Talk:Dutch people: Difference between revisions

Accuracy disputed

The article is inaccurate primarily because of controversial nationalist/irredentist claims such as the description of the Dutch and Flemings as a single people, with an alleged "Germanic" character, claims for the early (pre-1550) existence of this "Dutch" people, and inflated population figures and totals.

• The Dutch are an Indo-European people: no source, cited source does not say this.

• predominantly descend from various Germanic tribes: one cited source does say their ancestry is Frankish but is a heavily popularised web-page, other is personal website of the inserting editor and not a reliable source.

• speak a Germanic language: Dutch. Hence they regarded to be a Germanic people. No source for this logic, cited source does not say this.

• 25 million Dutch: no source

• Historically the Dutch chiefly lived in ... Northern France : no source for this controversial claim.

• since the 12th century they have spread all over the world: no source for controversial claim that "Dutch" existed in 12th century

• listing of Christianity as unifyng trait of Dutch, no longer true, no source

• United by common ancestry from various indigenous and migratory Germanic tribes: no source, Germanic ancestry plays no role in current Dutch identity.

• tall, pale-skinned people...may have been specific in many of the indigenous and migratory Germanic tribes. No source.

• the Dutch language was spoken around 450 / The people who spoke the language did speak Dutch: no source, linguistically 100% inaccurate, no Dutch language at that time

• Of the about 50 separate Germanic languages today, only Afrikaans (a Dutch semi-creol) is mutually intelligble with Dutch: no source for this claim as such, source for the "50 Germanic languages" is Ethnologue, which includes others much more mutually intelligibale than Afrikaans, not clear anyway why this point is included here.

• the Dutch are nevertheless classfied as decending from and belonging, culturally and linguistically, to the Germanic peoples. Cited sources do not say this.

• "In this article only the latter 2 definition will be used, as this article only concerns the Dutch as an ethnic group and Dutch ethnicity." Not an attributable claim anyway, simply an editors view on the limits of the article.

• In a broader sense the number of Dutch people is much higher. This is when for example people who are claiming or reporting Dutch ancestry are included. This way the total number of Dutch totals at around 25 million people. No source for the total, or for the inclusion of any non-Dutch group as "Dutch".

• "English-language exonym The Netherlands is used in historical contexts for a larger area which approximates to the present Benelux countries." No source, irredentist nationalist claim.

• 'Belgians' is contemporary Latin meaning 'Dutch': no source, cited source does not say this, or imply it.

• Linguistically the dialects of Dutch spoken in Belgium are all cross-border dialects which means that these dialects are also spoken in the Netherlands: no source, West Flemish dialects not all spoken in the Netherlands

• Limburgish listed as Dutch dialect: no source (it is Middle German). Undue weight to Flanders-Netherlands cross-border dialects, same applies to Netherlands-German border.

• Afrikaans, is mutually inteligeble with Dutch: no source, probably no more so than German. Undue weight to white Afrikaners here, since other minorites in South African also have Dutch ancestry and also speak Afrikaans.

• population total of 25 million in infobox: no source

• 472.600 Dutch Eurasians: figure and claimed source ("1990 study") are untraceable, no title, author or url provided, cited source does not use this term Dutch Eurasian.

• inclusion of reported Dutch ancestry (green figures) as Dutch in infobox: none of the cited sources say these people are 'Dutch'.

• 5,000,000 Dutch in South Africa: cited source does not say this, official source (embassy) says 45 000

• 270,000 Dutch in Australia, cited source does not say this, official source says about 85 000

• 100,000 Dutch in New Zealand, cited source does not say this, official source says about 25 000

• 83,000 Dutch in France, cited source is unreliable, official source gives about 30 000.

• Dutch in Malaysia: no source, footnote is empty, figure does not seem exaggerated, but a source is needed.

• Afrikaners and Flemings listed as related ethnic groups in infobox: no source. Afrikaners are no longer seen in the Netherlands as related by ethnicity, relationship to Flemings is not 'ethnic' in character but cultural and linguistic.

Since the article is a POV fork anyway, I propopsed its deletion.Paul111 12:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My only response is the same as before. Many of the above ínaccuracies are presented out of context and/or mutilated out of recognition in their representation on this talk page.

I can live with renaming to Dutch people but outright nomination for deletion is an insult to all the well-meant editing gone into this article. Arnoutf 14:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

New Personal approach

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

Fact list

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

The Dutch are an Indo-European people: no source, cited source does not say this.

— Paul111

The Dutch are an Indo-european people. If they weren't, the could not (by definition) be a Germanic people. The Indo-Europeans form the largest group of people in Europe and western Asia and for example include the British, Russians, Indians, Iranians, Greeks, Spanish and Dutch among many others. Further information can be found here: PDF on Indo-Europeans (English)

predominantly descend from various Germanic tribes: one cited source does say their ancestry is Frankish but is a heavily popularised web-page, other is personal website of the inserting editor and not a reliable source.

