Talk:Dutch people/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Anachronism Tag

All ethnic identities are socio-political constructs that come into existence and fade. This includes the Dutch. The Dutch people are a construct of the early modern period, and do not date any earlier. The "Dutch people" simply did not exist any earlier than this except as possibly, and only by artificial recreation, the people designated as German speakers even in their own dialects within the boundaries of country called the Netherlands as it they are now projected back to then. Because this is in practice hidden from the reader, the article creates the false impression of longer conceptual existence than the reality justifies, which is at best the innocent anachronising teleology typical of national histories but at worst, as it will be seen by some, as using wikipedia as a platform for nationalistic propaganda. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Does the tag apply to the entire article or just to the history section? As far as the history section is concerned, can the problem be fixed by something like renaming it to "The path to Dutch identity" and perhaps a few minor changes, or is it something more serious? Sorry if these questions are stupid, I am not very familiar with this article and didn't look all that closely. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I can imagine the critisism relates to the first two sections of the history section (i.e Early history and High and Late Middle Ages).

Projecting back the Low lands dialects date further back as a group within German, as do relations between the Frisians, Zeelandic and Holland counties (they were united under the same count in the middle ages.

These early history elements are important just to show that the Dutch ethnic groups is a "socio-political construct that came into existence" over a number of centuries.

I agree the history section may be refocussed to something like ethnogenesis.

Of course it maybe that you mean something else by this rather vague and hard to understand tag (and ditto text above), so please comment. Arnoutf (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

@Hans Adler....Your question is not in the least bit stupid. Your attempt to clarify User:Deacon's text above is appreciated. The text seems abit stringent, polarizing, and confrontational on it's face. A suggested solution would have been nice. When did the early modern period start?...."did not exist any earlier than this".....when is this?--Buster7 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The history sections are obviously a problem, but pre-Dutch Dutch coverage is elsewhere in the article, like in the religion section, or elsewhere, e.g. "During the Ostsiedlung, Germans and Dutch ... " (implying the distinction was contemporary ... and if we're basing it on modern counties ... should change to "German, Austrian, Dutch, Liechtensteiner, Luxembourgian, Belgian and Swiss) . In my experience the changing nature of Germaness in central Europe is something the non-historian reader tends to get very confused about (and local nationalists offended as they've usually never knowlingly encountered the word "German" to mean anything but "someone from the Federal Republic of Germany"), a confusion expressed in articles like this and in the anachronism-based edit-wars in articles like Pope Adrian VI. If you think about it, writing about submarines in the Elizabethan era would be like writing about the Dutch before they emerged as a distinct people (this would be more like the 19th century than the 16th ... separation of Belgium and Netherland [and just read Nathaniel Hawthorne, who refers to Amsterdam as a "German" city]) ... so why is it more acceptable? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to solve some of the problems, but if someone has a better solution I am happy to be reverted. In any case there is a lot left to be done. In Dutch people#Dutch diaspora I didn't know what to do at all. I don't think the material about early emigration of the ancestors of the Dutch should be removed altogether. Perhaps add a clear disclaimer? Judging from what I have seen on this talk page I think the reason the problem exists is not lack of awareness but the difficulty of getting it right. I am giving up at this point, because I am not sufficiently familiar with the fine distinctions between terms such as Netherlands/Holland/Low Countries. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The exact moment we can start speaking of the "dutch ethnic" group has been topic of much discussion here. Summarising that lengthy discussion the conclusions were:

1) Before the Seventeen Provinces were united it is not relevant to speak of the Dutch as they were many entities however, there were some things that distinguished these provinces from the rest of the German empire (dialects and direction towards the West (England and Sea trade) that would later become part of the Dutch identity. Therefore it was decided that this early period should be taken into account (although the wording should make clearer this is not really about the Dutch)

2) Around 1600 the Northern Netherlands has (de facto) become a federal state almost identical in area to today's Netherlands. This step is an important moment in the genesis of the Dutch ethnic group

3) By 1830 the modern state had emerged, and as such at a time that the idea of nation state had come into fashion. Much of history was retrofitted to support a Dutch ethnic group. (is this last date the moment the ethnic group emerged for the first time??? - seems a bit overcritical, as that would mean no ethic group anywhere in the world could exist before the phrase ethnic group was coined....)

In other words, we carefully avoided pinning one date to the complex process of ethnogenesis of the Dutch (although the wording in the history section may be improved to show that).

(in general but not conclusively) Lowlands is used especially in reference to medieval regions that now cover the Netherlands, much of Belgium and parts of Northern France. Netherlands is used a bit more exclusively: for the Seventeen Provinces the republic of the Seven united Netherlands, and the current country Netherlands. Holland is originally the county of Holland (one of the 17 Netherlands and part of the republic). As it became the most powerful county of the republic it is often used as pars pro toto for the whole of the Netherlands, both by foreigners and by the Dutch. Nowadays Holland is also the name of 2 provinces in the Netherlands (south and north holland) covering the area of the former County. Complex indeed.

What an American novelist of the 19th century says about Amsterdam is totally irrelevant, I am pretty sure many Dutch today call Edinburgh an "English" city. Arnoutf (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Few things that distinguished what we call "Dutch" from other Germans didn't also distinguish other northern German peoples like the peoples of Flanders and the Hansa. Nation-statism is late 19th century and early 20th century. Ole Nat was an educated man and died in 1864, before any post-medieval redefinition of Germany begun; the point was not that he was making a "mistake", but that that was how the word could be used. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean like you still can use the phrase English for cities like Edinburgh? In which case the Scots do not exist. (and note I have seen US citizen on television naming Kopenhagen the capital of Amsterdam; that a phrase can be used does not means it is used correctly). Ole Nat was an educated American of British roots with no relation to Germany or the Netherlands at all. I consider myself an educated person (got a PhD to support the claim), but I cannot distinguish between all Amazon tribes either; which only shows I am not a topic expert, nothing more

And as nation states and ethnicity as a phrase only emerged in the 19th century, the conclusion is easy; each and any ethnic group predating that time, is equally anachronic as this one and should be tagged as such. Arnoutf (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the city Edinburgh was taken by the Scots about a thousand years ago; but I get your point, how do you distinguish between a mistake and distinctive use of the word? The difference is that Nat wouldn't have been corrected for saying that, whereas you would be for saying that about Edinburgh. Small but critical difference. Ethnic groups don't date to the 19th century, they are as old as mankind. The later 19th century is when, in Continental Europe, there was significant ideological pressure for all states to be either based on an established ethnicity, or else manufacture a new ethnicity; which means either base a state or aspiring state's identity on a "language group" or reclassifying language categories so that a state or region has its own group. The latter is what tends to happen naturally over time anyway, though then it became rushed and we got things like Nynorsk. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok then at least all European ethnic groups should be labeled as one until the 1900's. I have no problem with that, but such a rule should be applied to all European ethnic groups; why are the Dutch singled out? Arnoutf (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They're not being singled out. Nationality just isn't precious to me, whereas historical accuracy is. The historians on wikipedia are constantly coming up against local nationality-driven anachronisings, and this is just one tiny area. The Dutch aren't unique in this. They are a relatively new ethnicity as far as these things go, yes, but they would be comparable to Ukrainians (see Little Russia and Rus (name)) or Macedonians. This is an endless problem on wikipedia and the Dutch are not so big a problem, being in general relatively moderate and well-educated. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And the Germans of course whose nation is younger than that of the Dutch ;-) To be honest I am fairly sceptical about the whole concpet of ethnicity as it always mixes up genetics, nationality and group identity issues into a mess.

With singled out I meant the "nationalhistory" tag was only applied to pages related to the Dutch. Arnoutf (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You're making a few mistakes Deacon. You seem to assert that Dutch people are, or were actually Germans. This is a common mistake based on the english language which you speak. The Dutch are descendants of germanic people, same as the english, danish, swedish, nordic, flemish and german people. "German" only refers to citizens of Germany, and in effect all germanic people descent from the proto-germanic tribes from Scandinavia. Germans don't call themselves "Germans" at all, but Deutsche. Only in the English language have the germans been named after the "Germanic people".

