about your edits. 'Holland' is the name of a region and has never been the name of the country (or did I blink somewhere in history?). I've done another rewrite, trying to avoid the issue. Some other things. "When a local variation of "Nederland", such as the Netherlands in English,...". Huh? Is English a local variation of Dutch, or how am I to interpret this? "The plural form of the "Netherlands"..." 'The Netherlands' is a plural form. Ok, in both cases I know what you mean, but it looks confusing this way. I also removed two double statements, leaving the bit in the intro shorter. I moved the comparison with the UK down too (somewhat altered). This was once in here, bot was apparently removed. DirkvdM 06:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I removed two sentences. "The plural form 'the Netherlands' is a remnant from times when the country was not yet united." Untrue. The plural form is not a 'remnant' but an accurate depicted of the name of the country, even though in Dutch people are used to using the singular form. I removed the entire sentence about "Dutch". This section should not fill too much in an introduction. Fedor 16:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All these are improvements to the text. I am not certain on the source for these bad assumptions about the names of the Netherlands and all this yucking off foreigners for their use of language. Language is an integral part of culture and both are very place-specific. gidonb 14:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear texts

message: I know this can't be quantified or qualified in any regard. But I just speak from experience and having a couple of Dutch girlfriends over the years. Ciao!
--Bourbon King 02:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I moved from Holland to Denmark and I must say, the women are (even) more beautiful here! ;-) Fedor 08:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I would have to disagree on this. I find The Netherlands to be the home of some of the most plain and plain old ugly, specimens of the female sex. The four most common faults are: many women with no chins (those who know dutch women know what I'm talking about), buck or rabbit-teeth, manly manners and no sense of clothing (yes they follow youth trends quite well but elegant clothing let alone women actually wearing dresses or skirts are a rarity). :-P  The above is bound to be used against me in some future Wikiepdia debate to call me a racist bigot. ;-) Ik zal me er niet druk om maken. ;-) Chelman 11:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL Chelman. That's fine if you disagree with me, but I certainly disagree with you about "no chins" and "rabbit teeth". I think you can find those attributes in any country or region of the world. I can also tell you that "manly manners" is something I observed more in Germany. Also, I don't know how you could be considered "racist" considering that Dutch people are merely a cultural ethnic group and are just as white as their neighbors.--Bourbon King 17:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It pains my heart to find out that Wikepedia evidently is mainly a male community with the usual sexism that comes with the territory. I'd say chins, teeth and clothing are questions of taste. And as for any future Wikipedia debates: I might bring up the argument that you're all male-chauvinist, sexist biggots ;)--Dengo 17:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa! Just how can you qualify my original statement as being "sexist" when I was merely making a comment on the beauty of Dutch women. Although it is an subjective observation it was never meant to degrade or objectify women from Holland as much as user:Chelman has done. I know I relayed a comment about "manly" looking women being more apparent in Germany where I've traveled, but I wouldn't say that German women on a whole are "manly-looking" at all.--Bourbon King 18:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, you shouldn't take my remarks too seriously. I just find it very peculiar that this debate actually takes place here AND that there seem to be no female Wikipedians who feel they have to comment. --Dengo 09:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: How much of a male-chauvinist, sexist biggot am I, considering that from your first remark I concluded that you must be female? :) DirkvdM 12:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: erm ... the biggotst of them all? :P --Dengo 14:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch women are beautiful :-)