— Paul111

As said to you before, the website in question (20eeuwennederland) was made by a Dutch educational broadcaster: Teleac/NOT and is publicly financed by the Dutch goverment, it is not heavily popularised and is in fact very reliable. The other website, is not my personal website (which is a ridiculous claim, as my name isn't on the website, and I don't even have a personal website) and bases itself on scientific material and is written by academics. The fact that some far-right website has a link to the site is not of our concern.

speak a Germanic language: Dutch. Hence they regarded to be a Germanic people. No source for this logic, cited source does not say this.

— Paul111

The source says exactly this. It literally says: "... any of the Indo-European speakers of Germanic languages". The Dutch are Indo-Europeans and speak a Germanic language.

25 million Dutch: no source

— Paul111

25 million is the sum of all the numbers, which are all thoroughly referenced.

Historically the Dutch chiefly lived in ... Northern France : no source for this controversial claim.

— Paul111

Nothing controversial about it. Northern France (around Calais) was historically part of the Low Countries/Netherlands. The Dutch language was spoken and is spoken there since the 8th century. In fact, recently the populance of the Departement Nord tried to change its name to "the French Netherlands". The Dutch beeldenstorm started in Northern France after a hagenpreek by a Dutch priest.

since the 12th century they have spread all over the world: no source for controversial claim that "Dutch" existed in 12th century

— Paul111

The source is given. A book on relations between the Dutch and the Germans. It doesn't speak of the 12th century migration of Elephants from the Netherlands.

listing of Christianity as unifyng trait of Dutch, no longer true, no source

— Paul111

It is/was a unifying trait. Thats obvious, the fact that people are getting less and less religions doesn't really matter. Christianity shaped much of the Dutch morals etc. References to this herritage for example are when talking of wij/zij-relations between the Dutch and muslims.

United by common ancestry from various indigenous and migratory Germanic tribes: no source, Germanic ancestry plays no role in current Dutch identity.

— Paul111

The article only mentions a common ancestry, which was already proven by sources.

tall, pale-skinned people...may have been specific in many of the indigenous and migratory Germanic tribes. No source.

— Paul111

This is not claimed by the article. The article states that the Dutch look simalar to North-Western European peoples.

the Dutch language was spoken around 450 / The people who spoke the language did speak Dutch: no source, linguistically 100% inaccurate, no Dutch language at that time.

— Paul111

The Dutch language was spoken at that time and the source is given. It's 100% linguistically accurate.

Of the about 50 separate Germanic languages today, only Afrikaans (a Dutch semi-creol) is mutually intelligble with Dutch: no source for this claim as such, source for the "50 Germanic languages" is Ethnologue, which includes others much more mutually intelligibale than Afrikaans, not clear anyway why this point is included here.

— Paul111

The source provided shows the distance between Afrikaans and Dutch is in many cases closer than between Dutch and its dialects, which whom there is mutual intelligblilty, as otherwise it wouldn't be Dutch.

the Dutch are nevertheless classfied as decending from and belonging, culturally and linguistically, to the Germanic peoples. Cited sources do not say this.

— Paul111

Cites sources, as mention above do say this. They speak a Germanic language and language is one of the biggest factors of culture.

"In this article only the latter 2 definition will be used, as this article only concerns the Dutch as an ethnic group and Dutch ethnicity." Not an attributable claim anyway, simply an editors view on the limits of the article.

— Paul111

This is is simply the matter this article deals with, the Dutch as an ethnic group. If you want to have an article that deals with other factors, create it yourself. It's as simple as that.

In a broader sense the number of Dutch people is much higher. This is when for example people who are claiming or reporting Dutch ancestry are included. This way the total number of Dutch totals at around 25 million people. No source for the total, or for the inclusion of any non-Dutch group as "Dutch".

— Paul111

The people who have Dutch ancestry can be included as belonging the Dutch. Hence they are also included in the totalls.

"English-language exonym The Netherlands is used in historical contexts for a larger area which approximates to the present Benelux countries." No source, irredentist nationalist claim.

— Paul111

Netherlands was indeed used synonymously with Low Countries. As was the case in French, where Pays-Bas now refers to the Netherlands, but once to all of the Low Countries --> Literally translated, it means just that: Low Countries.Rex 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

'Belgians' is contemporary Latin meaning 'Dutch': no source, cited source does not say this, or imply it.

— Paul111

At the time Belgian mean Dutch. Leo Belgicus, meant Dutch lion, New Netherlands (Nieuw Nederland) in America was Novum Belgium or Nova Belgica and the Dutch republic was Belgium Foederatum. It meant Dutch.