The Dutch descent primarily from the ancient Franks, and would later intermix slightly with the Frisians and the Saxons. Evidence of this is also that Dutch is evolved from the surviving language of the Franks. The English also descent from the Saxons and are perhaps even closer related to the present-day germans who also descent from the saxons. The Germans are only slight descendants of the franks, same as the french, because they've had much more influince from all other germanic tribes living in germany. Grey Fox (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to add another complication. Guelders (the old duchy that is) is the most prominent representant of the Saxon tribes in the Netherlands; Frisia and West Frisia were dominated by the Frisians. In other words the Netherlands were originally made up from provinces from different origins (the Dutch language is closests to Hollandic dialect, indeed a Frankish area). Arnoutf (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A late responds to this discussion perhaps; but quite vital. I have a question; how come supposedly the Dutch did not exist at the time; but Germans somehow did? It's something I come across quite often and find quite funny (as it is a ridiculous statement) and frighting as thoughts like these are only found within late 19th/early 20th century nationalistic "ethnic" propaganda; which seems to affect certain people's POV to this very day.HP1740-B (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Who says the Germans did. The Germanic tribes are not to be confused with todays Germans. Arnoutf (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just like "German dialects" aren't to be confused with "Germanic dialects"? I am well aware of the distinction between German and Germanic in both contemporary and historical use, and the above editors seem to be well aware of that distinction as well.HP1740-B (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Major revert 28-1

After a month-long wiki-break, it is an utter shame to see the mess this article has once more has fallen into. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. People read these things you know! Once more a thorough sweep is required. The (long fought over) consensus image will be restored, numbers will return to previously sourced forms (40 million Dutch, are you people insane?!) and new information will be checked on accuracy and whether its worth mentioning in the first place. While you people were once again acting like this is a kindergarten, I've actually come up with new material for this article, which will be implemented soon. HP1740-B (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So you are again going to make massive changes on the article against consensus, just like you did the last times you were around, just to leave the discussion again for a month? I would seriously suggest that you first discuss your edits here and then implement the changes, since in all likelihood they will again be against consensus. IF you proceed anyway, the only thing that will happen is a WP:BRD cycle, which is of no use anyway. Furthermore, I urge you to be more civil. The patronizing attitude you are displaying here will not help you (or the article) in any way. Fram (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've learned quite a bit from earlier encounters with the regular editors here. There will be major edits, yes, and when there are sourcing problems a tag will be added until the original source is found. Wikipedia is really simple without all the jabbering on the talk pages. If you want to see where that gets you, look at the previous version. So unless you have specific source issues, I don't really feel like using this talk page.HP1740-B (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you realize that the phrases "There will be major edits, yes"; "Wikipedia is really simple without all the jabbering on the talk pages" and "So unless you have specific source issues, I don't really feel like using this talk page" are both a prime example of patronizing Fram.

Do you realize that making massive edits/reverts compared to the current version (compiled by multiple editors) without content discussion either in edit summary (summaries "Rivaltry" "Premature edit" and "Zo"), nor on the talk page is at best a violation of ownership policies, but could also be seen as an active way to escalate into edit war; or extremely just as plain vandalism.

You are welcome to append the previous (ie before your revert) version, piecemeal with the new information you have found. You are also welcome to make changes one-by-one discussed and agreed upon on this talk. But this should all go from this mornings version. Arnoutf (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, Arnoutf, how I've missed you. If you look at my edits, you will find that the actual differences between the current and previous version aren't that large. If you considered the previous version to be better, by all means do elaborate. HP1740-B (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could say I missed you too..... So unless you have specific source issues, I don't really feel like using this talk page. Large differences: Several. A template is gone (I don't like it but anyway); updated numbers are gone; Genetics are back; some sections expanded, some reduced. Each of these edits require at least a comprehensive edit summary; as well as each of the smaller ones. The larger ones do need some talk page comment. It is up to YOU to argue why you want to change things if challenged. Arnoutf (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information (such as genetics) should have valid reasons, which weren't provided. Additions made in the past month all lacked a summary, nearly all these additions did not have any source. (those that had, have been reinstated). Your false use of the term "consensus" doesn't change the fact that the current article is better sourced than the previous one. Wikipedia should come first, then your ego.HP1740-B (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting comment from the guy whose ego got himself a block for edit warring on this exact same page. Arnoutf (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice comeback! Please, either respond to the matter at hand. If you don't know what to say, or find yourself corrected, then please by all means, don't write anything.HP1740-B (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See discussion opened for different subsections. Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus" version

Unlike Arnoutf states, there is no 'current' consensus version. The tag at the top of his 'consensus' version as well as the many cite-tags will logically confirm this. Please stop using the word consensus, when there clearly isn't any. I also hope I don't need to remind you that I have every right to remove unsourced information per Wikipedia policy; which is exactly what I did. As I already said above, the current 'reverting' is merely temporary. The basis is a more stable version of the article dating 1 month back, in which newer information added in the subsequent month (which is referenced) will be re-added, thereby cleaning up this article.HP1740-B (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"I have every right to remove unsourced information per Wikipedia policy" I agree.

BUT you also have "every obligation" to mention each removal of each unsourced information individually. You have no right whatsoever to blanket revert large sections of the article wihout decent edit summary.

You are only looking at YOUR so called rights; rights come with obligations (which you only fulfil if they fit you), AND respect for the rights of others (which you violate whenever you think you can get away with it).

The version of 1 month back was never stable. Actually you have been blocked for edit warring in trying to shove that version down our throats.

The current version has not seen massive reverts in the last month, and although there is some recent discussion; there is consensus to work from the current version (as nobody has suggested otherwise). Hence the version of this morning can be the only version to be considered stable or consensus. Arnoutf (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No it can't. I see little difference between reverting unsourced/ludicrous edits and adding cite-tags to them and placing a warning banner at the top of the article. This is by no means a consensus article, no matter what you say. Also, prior to my edits I already explained my intentions/reasons (to restore a previous version, and readding sourced material added since my absence) so I don't really see the problem. HP1740-B (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, HP1740-B, attention is nice - but there are good ways of getting attention, and bad ways of getting attention. Wasting editors time by pointy editing, arrogant edit summaries, and confrontational talkpage comments is not a good way of getting attention. Just stop trolling. Please? --Paularblaster (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes made by HP-1740-B because he did not respect the WP:BRD cycle (his changes were reverted before, but he just implemented them again). Furthermore, hiw latest version was in many respects a return to his last version of over a month ago: as was clear from the discussion then and the subsequent edits, the current version is not a definitve version (hence the tags), but the clear consensus was that it was preferred above the HP1740-B version. Just reverting everything that had been done in the last month without any actual, fatual discussion and in a very uncivil manner is not the way to act on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Please suggest and discuss your changes here, on the talk page, and get a consensus for them before implementing them again. Fram (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Stating the obvious, my latest version was that of a month ago, with sourced information added meanwhile. I don't think I've made that much of a secret. I have every right to remove unsourced information. Frankly, given the mess the article was (once again) in a few days ago; reverting to an earlier version (reinstating new, sourced, information, mind you) was in fact the most constructive way to solve the said mess. I hope I don't have to remind you that it is you who is to convince me on what you want to add, not I who must convince you on what I delete (if unsourced, naturally). Logically, I once again reverted. HP1740-B (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To give an example of edits you will probably never find a consensus for: this "<ref>Which, other than a political divide is no boundary of a linguistic, religious or clearly cultural nature.</ref>" is not a reference, it is a comment. References should come from outside, reliable sources. Changing "County of Flanders" to "Dutch County of Flanders" is also quite inexplicable. The removal of different fact tags without the addition of relevant sources is another thing that is rarely applauded. And "your" (simply copied) map of the surname Jansen in Germany is, as has been discussed before, irrelevant, since it has no info on when, how, ... And why did you feel the need to remove whole sections, e.g. the one on Scandinavia? Fram (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Other sources, already in the article (found in other subsections) already make clear that the religious and linguistic differences are found along the Rhine river, not the Dutch/Belgian border. A simple note, I'd say, suffices here. If you disagree, the sourced already in the article can be repeated of course. The Jansen map (Jansen, a Dutch name) is quite properly sourced; (dated 1942) and shows where people with a Dutch surname (thus in practically all cases -at least some- ancestry) can be found. Sounds quite logical to me. The Scandinavian section spoke about Dutch merchants (by definition no settlers), and a minute (and highly local) Dutch settling in Sweden. I did not see the relevance of that section to this article, and would say it belongs in the Dutch diaspora section. If you disagree, you can, as always, open a new section and list your arguments there.HP1740-B (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

When an overarching, 'national' identity arose in the Habsburg Netherlands, when inhabitants began to refer to it as their 'fatherland' and were beginning to be seen as a collective political entity abroad; however, traditional strife between towns, and provincial particularism continued to form an impediment to more thorough unification. This is not a sentence. As usual, HP1740-B is so eager to have the text reflect his own POV that he makes a syntactical mess of an article in an encyclopedia that aspires to be taken seriously. That is just annoying. More disturbing is the fact that in In the course of history the Dutch grew from a largely rural society to one of the most urbanized in the world, with 50% of the total population already living in cities by 1500 AD.[25], the specific reference to Holland was deleted while the source was retained, as if it supports the new, heavily modified statement, which it does not. Willful manipulation of sources can't be a good thing. Undoing all revisions since January 28, 15:42. Iblardi (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

When a sentence isn't grammatically correct, correct it. If a reference appears misinterpreted, correct it. That's how you solve those problems, not by reverting to an even crappier and less sourced version. The time you spend on this talk page posting suggestive remarks, could indeed be much better spend.HP1740-B (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding: Well there there, I've done what you could have already done. It can all be so easy ... when you want it to be of course. HP1740-B (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, or so I thought, I was illustrating a general tendency with the help of two specific examples. I am sorry to see that it didn't some across. Iblardi (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re When a sentence is not grammatically correct, correct it.

Sorry but this is misinterpretation of rights and duty.

If a section is not duly referenced (the duty of the original editor), provide the reference, and only as a last resort replace the section.....

If a section is not grammatically correct (the duty of the original editor), correct the grammar, and only as a last resort replace the section.....