Linguistically the dialects of Dutch spoken in Belgium are all cross-border dialects which means that these dialects are also spoken in the Netherlands: no source, West Flemish dialects not all spoken in the Netherlands.

— Paul111

Zeeuws/Zealandic is included together with West-Flemish.Rex 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Limburgish listed as Dutch dialect: no source (it is Middle German). Undue weight to Flanders-Netherlands cross-border dialects, same applies to Netherlands-German border.

— Paul111

Limburgish is only for a small part of middle German. Only below Maastricht, everything above is Low Franconian and subjected to the Dutch standard language (as are the Limburgish variations below Maastricht).

Afrikaans, is mutually inteligeble with Dutch: no source, probably no more so than German. Undue weight to white Afrikaners here, since other minorites in South African also have Dutch ancestry and also speak Afrikaans.

— Paul111

Already answered above.

population total of 25 million in infobox: no source

— Paul111

Already answered above too. (same claim actually)

472.600 Dutch Eurasians: figure and claimed source ("1990 study") are untraceable, no title, author or url provided, cited source does not use this term Dutch Eurasian.

— Paul111

The Source is a 1990 study by Statistics Netherlands. Given other online data I've found I have no reason to doubt the study, the study can, like all others, be inquired at Statistics Netherlands and is hence verifiable.

inclusion of reported Dutch ancestry (green figures) as Dutch in infobox: none of the cited sources say these people are 'Dutch'.

— Paul111

The people have reported themselves as Dutch or having Dutch ancestry. That's enough.

5,000,000 Dutch in South Africa: cited source does not say this, official source (embassy) says 45 000

— Paul111

The official source, or more accurately ... your source only counts the Dutch born people. IOW, people born in the Netherlands themselves.

270,000 Dutch in Australia, cited source does not say this, official source says about 85 000

— Paul111

The official source, or more accurately ... your source only counts the Dutch born people. IOW, people born in the Netherlands themselves.

100,000 Dutch in New Zealand, cited source does not say this, official source says about 25 000

— Paul111

The official source, or more accurately ... your source only counts the Dutch born people. IOW, people born in the Netherlands themselves.

83,000 Dutch in France, cited source is unreliable, official source gives about 30 000.

— Paul111

The official source, or more accurately ... your source only counts the Dutch born people. IOW, people born in the Netherlands themselves.

Afrikaners and Flemings listed as related ethnic groups in infobox: no source. Afrikaners are no longer seen in the Netherlands as related by ethnicity, relationship to Flemings is not 'ethnic' in character but cultural and linguistic.

— Paul111

The Flemish and Dutch have the same language and roots as well as the greater part of their respective histories, the Frisians have been a part of the Netherlands since the middle ages and have been in contact with the Dutch ever since. They are naturally related. Rex 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy not disputed.

I think I'll just be honest about it, but I don't like Paul111 very much, and I don’t think I’m the only one. As someone named R9tgokunks remarked, there are about 5 people here, who think the article is just fine. Paul111 is the only one who doesn’t agree. From his talk page and this talkpage I’ve noticed that Paul111 is not willing to resolve this matter as he declined something called RfC and a “mediation”, which were meant to resolve things. Rex G seems to have proven that the reasons why Paul111 thinks the article is inaccurate are flawed, and he, together with Arnout remarked that they were out of context. I propose to remove the template whenever Paul111 adds it again. Not very nice I know, but at least the article will get better.213.125.116.112 08:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC) /DutchBloke 08:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Liking or not liking another editor should not matter. The article is in a reasonable state now, calling it just fine is going a bit too far, much work needs to be done. But I agree that Paul111s claim of inaccuracy are not as strong as he himself thinks they are; therefore I would not mind removing the template; but this is IMHO not worth going to edit war about. Arnoutf 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Map of Artois in History section