I see a nice, but ironic asymmetry in your demand for other editors to support your incomplete edits (i.e. grammatically incorrect), while you claim the right to discard the incomplete work of other editors (i.e. referencing not complete). You may think about my opinion that a lot of the aggression shown to your actions is caused by these assymetric approach to editing rights and duties for you compared to other editors. Arnoutf (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a matter of personal good will, apparently Iblardi though it more worthwhile to revert (along with numerous other (perfectly fine) changes and complain on talk then to simply make 2 small corrections. A problem more people here have.HP1740-B (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have worked with Iblardi on many articles and have had no serious problems with him, although we do not always agree. There has never been a reason to loose mutual good will between us (I hope Iblardy agrees here as I am speaking on his behalf as well towards me).

Personal good will is again a symmetric thing. Especially when two people disagree, respect, politeness and empathy for the others point of view/ideas are essential for good will. This does not mean you have to agree; only respect and politeness and understanding is asked for. By imposing recent massive changes (as well as previous behaviour on this article) and your rather blunt and offensive talk page edits, you have destroyed much initial good will of many editors towards you. You can only expect good will towards you if you also show similar good will to others. Your history is evidence of rather the reverse. This is your problem, your history, not ours. Arnoutf (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW do you notice that by discussing your additions in a fair and open way (although not necessarily agreeing with them, see topics below) I am showing a lot of good will towards you, while if I wanted to make my point I would just have joined the majority of editors who are upset by your behaviour, as you have never shown the good will to discuss a section before moving in and changing it big time. Arnoutf (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In-between solution

I would like to propose a sort of compromise regarding the main discourse of the article.

Content-wise the article is presently inconsistent. The Flemings are sometimes assigned to the Dutch ethnic group, sometimes not; the DEG is on the one hand presented as a historically stable, objectively definable entity, while on the other hand there are the paragraphs (mine, mostly) about the formation of a collective identity and the slow and relatively late national unification after initial long-lived cultural diversity. Both approaches are based on radically different notions of what ethnicity means. That these differences of viewpoint can influence the content of this encyclopedia is a consequence of the fact that this subject is not described in any depth in authoritative literature, nor in recent printed encyclopedias. That this article is what it is largely results from our own different interpretations of how the concept of ethnicity applies to that of a Dutch people.

As a temporary solution for this problem of inconsistency, I propose that we ‘objectify’ (or rather, indicate as subjective) these diverging opinions by explicitizing their sources in the main discourse instead of simply stating them as fact and legitimizing them by way of a supporting reference in a footnote. I think, for instance, that large portions of the text fairly accurately represent the concepts of Pieter Geyl and some of his contemporaries (e.g., the attempt to give a comprehensive history of all Dutch-speaking people, and their subdivision in a number of cultural groups). In this case, the whole section should be presented as the vision of Geyl, Gerretson and other historians of this period. If these views have been subjected to criticism, this should be mentioned. On the other hand, if modern anthropologists think that national unification is somehow relevant to the subject of ethnicity, this should also be explicitized. If others criticize this view, it should be given due weight as well. This would render a much more consistent and objective article, simply by clarifying that several approaches are possible. Discussions can continue on the talk page, but this way we can at least create a stable version which includes all points of view for the time being. Could we agree on that? Iblardi (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration

The illusive nature of opposition and agreement and conflict that runs through the various interrelations of men should be a prime interest to us all. To forcibly present changes from an assummed position of dominance is contrary to collaborative editing and is doomed to failure. This is not a duel! We have worked together to create a commendable article. Consider that fact when we speak to each other. As with all articles on WikiPedia it is a work in progress...and always will be! --Buster7 (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

recent User:IslandShaker is, more than likely, a vandal and has been reported to AIV...--Buster7 (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Serious problem in new history section

The new history section has a serious problem. It's structure is circular.

It starts with a long (I think unduly long) section on ancient roots, than goes on to the first Dutch state in the 1600's and the Batavian myth..... to switch back to the middle ages and even migration time (which has been discussed before the 16th century part).

This is definitely a problem, and a sign that the massive changes, at least in that spot make the article worse, not better (note this is not a referencing issue, but just plain bad structuring making the whole section circular; which in my opinion is reason to remove circular bits). This needs to be urgently, and quickly solved. My personal preference would be revert to the version of history of a few days back but if someone wants to accept the challenge to solve this problem in a fair way (ie merging not deleting one of the overlapping bits of text) I am willing to wait a day or so before reverting this section back to a older version. Arnoutf (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Thing is, objectively speaking the Batavian myth, is a myth ... furthermore it has to do with nationalism/nationhood, not ethnicity. As does the section of national consciousness. I guess, it might be best (structurally speaking) to remove those two bits, and create a new 'identity' section in which those things are placed. This should allow the history section to have a better flow, structurally, following which its contents should be checked for continuity as well.HP1740-B (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you had read only one modern book on ethnicity you would agree that such myths do matter. The objectivist idea of ethnic groups being naturally coterminous with linguistic, cultural and genetic boundaries, however 'obvious' it might seem at first sight, lacks scientific basis. As a general remark pertaining to this entire discussion, I think it is absurd that Wikipedia should try to outsmart anthropologists, who are generally very careful in their approach of this subject. We should not try to reinvent science, only present our material in accordance with mainstream opinions. And the prevailing opinion is that ethnicity is primarily a matter of (subjective) group identification. Iblardi (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Genetics section

The relation genetics, ethnicism is dubious at best. The history of the 20th century made this issue politically very incorrect.

If we want to include such a section, that section should start with several authoritive (obviously non-racist) scientific sources, who support that genetics is relevant to discuss in the context of ethnic groups.

Without such meta-level arguments about the relevance of the genetics section it cannot be included as its relevance is unsourced. Whether the details are unsourced is in that case irrelevant, whether or not these are referenced (I can find references about the Dutch railroad system but that does not make that information a relevant addition to this article) Arnoutf (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic groups have genes, I don't see any objection to listing them. If anything such a section gives a long term view on what is essentially ancestry. The notion that a certain set of genes automatically makes you a part of a certain ethnic group is wrong; I don't think that's what that section claims.HP1740-B (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the logic of the response is seriously flawed. All humans have genes, so indeed ethnic groups have genes. However; all humans (at least alive humans) and thus ethnic groups have heads, but I don't see a reason to add a section describing the human head in detail; as the relevance for the Dutch ethnic group that the Dutch do indeed have heads has any relevance to the article.

Similarly the genetics sections has to show that the genes of the Dutch are information that is relevant to this specific article. Arnoutf (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

All humans have genes, not all humans have identical genes. The Dutch have a 'genetic area', the positioning of which provides interesting information on how their ancestry (an essential part of an ethnic group and what the genes here are about) relates to other populations.HP1740-B (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually your statement

"The Dutch have a 'genetic area', the positioning of which provides interesting information on how their ancestry (an essential part of an ethnic group and what the genes here are about) relates to other populations"

Could be a start to provide this information. (Note that this information is not currently included in the article).

The genetics section is now only discussing and sourcing the 'genetic area'. The relation to "ancestry" ie, the current genetic area is usefully related to long term ancestry has to be made explicitly as an argument to include genetics. An additional reference confirming that ancestry is indeed relevant to the Dutch ethnic group would be great to complete the argument for genetics. As of now the last two are "missing links" in the argument. In my view both links are essential. Arnoutf (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with censoring anything related to genetics because it's "politically incorrect". This site is not treehuggers.com, genetics are interesting.

At the same time, HP1740, the image you've created on the genetics sections is poorly sourced, please provide additional sources that we can verify. Such as It is based on research by the Erasmus University Medical Center (Manfred Kayser) in the Netherlands, and the New York Times article on their findings. we need an actual link to that.Grey Fox (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that I do not advocate censoring Wikipedia. I only ask for a reference stating that genetics are indeed relevant to ethnicity in general, and preferably additional support for their importance for the Dutch in specific. As this relation is likely to be challenged (whether that is on grounds of political correctness or other is irrelevant) such a reference should be provided.

Treehuggers ;-) are also interesting; yet there is not section on them in this article (even considering that Princess Irene of the Netherlands can be counted as one). Why there is no such section..... Simply because no reference relating treehuggership to the Dutch people is given. For that same reason Genetics has to go, unless a reference is given linking it to the article. Arnoutf (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's is your source Arnout; dictionary.com :). "ethnicy" is also about origin and race. That's exactly what genetics deal with. Grey Fox (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree about that definition, that only shifts the problem down one step; especially race is controversial in relation to genetics when talking about humans. From the Race (classification of human beings) article I derived the following line given high quality references that say that human species is too related to distinguish races: " It is often stated that human genetic variation is low compared to other mammalian species, and it has been claimed that this should be taken as evidence that there is no natural subdivision of the human population.

I understand what you mean but that's irrelevant because this page is not about subdivision of the human population but only about a people. Ethnicy is based on several things such common ancestry. Do you love your family? You probably do. What distinguishes family from other people, such as friends? That's closest ancestry. This is where ethnicy is based on, a group of people who are; one big family. In a family you can adopt a child who then becomes a family member. Still they are often distinguished by titles such as "adopted child" and their real parents are refered to as "biological parents". The same goes for those people that have migrated into the Netherlands and have become Dutch citizens. Culturally they've often, but not always, become Dutch, but ethnically they're not. The same goes for our royal family, which, just like with many royal families world-wide, is often of mixed ancestry. Still they've contributed a lot to Dutch culture and history. Grey Fox (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The "One Big Family" concept may work for small groups of hunter-gatherers, but do you think that 13 to 22 million Dutch-speaking people really 'love' each other as if they were all brothers and sisters on account of their genes? I do not recognize that picture in Dutch society. More generally speaking, though, genetics and ethnicity do have some common ground, but it is never a one-on-one relationship. Individuals who resemble members of an existing ethnie, for instance, may be accepted relatively easily as members of that same ethnie, even if they are not necessarily very closely related. In such cases it is physical appearance rather than phenotype that matters. Moreover, it does not become clear from genetical studies what single genetical trait are shared by all Dutch-speakers and is not present in at least some of the German, English or French areas. Iblardi (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It seem our disagreements is more like shades of grey; with just a little difference, rather than a black-white issue. We are both looking to some position of this issue, me from a "genetics" is of minor importance but need to be mentioned; you perhaps more from a point of view "genetics" is part of definition of ethnic, but not the only important element. (ie we both think there should be some, but not undue attention to it).

My main point where we seem to differ is, that this whole genetics, ethnic, race, descent etc issues is all a very fine line between truth and untruth; one we should treat exceptionally carefully because of sensitivity. Arnoutf (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is especially true for the Dutch group. I used to know someone whose parents came from Czechoslovakia. Yet, because there was no notable difference in appearance compared to other Dutch people, and because he wore a surname which sounded remarkably like a Dutch one and spoke perfectly Dutch, he was considered just as 'Dutch' as anyone else. There are many such cases, and they are not restricted to light-skinned, fair-haired individuals; even African or Asiatic children who are adopted by a Dutch family at a very early age are likely to feel, and be considered by their peers, Dutch, not because of their biological roots, but because of their acquired language and cultural values (which they share with all other children of Dutch parents). The Dutch are not an restrictive ethnic group at all, and genetic maps do not tell us all that much about Dutch ethnicity. Iblardi (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

One big family was just a bizarre example to help you understand why people take pride in their herritage Iblardi. Of course you may decide for yourself how important herritage is. Herritage can be like a religion, people are interested in what their forefathers did, and what their nation did as a whole. Some care, others don't. The last bit you said is not true, the map upload by HP shows that Dutch, just like many other ethnicies in europe do have their own genetic traits, and the research related to that map showed that its possible to identify someone with a dutch background merely by looking at genetics. I remember this was once done in a murder case too. Grey Fox (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I know it's a metaphore, that is why I put it between quotation marks. I understand that people are interested in their cultural heritage, their ancestry, or their national history, but it is a big leap to assume that this is based on a feeling of literal kinship. It should be proven that this is actually a common notion among Dutch people, which is impossible - unless you want to consider the ideas of rare right-fringe groups as representative for the whole society. Chauvinism, on the other hand, is easier to identify.

I once read that in certain remote areas of the world, when men from two different tribes meet, they will kill each other unless they are able, by an exchange of questions and answers, to trace their bloodline back to some common ancestor, in which they ultimately always seem to succeed. I think that, if you want to focus on genes, you could call this ethnicity in its purest form. You might want to apply this same situation to, for instance, two modern-day Dutchmen who, while on a holiday (I'll use another bizarre example) find out that they have been raised in the same small village. They will most probably be delighted to find someone with the same general background, who shares some of their own memories, sympathies, acquaintances. They might be even more delighted to find out that they share some kinship tie, if only because the odds are so small. This still might pass for being 'ethnic' in some sense. But I don't see how you can extrapolate this to the whole of the Dutch "ethnic group". As far as my experience goes, and I do not see any evidence of the opposite, shared cultural background is a much more important factor in generating feelings of 'relatedness', be it metaphorically, than race. Iblardi (talk)

I'm not aware of any sensitivity. Throughout my life I've often spoken friendly with people about their background and I never met anyone who disliked doing that. Your story about a czech/slovak person is based on your personal experience rather than truth. I've also had a slovak friend actually, and I was able to guess she was from a different background than ethnic dutch people. They are a slavic people, and although western slavs are harder to distinguish from southern or eastern slavs, they are still identifiable, especially when they form a group or a family. From my personal experience in pretty much every case people from a different ethnicy, or only partially, felt culturally dutch, but still took pride in their heritage. If they're allowed to take pride in their heritage, then so are we. There's nothing politically incorrect about it. Grey Fox (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was especially speaking of individuals who had become completely acculturated, not groups, which indeed tend to be more easily identifiable by their different behaviour, clothing and the like. Iblardi (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

---

The genetics section is also a good indication why it is a bad idea to lump the Flemish and the Dutch together in this article. All the referenced genetics research is only about the Netherlands, not about the Dutch and Flemings together. To present these findings then as being about the Dutch ànd the Flemings (i.e. the supposed ethnic group) is not correct. And talking about the sources: the first one gives me a 404 error, the second is a commercial text (though based on scientific ones, but not really the best source), the third is an at first glance completely unreliable page from a genealogy site at freewebs: no author, no peer review, no sources, ... The fourth is a reliable source, but I coulkd at first glance not find the connection with the text and the percentages it is supposed to source. The last source, from Science, is of course a reliable source, but again has no clear connection with the text. The text after which the reference is placed is "The latter is found more frequently in East of the Netherlands.", but the text makes no distinction at all between regions inside the Netherlands. After the earlier experiences we had with the rather liberal use and interpretation of sources by HP-1740B, I suggest we don't trust any of his sources and don't fall for his "my version is better because it is sourced" claims again... Fram (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes the section could do with improvement. Grey Fox (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Map

The file File:Genetic Map of Europe Dutch highlighted.png, included the genetics section: it is supposedly not original research, but we are completely unable to judge its accurateness or even its source adequately. I propose to remove it until we have a better indication of what exactly it is based on (a complete genetic makeup? Not likely...) Fram (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

HP indeed did not provide direct links to it. I did google Manfred Kayser which shows that the sources seem genuine. See here[1] here[2] and here[3]. Grey Fox (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a bit worried though that he has again interpreted "own work" quite liberally, as he did with the Jansen map. The "self made computer drawing" happens to generate the exact same effect as the New York Times map, with the same shapes and colours, but with the English language abbreviations replaced by Dutch ones. I don't think that you can just take the results of a scientific study and replace the labels, but perhaps I'm too strict here... Fram (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to agree with Fram, this is just too much a redrawing of the original artwork; the colours and labels are the same; the traces are exactly the same (but Finland was left out).

My main problem lies in the shapes where the arrangement, shape and colour are too much the same, which makes me pretty sure this is not original work (I am sure the original tables, or scatter plots can be represented in different ways, and making the country shape part of the graph is definitely an artist impression and hence under copyright).

Besides these obvious problems, on top of that an error has occurred in the Wikipedia map as the axis labels "vector" have a distincly different meaning compared to the labels in the original map "eigenvector". Arnoutf (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed

After the above discussion and looking again at the sources, I have removed the whole section. I am of the opinion that a well-sourced section on genetics certainly has its place in an article on ethnicity. However, with three poor sources, and two decent sources that did not support the facts they were supposed to reference, there was nothing left in the section that was reliable. It is better to have no section on genetics than to have a completly unreliable secton on it, so I have removed it. Fram (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Good! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove all you want, it will be restored eventually. It's important, and sources will be added.HP1740-B (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Make sure these source: (a) are of high quality (b) support the claim genetics is a relevant element to look at the Dutch people. Otherwise, the sources are not relevant for the re-insertion of the section. Thanks. Arnoutf (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Statistics section

This section has several severe problems that should be solved immediately, or alternatively the related parts deleted

1. There are duplicate pie charts
2. Identical pie charts represents different Dutch people, i.e. descendants of the Dutch, expat Dutch in one; and people living in the Dutch region in the other. This implies there are about the same amount of Dutch people living outside the Dutch speaking regions, compared to these within (by the size of the pies). The numbers are too little prominent to overcome this first impression (a prime example as illustrated in: How to lie with statistics)
3. Identical pie charts imply areas represent the same number of people, with the same status. The Excluded Netherlands and Belgium chart implies there are many, many more Dutch living in the USA, and again many many more Dutch living in South Africa than in Belgium. Another prime example of lying with statistic representations
4. Referencing is seriously lacking. Only the 16M Dutch in the Netherlands are given a source, none of the numbers, nor the graphs are given a reference. Arnoutf (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Fixed.
2. Indeed, I think the introductory text explains this. But it probably could be made more clear.
3. The number is listed in the bottom right corner. They might have similar percentages, but they're not identical.
4. The pie charts are based and the infobox (whose numbers all have references). I guess notes could be added to explain this to avoid further confusion concerning the validity. HP1740-B (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re 4: I think the actual references should be copied into this section, if alone to prevent changes of references in one section to invalidate the other.