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

Dutchman disambig

Hi; posting this here because there's not a Talk:Dutchman page and it's folks around here who are going to care; I'm not sure what to do about a secondary meaning of "Dutchman" in North American English, specifically on the western frontier (including British Columbia and Alaska) and borrowed by default into Chinook Jargon - "Dutchman" in the old West could and often did mean a German, and in the case of the Chinook Jargon "Dutchman" could be used for any other European people not already specified by the Jarogn, e.g. Moravians, Poles etc were called Dutchman in the Jargon, because they weren't Pasiooks (the French/Metis - "cloth people") or Kinchauch ("King George", British) or Boston/Bostonman (American/US). I realize this might be a sensitive issue in Europe, and it's not really article worthy, except for there being various famous characters who might warrant articles some days, e.g. some guy named "Dutchman Bill" or for short "Dutch Bill", who was maybe actually German or even Hungarian; can't think of anyone important/notable right now but I know there are some; but it's how to include the definition on the disambiguation page that I'm wondering about here; that in the 19th C and in some remaining frontier areas, "Dutchman" doesn't necessarily mean the person is Dutch..... ;-) Skookum1 07:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an additional line together with Pennsylvanian Dutch, which is already mentioned on this page. This has to do with the etymology of Dutch in English. Some explanation maybe relevant, but I agree confusion needs to be prevented Arnoutf 15:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only definition of Dutchman=German/European is from the Chinook Jargon; I do know of books that might say, in passing "the Dutchman was really German, but everybody called him a Dutchman", but I don't know if citable dictionary definitions are available for that context, i.e. frontier English vs Chinook.....although in some areas the line between those two was very blurred....Skookum1 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess Malay Dutch are covered, as being part Dutch; I just happened to have had an aunt, sort of, who was Malay Dutch, over more than one generation too I think; not sure if they constitute a separate group or the family ref. there "Malay Dutch" isn't a group, it just meant that Aunt Nellie was part Malay, part Dutch. But it's got me wondering about other localized uses of Dutch out there, other than in expressions like "go Dutch" and "double Dutch" etc......Skookum1 18:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Again etymology of Dutch in English language. Originally from early Germanic languages meaning 'the people' becoming a synonym for the Germanic people (ie more or less Germans, Dutch and Flanders) but later (1600 onwards) exclusively for the Netherlands Dutch. In this light, confusion is understandable as migration to the Americas was well advanced before the use became disambiguated. Perhaps worthwhile enough to develop a paragraph in this page on this? (PS the Malacca area in modern day Malaysia has long been a Dutch (Netherlands, not German) colony, so partial Dutch ancestry is to be expected; not truly a distinct group though as far as I know) Arnoutf 19:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam as a religion of the ethnic Dutch

While I agree Islam is a well represented religion when one looks at all inhabitants of the Netherlands, I think the number of ethnic Dutch that adhere it is neglible. What do you think Arnoutf? Rex 12:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops you are right. Sorry, just followed the source (RIVM) and did not distinguish between Dutch ethnic and allochtone. Problematic though is that now the source is not well-defined as this source does not distinguishes allochtone autochtone. For example all catholics may also be Polish immigrant workers (far fetched but still). I think this is kind of a problem. But can live with taking out islam again. Arnoutf 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we don't give any numbers, we just list the main religion of the Dutch ... We know/can prove with literature that Christianity is the main religion (if they are religious) of the Dutch, and don't need to go search for a source that only counts ethnic Dutch people. Rex 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

this article needs a "this article is percieved as not entirely serious" tag

this article is more of a laugh to me. i find it very amusing that there are people out there that consider us to consider "extravagantly flaunting ones emotions (whether positive or negative) as lack of control or even as having a psychological disorder".

and
"Americans are typically also thought to be principally "good" people, though somewhat uneducated, unsophisticated and badly guided by their politicians."

well trust me, we all think a whole lot more negative about them. for one we think of americans as extremely (yes extremely) arrogant, just like people of any other country in the world would (yes, any other, aside from the brittish perhaps).

but anyway, beign informative without adding seeming pov or hardly verifyable contend is probably really hard to do in this kind of article· Lygophile has spoken 18:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't meant to make you laugh. The section on emotions was about how others perceive the Dutch. Apparantly the truth hurts. As for you attack on the americans. I think it was fine as it was, there was no need for that all out attack based on nothing.Rex 20:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think some fine-tuning of these sections may be in order, as they indeed read not too seriously. Arnoutf 08:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's another matter, the main point is that the section as it is now, is referenced. We must not let it be turned into a unsourced rant.Rex 09:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

truth hurts? nah, i just never knew we were considered as such, i dont mind. and i did not attack americans, and what i said was not pov. i didnt say the americans were that (which would be pov), i said dutch people see them as such, which they do. iv never met a single dutch person that does not think of americans as arrogant, and everyone around here knows they are helplessly decieved by their propoganda machine. heck its even in the news from time to time. should i say, "truth hurts"?· Lygophile has spoken 09:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No you should say "This is what I claim, and here are my references". Which you're not doing.Rex 09:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

no should not say this is what i claim in an article, as you well know. and no references are cited as it is anytway, so why should i?· Lygophile has spoken 09:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious?! The references provided for the current section provide full coverage. You add new claims, so you need new references. Very simple. I saw from your edits that you've repeatedly attacked the United States before. Claiming the US wasn't a liberal democracy at one point, so you're edits on americans here can be seen as thoroughly biased ... at best.Rex 09:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I suggest you read my comment again. Did you are did you not attack the US repeatedly before? You did. And did you or did you not claim that the US wasn't a liberal democracy? You did, twice actually. As for your "You're full of shit" (or as you mispelled it "your full of shit") remark, if continue to make such remarks you'll be block before the end of this day. Meanwhile I'm giving you a warning.Rex 09:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)