Re 2 and 3. While I know that no "false information" is presented, the implied information (by choice of same size pies, same colours etc) is false. If you consider the proverd: "an image says as much as a thousand words" the images (without words) convey the image about 100 fold stronger than the provided legends and contextualising text. This is basically what the book How to lie with statistics has large sections on (the book is on how stats are often presented implying things that are not actually there, and that while the factual content is correct, the perceived message is essentially false). In other words, I am not at all convinced the pie charts as presented do provide the information in an objective way. Personally I would prefer only the single pie with all Dutch people in; where colours distinguish between Dutch in Dutch speaking regions (green?) and Dutch and their desencdents not in Dutch speaking countries (blue; red?). As a bonus; that would make comparison between Belgium Dutch and US Dutch actually possible!. Arnoutf (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on new graphs, they'll be ready in due time. HP1740-B (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dutch vs. Flemings in intro (again)

In his recent revert to his personally preferred version, HB reintroduced this section

The Dutch-speaking community in Belgium is sometimes included in the Dutch ethnic or cultural group, due to the common language, and partially shared culture and history, whereas other sources list the Flemish as an ethnic group (though neither listed sources further substantiates its claims) and with yet others stating they are a community rather than an ethnic group.

Now, the first quote does not support the inclusion of Flemings in the Dutch ethnic or even cultural group at all (it lists them as linguistically Dutch only), and the second quote is a very weak extrapolation of a source not really about the ethnicity of either group. Removing these two sources (again, as was the consensus in some discussion on this page already) leaves no basis for the rest of the section at all: Flemings are generally not considered as ethnically Dutch in the major sources available, and the large majority does not self-identify as Dutch either. The two groups are closely related, obviously, but that is not the point. Whether the Flemings are indeed an ethnic group or not is not the topic of this article. I propose to remove this section of the intro again completely as giving undue weight to a point of view (Flemings as part of the Dutch ethnic group) which has received little attention and even less support in reliable sources. Fram (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. In any case the intro should be a summary of the main points of the article. I think the whole relation Flemish-Dutch people deserves some discussion in the article. Only if it proves to be one of main topics in the article, which it is not right now, can we include it in the intro. So my suggestion would be. Remove this text from the introduction. Build an agreed upon main-article section on the relation Dutch-Flemish, and only then re-evaluate whether that has grown of sufficient importance for the whole article to warrant inclusion of a summary thereof in the intro. Arnoutf (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Fram and Arnoutf...the Flemish-Dutch relationship is not primary nor is it necessary to mention in the introduction.--Buster7 (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I am inclined to think that the problem is relevant enough to be mentioned in the lead; in- or exclusion of the Flemings would have repercussions for large parts of the content, especially those on history and culture. It may be better to decide, and then make explicit, whether the article is describing the 13 million 'ethnically Dutch' (using, in fact, the definition of 'autochthonous' according to the CBS) inhabitants of the Netherlands or the 19 million of the Netherlands and Belgium together, but this would require a lot of effort, and I do not see this happen in the near future. Therefore I support the current status quo as a second-best option. Iblardi (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we both see the same "perfect" article; one where the Dutch/Belgium issue is discussed in depth in the main text, with a summary thereof in the lead. Our opinion seems to differ what the best temporary/intermediary level article is; so on my count this will be more of a discussion of the means HOW to get to the better article, than having disagreement about the final state of this issue in the article Arnoutf (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the presence of this text in the lead is more congruent with the article's current content, intermediary or not, than its absence would be. This is my position. I do consider this a relatively minor issue, and if a majority feels the text needs to go, I will not block any movement in that direction. Iblardi (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I put my position (that it is not yet a good reflection of the body text) above, but I also think this is a minor issue; so will not make an issue out of it. Arnoutf (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I had removed those sources before, because they don't at all back up the given claim. It was restored by HP1740-B's mass reverting back in of all his original research. Nothing has changed and the sources still don't back up said claim. In the meantime I did bother to do some research myself. I've found one book which does claim that the dutch and flemish "should be the same ethnic group". At the same time I've also found many books articles desribing the flemish as a distrinct ethnic group. None of this is contradictory; the flemish and dutch are indeed closely related. There's some who've alleged there are slight differences in the ancestry of the two, others have said this is not the case. Anyway two distinct ethnic groups can still have the same ancestry and at the same time remain distinct ethnic groups.

I understand the controversy around this, mainly because what HP174-B has done is not just promote this idea of shared ethnicy, he's also labeled the flemish as "dutch". I don't think as a Dutchman I would enjoy being called "flemish" either. Usually when two ethnic groups or societies have a common ancestry and are labeled as a single ethnic group, the name of that ethnic group is not the same as the title of the two split groups. For example, in the caucasus you have the Chechens and the Ingush. Often seen as a single ethnic group, as one people they are called Vainakhs. In the case of the Dutch and the Flemish, a correct shared ethnic name would not be "Dutch", or "Flemish people" but something else such as "netherfranks" (making something up).

In the end only genetic studies can prove whether or not the Dutch and Flemish have the exact same ethnic background. I can think of two influinces that may have made a difference. There is sometimes a theory that the Flemish have had celtic influinces (at the same time the same goes for the Dutch) and the Dutch are also intermixed with the Frisians and the Saxons, whereas these ethnic groups were further away from flanders (although this does not necessarily prove anything, they could have still intermixed). There's also some clear differences in appearances between the two groups. There's a large height difference, and blue eyes in flanders are a lot less common. At the same time the language border between flanders and wallonia has been very old, whereas I have no idea what decided the border between the present-day flanders and netherlands.

Most important now is to not present either as fact, and we should instead work it all out in its own section. The images by HP1740-B which do not have proper sources and which make it seem like the flemish=dutch should not be used, or only in an adjusted version, because it only promotes his personal believe in one theory. Grey Fox (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I follow and agree with almost your whole argument except I would add some caution with "In the end only genetic studies can prove whether or not the Dutch and Flemish have the exact same ethnic background.". Genetics and shared ancestry are only one part of the definition of ethnicity; shared values and cultural-group self identification are at least as important. Arnoutf (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I said ethnic background, that refers to ancestry. The fact that ancestry is part of ethnic background is enough already. Furthermore it's used more often to define races or ethnic relations, for example during a research that revealed that Jews and Palestinians are closely related. This seems to have more to do with your personal idea that discussing genetics is "controversial". Grey Fox (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of such research, but wouldn't that rather prove the opposite point? That genetics are not necessarily an indication of ethnic identity at all? (My guess is that Jews and Palestinians do not see themselves as especially related ethnically.) Iblardi (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case the result was that they were different ethnic people, but are part of the same race (semetic people) and that, just like in europe, the boundaries between such are small. I remember the same results for Yugoslav people.

Anyway I do agree with part of Arnout's assasment. Even if its proven that the Dutch and Flemish have common descent, they could still be listed as two seperate ethnic groups, and instead be classified in a larger categorization that encompasses both ethnic groups as one, or at least very closely related. If we want to discuss the importance of ancestry/genetics further let's do it in the dedicated section. Grey Fox (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently there's only one source backing the idea that Flemish=Dutch in the introduction, and the source says "The Dutch, also called Flemings, and Walloons acquired a deep-seated mutual antagonism." This says nothing at all about said statement so this source can go as well. Furthermore I've done some book searches, and the listing of the flemish as an ethnic group is used constantly. At the same time there's many sources stating that the dutch and flemish are closely related, not only by language but also common ancestry.

The only source I've been able to find that states the theory of a larger ethnic group is the following: However, one of the Dutch-speaking provinces--Flanders--was held by the French king at that time, and so did not become part of the Netherlands. Yet, the people of Flanders are Dutch and hold Dutch customs. When, however, the French kingdom was overthrown, a small portion of it remained seperate. The nation-state of Belgium emerged, composed of French people--The Walloons-- and Dutch people--the Flemish people. In distrinction to the mostly Protestant Netherlands, the Belgians are mostly Catholic; this Catholic heritage is what the Flemings and Walloons share. By ethnic group, the people of Flanders should be part of the Netherlands and the Walloons part of France. Instead, a billingual, bicultural nation emerged. Ref: Social Problems in Global Perspective Door Ronald M. Glassman, William H. Swatos, Barbara J. Denison Page 348

This source does promote the idea that the Flemish are not a distinct ethnic group and instead are part of the larger Dutch ethnic group. At the same time it should not become the main theory of this page because it contradicts the hundreds of pages that speak of the Flemish as a distinct ethnic group.

In conclusion I propose to write the paragraph of the lead like this: The Flemish people of Belgium are speakers of the same language and a closely related ethnic group of the Dutch, sometimes considered to be part of a larger Dutch ethnic group.

Then we work everything out carefully in its own section. At the same time we don't promote the theory that Flemish are Dutch with the use of images. Grey Fox (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding that source I would like to observe that the authors, besides using very uncommon terminology, appear to be very, very badly informed on matters of Belgian history. Iblardi (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Such as? That might be a reason to disqualify it for this article yes. Grey Fox (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a little difficult, because it is also unclear. If I read it correctly it seems to imply that Belgium somehow emerged directly from the French kingdom when it was 'overthrown', whatever that may mean. In reality there is no such connection between the two. This is fairly common history class material. Iblardi (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed Timeline Belgium since 1648 (Habsburg Belgium) 1794 (Annexed by French Republic - later French Empire) 1815 (together with current Netherlands as United Kingdom of the Netherlands) 1830 (independent from the Netherlands as Belgium) Arnoutf (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the writers are refering to the Belgian Revolution. Grey Fox (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Then it doesn't make sense either. My best guess is that they mean to say that after the fall of Napoleon (France), the United Kingdom of the Netherlands included a French-speaking area within the restored pre-1793 (Southern Netherlands) borders. It looks like a rather blurry interpretation of European history. Iblardi (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've found new material, supporting and treating this subject rather thoroughly, which I will implement in time.HP1740-B (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a wild guess: could this 'new' material be Pieter Geyl's Geschiedenis van de Nederlandsche Stam..? Iblardi (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the introduction, what about the following modifications?

First paragraph, current form:

The Dutch people (Dutch: ) are the dominant ethnic group of the Netherlands.

Proposed re-write (as a more general introduction):

The Dutch (Dutch: ) are a people native to the Netherlands, a country in north-western Europe.

7th paragraph, current form:

The Dutch-speaking community in Belgium is sometimes included in the Dutch ethnic or cultural group, due to the common language, and partially shared culture and history, whereas other sources list the Flemish as an ethnic group.

Change to:

Historically, especially when used in the context of the Burgundian and Habsburg Netherlands, 'Dutch' can sometimes refer to all Dutch-speaking inhabitants of the Low Countries.

This may remove most controversial material from the lead. Any present-day implications resulting from the latter phrase are left implicit, thus including the possibility of a discussion further below in the article. Iblardi (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. No, they ARE the dominant ethnic group. Native to the Netherlands is disputable. A great number of "ethnic Dutch" were not native to the Netherlands, and adding to that it makes it seem (no doubt intentionally) as if "ethnic Dutch" and an "inhabitant of the Netherlands" are the same.HP1740-B (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
2. 2. No, the use of Dutch for "Dutch-speaker" as you call them goes way past the Habsburg period.HP1740-B (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with Iblardi that we maybe able to remove a lot of problems through more careful wording, I agree with HP1740-B's remark 1). I think it is important that we make clear that when we say Dutch, we mean the most important and largest group of people in the Netherlands.

The second part of HP1740-B remark 1 I don't completely understand. I think Iblardi means the group as group is native in the Netherlands (ie the Netherlands is homeland of the group); which is something else from individual members of that group. I think there is some misunderstanding here; and I think the wording has to be chosen in a way to clarify this.

With regards to HP140-B second comment. I again think there is a misunderstanding caused by wording. I read Iblardi's statement as "Historically Dutch can refer to all Dutch speaking Lowlanders. Exampes where this is most frequently encountered is in discussion of Burgundian and Habsburg Netherlands (but that does not mean its usage is confined to this time period). If my interpertation is indeed what Iblardi means, I think there is no disagreement, if not, I would agree with HP1740-B on this topic. In any case, again I think rewording maybe needed to avoid confusion. Arnoutf (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to simplify the intro for the average user who might want to find out something about the Dutch without getting bombarded with theories of Dutch ethnicity from the outset. The original first sentence was my own, but it is not a good way to start an article. I was indeed referring to the Dutch as a group, as Arnoutf interprets it. The last sentence is not really meant to be restrictive but rather to introduce some of the historical context. I also wasn't sure if the term is used for the earlier or later periods. (I do not mean whether the word "Dutch" (Dietsch, Nederlandsch) is historically attested to for these periods, but whether it is used by modern historians to refer to both Dutch and Flemings.) A rephrasing might be in order. Iblardi (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Medieval Man

The following are assorted comments from Zoe Oldenburg's The Crusades. Granted that they relate to the area of the Low Countries during the period immediately preceding the Crusades and 500+ years before any aforementioned timeline. But, they seem to fit and provide a broad picture for our topic...

• Page 1......the differences between life as it is for us and as it was for our ancestors...we are unaware of a great many of the facts which, even across the impassaable mountain range of the past, might show us the explanation of many of the "errors" which in those days passed as truth.
• Page 10...These nobles were, for the most part, of Frankish or Germanic origin. Four centuries after the Germanic peoples first appeaed in Gaul, Spain, and northern Italy, the descendants of the invaders still formed the aristocracy of the conquered lands. The mingling of the various races took place quite smoothly but very slowly, since the Germanic peoples had not arrived as conquering armies but in nomadic tribes, bringing their wives and children with them. The barbarians were gradually assimilated, but they remained ther dominant race and the word "Frank" became synonymous with "free",......"
• Page 10...Over the centuries, the descendants of the Franks, Visogoths, Burgundians, and the rest lost all memory of their former religions and languages.....and the great Frankish families were actually more anxious to trace Roman ancestry for themselves than to boast of their barbarian origin...The European nobles remained in blood, and still more in mind, more Germanic than Latin.
• Page 11. The Northman very soon ceased to be an enemy and was accepted as a relative in blood and spirit....."
• Page 11. Racial memory is short...and it is language and religion rather than racial stock which define a nation..."

The above seemed to fit where we are in our search for a better article.--Buster7 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem in my view is that this would hold for almost all of north-western Europe, basically everything in the (large) area North West of the line Gdansk-Berlin-Basel-Lyon-Paris-Cherbourg. In other words, hardly specific for the Dutch. Of course if you have very clear indications in the text this is much more limited, feel free to mention. Arnoutf (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked it up and most often I've read is that the Dutch descent from the Frankish, Saxons and Frisians. It's true that the frankish empire extended further than the low countries, but that's the only area fully inhabitated by franks, and in other countries they only formed a minority. Grey Fox (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We have to be extremely careful not to confuse Nation and Ethnicity here. In any case, in Belgium, and Luxembourg the descent is the same; ie that origin is almost exclusively from Franks, Saxons and Frision. In Germany and France it can be debated whether it is actually a minority; but there are definitely more tribes involved. Arnoutf (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not luxembourg I think. Neither Wallonia. It's only Flemish and Dutch of which the descent is the same (which is before they became seperate ethnic groups). Not Netherlands exclusively no. France, Wallonia and Germany also had influince from Franks yes, but as you say there are many more tribes involved there. Not in the Netherlands/Flanders where they only descent from Franks, Saxons and Frisians. Just as how the English descent comes from the three tribes, Angles, Saxons and Jutes only. see Anglo-Saxons. Grey Fox (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it may be a little more complicated. We call those tribes Frisians, Franks and Saxons because that is what the Frankish chroniclers called them. You have to realize however that: [1] what we call 'tribes' were often political confederations of different smaller autochthonous groups, which is certainly the case for the early Franks; [2] tribes were not monolithic entities: the tribal name was often carried by an aristocracy that had subjected a local population, as was probably the case with the Saxons; [3] it is not impossible that the early medieval Frisians descended from Saxon immigrants who took the place of the original population, which might have migrated to the area of modern-day Holland during the 5th century. In general, there is a lot of uncertainty about the ethnic configuration of the Low Countries in the early Middle Ages. Iblardi (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but it's pretty well documented. I've done a little research on it. First the Frisii were possibly an older tribe than the Saxons and they certainly weren't just saxon migrants. Their language was also different and they've lived side-by-side for a long time.

The franks were a merger of several old tribes: The Salii, Sicambri, Chamavi, Bructeri, Chatti, Chattuarii, Ampsivarii and the Batavians. (most who before that lived within present-day dutch borders, others in west germany). They formed an ethno-linguistic group and spoke the old frankish language which would later become old dutch. The borders in which they lived can be defined by the language borders. In the south the language border coincided more or less with the present-day language border between flanders and wallonia.[4] (very intersting book). To the north-west the border was between the franks and the frisians. To the south-east mostly the rhine river. To the north-east with the saxons (the present-day border between the netherlands and germany is almost identical as the old border of the saxons).

Franks fought their way south and conquered gaul, but franks settling in gaul adapted romance languages and formed only a minority (also from the same book), though the franks there had a lot of influince on the french language. French people descent from franks too, but far less than the dutch/flemish because they also descent from hundreds of different celtic and eventually roman tribes too. The same goes for germany who descent from far more germanic tribes that never entered the netherlands.

So yes the dutch and flemish do descent from the franks. My question is only how much the saxons and frisians influinced what would become the dutch&flemish. The saxons lived primarily in Germany, I do not know how many lived in the modern day provinces Drenthe & Groningen. They might also all have Frisian ancestry, but I'm not sure since the Frisians still exist as a distinct ethno-linguistic group. That's what I'll try to find out next. Grey Fox (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, that is the polished, classic story taught at school, which is in fact mostly based on relatively scanty accounts and a lot of interpretation in retrospect. These 'facts' are not so well-documented and thoroughly researched as history books sometimes make it seem. (In fact, most popular, non-specialized history books tend to copy each other's content rather uncritically.) In the 19th century, for instance, it was assumed on no firm basis that modern dialect boundaries naturally coincided with those of these three ancient tribes, which are mentioned rather sporadically by Roman and Byzantine historiographers and chroniclers. With few written accounts to go by, we would need more supporting evidence from archeology, which has not been able to confirm the image of a clear-cut cultural division between Franks, Frisians and Saxons to date. Therefore we must be careful when we speak of 'the' Franks and 'the' Saxons, and any supposedly deeply-rooted ancestries associated with them. Iblardi (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not taught at school. Your disbelieve seems to have more to do with your personal idea that there's no such thing as ethnicy. The differences between Franks, Frisians and Saxons have been well documented by historicans and archeology. Their languages have survived, so have old scripts and the only thing that makes them similar is that they were germanic tribes. Grey Fox (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Frisian/Saxon/Franks" story is a school myth. They had no to little cultural (or linguistic for that matter) differences during the time in which these people settled the Benelux.HP1740-B (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Medieval Man (cont.)

Maybe Brittanica can help us out:

Popular belief holds that the Dutch are a mixture of Frisians, Saxons, and Franks. In fact, research has made plausible the contention that the autochthonous inhabitants of the region were a mixture of pre-Germanic and Germanic population groups who in the course of time had converged on the main deltaic region of western Europe. There emerged from these groups in the 7th and 8th centuries some major polities based on certain ethnic and cultural unities that then came to be identified as Frisians, Saxons, and Franks. Grey Fox (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I concur with Britannica. Read the careful phrasing, word for word. Iblardi (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So do I. I'm careful too, but they do acknowledge the existence of the Franks, Saxons and Frisians as distinct ethnic and cultural people. Grey Fox (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And then what I wonder is how much Frisians and Saxons actually influinced the Franks and Dutch/Flemish ethnicy as a whole. Most Saxons lived outside of the present-day borders of the Netherlands, and the Frisians and Dutch have always lived side-by-side, even today. If the Frisians and Saxons would be ommited that would mean that the Dutch=Franks. Not that that's what I believe, but I'm trying to find out which groups contributed the most. Grey Fox (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Contributed in what sense? Linguistically, probably the Franks; culturally, probably a mixture of environmental factors (bottom and soil types, hydrology) and social agents like Christianity, feodalism (or the lack thereof), and later urbanization. It is not really necessary to delve into a deep tribal past to define a people. Iblardi (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean in the sense who are the main ancestors. Brittanica is careful in telling who the true ancestors are, instead calling it "popular belief". I'm sure that franks are ancestors of the dutch/flemish, but I have my doubts about the Saxons and Frisians. Grey Fox (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I used to find such questions fascinating too, but they turn out to be somewhat meaningless. Ethnicities are created and dissolve continuously, and the Frankish name is just one stage among many. For most of the country except the coastal areas, habitation has probably been fairly continuous since prehistory, with a modest influx of newcomers every now and then. Yes, probably many of the present-day Dutch and Flemings do at some point have ancestors who called themselves 'Franks', as most German people do, and even the French. (Note that both nations have laid claims to Charlemagne as 'theirs', and that the Franks' ethnonym ultimately passed to France.) Iblardi (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That has more to do with your personal opinion on ethnicy than the existance of ethnicy. The existence of Franks and Frisians were as real back then as the modern day existence of the English and the French. But I respect your opinion. Grey Fox (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, but let me clarify one thing: I do not so much believe that ethnicity is not 'real', but I think it is a subjective category of ascription (by the subject or by outsiders) rather than an objective, empirically measurable fact, which is a pretty mainstream approach among anthropologists. Iblardi (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the French, they can claim all they want :) Truth is they descent slightly from the franks, which has affected their language to a certain degree. They are a mixture of Celtic and Roman tribes. That's why they speak a Gallo-Roman language, albeit the most 'germanized' of all thanks to some Frankish influince.Grey Fox (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

With a lengthy Roman occupation of the Netherlands, we may also assume some Roman blood there.... ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, and at a certain point those ethnic distinctions get blurry and you end up finding ceremonial swords as grave-gifts in the burial chambers of 7th-century Gallo-Romans, normally associated with Germanic warrior societies. Iblardi (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, Roman occupation was mostly done with army formations and collaboration. It does not imply mixture at all. Note that immigration does alter ethnic composition slightly, unless we're speaking of mass immigration, it's mostly negligible. Grey Fox (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Collaboration" can go a long way. Zuid-Limburg was Romanized, and Maastricht and Heerlen were Roman cities. Roman villas dotted the countryside. That there was no mixture with the local population, or, put very bluntly, that there were no indigenous "moffenmeiden" during the 400 years of Roman occupation (leaving aside the fact that virtually all inhabitants of the empire gained Roman citizenship in 211) seems very unlikely. Iblardi (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice that Pax Romana was also largely about exporting fashion and culture to the local gentry; much like the Pax Americana... And how many of our local McDonalds staff members originate from the USA. So you should be a bit careful about these ideas. Nevertheless there were Romans, and there will have been mingling with the locals. Arnoutf (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the fact that the USA does not form an occupational force in the present-day Netherlands probably makes a difference. Many of the villas, for instance, seem to have been inhabited by former Roman soldiers and their descendents. At any rate, I was primarily reacting to the view stated above that there could have been no mixture at all. The exact degree may well remain unknown. Iblardi (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice my smiley ... ;-)... I think no army ever had a long occupation ever without leaving some of its DNA within the local population...... Arnoutf (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Again though In summary, though, the idea that the identity of the Germanic tribes is problematic is not something that I am making up. Let me illustrate this with two quotes:

"The fact that barbarian identity was fluid explains why it has tended to prove impossible to detect ethnic boundaries. Sharp dividing lines in the material culture evident in archaeological excavations, which we would expect if different barbarian peoples were biologically and culturally distinct, are simply not there: the boundaries between peoples which we can deduce from the written sources are invisible in the archaeology." "Most nineteenth- and twentieth-century historians saw the ‘nations’ of the present as direct descendents of a homogenous tribal forbear [..]. Even today, textbooks and popular histories trace the Anglo-Saxons or Franks as ‘our’ ancestors. For the historian […], however, the realisation that barbarian ‘peoples’ were not tribal communities bound together by blood, but political constellations […] is of paramount importance."

(Matthew Innes, Introduction to Early Medieval Western Europe, 300-900 (Abingdon 2007), 69-70)

"Er is sinds Slicher van Baths afwijzende oordeel bij ons nogal gekibbeld om de vraag of Oost-Nederland Saksisch was of niet; sinds de ontleding van het begrip ‘stam’ door Wenskus is deze discussie niet meer actueel. Zeker is wel, dat in de 8ste eeuw de politieke grens tussen Franken en Saksen aan de Gelderse IJssel lag en dat de adel rechts van de IJssel zich tot de Saksen rekende."

(D.P. Blok, De Franken in Nederland (3rd edition, Bussum 1979), 59)

For more on Wenskus' theories, see this link. Iblardi (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I never denied there was not a core of truth in my Roman remark, only that it should be taken with a pinch of salt. Genetics in relation to ethnicity is not easy in all of Europe, as the tribes/societies were not truly isolated; so strict boundaries are hard if not impossible to draw. Arnoutf (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Section "independent Dutch state"

The section "Independent Dutch state" currently states:

The Northern Dutch were now the avant-garde of Dutch culture. A practical example of this phenomenon, was the rise of painters from the North. Vermeer, Rembrandt, Hals and Steen were now the most famous Dutch painters, replacing their Southern counterparts (such as Bosch, Van Eyck and Bruegel) who had held that position in the previous era.

This has a number of problems: Bosch was a Northern Dutch painter (although the division between North and Dutch is hard to make before 1585 or so), but more importantly, this line ignores people like Rubens and Van Dyck, who were clearly Southern Dutch painters, and were as famous as e.g. Rembrandt (or in fact in their time more famous), and much more so than Jan Steen.

It is correct that the culture of the Northern Netherlands got a boost from the fleeing of many Protestants to the North, but the current article gives the impression that all famous painters were in the North in this period, while in fact they were more or less evenly divided over the two sides. Any suggestions on how to rewrite this to make it more balanced? Fram (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeroen Bosch was born in Den Bosch. Which makes him a clearly Southern painter, and not a Northern one; no idea how you came up with that one. Rubens and his pupil Van Dyke are proponents of a Southern style; a style, which despite its name shared many similarities with Northern Dutch paintings. The Southern style, Barok counter reformation painting, however had far less artists working in it. Mainly because orders were mainly placed by churches and nobility. Antwerp was its center, little to nothing was produced outside of it. How different was the situation in the Northern parts, with a multitude of painters, hubs, and rich (or wealthy) private citizens buying the art. Northern Dutch art had a larger volume, better known painters (Rubens and Van Dyke are pretty much the only Southern ones) more centers of production and was more readily available. It was the dominant painting style of the 17th century within the Low Countries, and perhaps the Western hemisphere.HP1740-B (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not simply a matter of speaking a certain dialect, which seems to be HP1740-B's main criterion here. Jeroen Bosch is a Dutch painter native to Den Bosch who was of German extraction ("Iheronymus van Aecken" ([5], [6]) - so far for ethnicity) and who partly worked in a Flemish tradition and had many Southern clients. Yet, being from Northern Brabant, he is generally considered a Northern Netherlandic painter. [7], [8] Iblardi (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not assume on my behalf. North Brabant did not exist in Bosch' lifetime, and neither did the Dutch republic which wouldn't make him fit in the links definition. He is a Southern Dutch painter, from the Southern part of the Low Countries; the Duchy of Brabant. SAT.HP1740-B (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hint: "Northern Brabant" does not equal "Noord-Brabant". Jeroen Bosch was active in the northern part of Brabant. The province, which was created much later, covers the area of Bosch' activity. Hence, presumably, the modern designation of Bosch as a 'northern' painter. Iblardi (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither did the distinction Southern Northern Netherlands exist in Bosch lifetime. If you look at the map Brabant is actually rather central; as the Low Lands included Luxembourg and Artois to the South at that time. Therefore I think naming him Southern or Northern is both flawed.

Retrospectively (i.e. in the 19th century) Bosch has been labelled Dutch painter as opposed to van Eijck, Rubens etc. who became the pride of newly created Belgium; but that is all 19th century romantic nationalism. Arnoutf (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A distinction Hollandic vs. Brabantic and Flemish may be more useful in this case. Yet I doubt whether the Northern painters were "more famous" in their own day, as they worked for a relatively small market. Iblardi (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not about geographic positioning, its about alignment to cultural hubs and traditions. Bosch was a Flemish primitive and Den Bosch was culturally orientated on Antwerp. Which at the time was the only real school and center of painting there was in the Netherlands. So he is per definition a Southern Dutch painter, not only because he lived in the south, but because he painted in a style native/developed in the South.HP1740-B (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

When not supported by sources, this remains merely your opinion. Do you also have any thoughts on the fact that the man's family came from Aachen? Iblardi (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What's with that? His 'surname' might have been 'Van A(e)ken', but his father was born in Nijmegen, the birth place of his grandfather is unknown, but both he and his son married Dutch women. That makes you Dutch by my book.HP1740-B (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Flemish was as much a pars pro toto in the late middle ages for the whole of the Netherlands, as Hollandic became for the Republic. As you can read in the Hieronymus Bosch article, his style diverted from the Flemish painters (although it was very much influenced by it). Stating that something is true "by definition" cannot be taken seriously without a strong reference, please provide it.

Re Iblardi, You are completely right, the Northern painters were definitely NOT more famous in their day. The Dutch worship of e.g. Rembrandt is another 19th century romantic nationalistic thing. Before that Rubens was seen as the great Dutch painter (but then he suddenly was no longer Dutch, so we had to find a new icon). Another example showing how useless the North-South distinction is Arnoutf (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Allright, the sentence is clearly disputed, I removed it. Fram (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Caption

In a rush! Caption for previous gallery should be deleted. Thought I did but messed it up! --Buster7 (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankish Foederati

If the map of Frankish Foederati is too be added it can only illustrate the Frankish tribe at the end of the Roman empire. Currently the article start with the rise of the Frankish empire about 2 centuries after the fall of Rome. Therefore the text does not match the text and cannot be added. Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions the Franks clearly mentioned the Franks as living as a foederatus in the Low Countries under Roman Rule.

The Franks themselves are mentioned first as a loose federation of tribes that inhabited the region north and east of the Roman limes in the 3rd century, roughly between the Rhine and the Weser, and gradually expanded into northern Gaul as the Western Roman empire collapsed in the course of the 4th and 5th centuries, first as foederati under Roman overlordship, later independently.

I have no idea what you're talking about.HP1740-B (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

you are right, I missed that. But then again, it was not that clear; as the section start with the Frankish empire, then reverts back to the Frankish foederati; to continue with stating that all of this talking about the Franks has nothing to do with the Dutch.

...first as foederati under Roman overlordship, later independently. The origin of the Dutch people itself, which emerged much later, cannot be established as easily in terms of ancient tribal societies.

So not very clear, nor internally consistent.

Reviewing this I think we should limit the ethnogenesis to about 6th century as the Migration Period created that much noise that anything prior to that is very speculative. (To be honest until I reread the foederati thing, I always had the impression we DID start at about 750-800 AD). Arnoutf (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Then it needs a (further) rewrite. Note that the quoted sentence above was already out of the article when you posted this comment. As for mentioning the foederati. I find it quite essential. It tells how the people who brought with them (among other things) the Dutch language came to the Low Countries. Though the 6th century might be very blurred, the Romans left a pretty good description where they left the Franks before that began.HP1740-B (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I find mentioning that Troy was actually in the Dutch province of Zeeland quite essential (there is even a source for that!). Finding things is rather subjective and is a very very weak argument. The problem with the Roman account in all this is that they left a pretty good description about themselves (ie the Romans) before all that began, yet after it was all over they were no longer there....... Arnoutf (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Made an effort to solve the problems listed by myself above. Further amendments are fine, but please make sure that it does not become muddled, inconsistent and unclear as it was before. Arnoutf (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Since no edits to the main revised paragraph is forthcoming, I think everyone agrees it is an improvement. In this version the Franks as foederati are however no longer mentioned, which means the map has to go. Arnoutf (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok you can add the Franks arrived as foederatii. However, for that to make sense (and hence for it to stay) one essential condition must be met. It must be shown that the pre-migration arrival of the Franks is directly related to the later Frankish empire. Otherwise these two episodes of the history of the Franks are only accidentily related to the area of what is now the Dutch and the relation of the early Frank foederati to the modern Dutch is not established (and cannot remain). Arnoutf (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Map and its errors

While I seriously doubt whether the map should be there at all (see above), I have the firm opinion that the map should be error free.
This is, in my opinion, the responsibility of the editor introducing the map into this article. If there are errors in the map, it cannot stay.
Corrections to the map are the responsibility of the editor wishing to include it (just like making sure text is well referenced). Not all editors have access to image editing software (nor should they have). Hence the request to a critic to make changes can only be that, a polite request. No demand can be made. Ever. Arnoutf (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think you accidentally removed the map when cleaning up. Anyway, if it is to return, it should be error-free in terms of spelling after Noviomagnus is changed to Noviomagus. (Magus being a Celtic word meaning "field". Although the information is readily accessible, this actually required three steps. Motto to remember for the future: "Check what you write before you place.") Iblardi (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Continuing on that more motto; I suggest you "check what you think is wrong until you comment" the map already had multiple corrections. Like I said earlier; press F5.HP1740-B (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that I was quoting your own motto, and that you could have got it right the first or second time if you had taken the trouble to look things up? Instead you made this into a quite funny episode. Iblardi (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

While you're awake, would you like to comment on the recent annexation of the Czech lands by the German dictator Adolf Hitler?HP1740-B (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There are more issues with the map. The original main branch of the Rhine in the time of the Limes was much more to the North (Utrecht-Leiden were on the Limes). This map shows the more recent main branch Waal-Lek ending in the Nieuwe Waterweg Canal dug in the 19th century [sic]. It also shows 20th century polders Noordoost polder and Flevoland.

BTW your last remark shows your sense of history. For your information, Hitler is already dead. Arnoutf (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And I forgot, thank you for providing support for Godwin's law by that remark. Arnoutf (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed he is. Welcome to the wonderful world of sarcasm. It's apt because a lot of the problems you listed, were already solved by the time you posted this comment. Snappie snappie? HP1740-B (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a general comment to your blunt edit summaries. And no far from all problems are solved, and some of them were being solved when I typed my comment. Contrary to some I don't believe, nor practice in ESP to be able to know what changes are being made elsewhere on Wikipedia while I am typing comments. By the way do you realise that making anachronous edits in talk pages is rude and confusing issue; let alone using belittling words. Snappie? Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt took you 16 minutes to produce 4 lines of text. You were more than able to know. HP1740-B (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

So were you to fix it in one go after the original remarks about the errors; and anyway file uploaded 18.14 my comment 18.22; I have no idea how you find the extra 10 minutes in there, while you should be more than able to do a simple subtraction. Arnoutf (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

your comment : 18:22 vs first correction of map addressing then known misspellings 17:57. Meaning I indeed miscalculated, but not in a way favorable to you.HP1740-B (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No these were incomplete corrections, and from your comments you showed you were not very happy about doing more. And anyway this is not about speed-editing and reading; as that would grade down this whole process to a play for which many four year olds are already to grownup (sorry if you are indeed a 4-year old) Arnoutf (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave analyzing the process of editing Wikipedia to people who actually contribute rather than people who are just here to whine and endlessly discuss the contributions of people who actually add information to the project shall we? After all they have the first hand experience that people like you (whatever your age may be) clearly lack.HP1740-B (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How nice, yet another personal attack from someone with about 7 times fewer article edits; and more than 1,000(!) times fewer involvement in developing policies and Wikipedia community discussion, compared to myself. By the way not adding information is much less harmful to the project compared to adding false information; actually "whining" about false information is much much much better than adding the false information in the first place.Arnoutf (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm 4 years old. So what are you gonna do ...HP1740-B (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Compliment you on your typing skills and stop taking you seriously for the future ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The boundary is not exactly known, but lay more to the south than in previous centuries and possibly did not lead all the way to the North Sea. An exact map will perhaps be difficult to make. But yes, showing the modern polders in a supposedly historical map is a bit odd. Iblardi (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind too much if some liberties are taken with maps, as long as these are acknowledged, and uncertainties are not very strongly emphasised (as is the Nieuwe Waterweg in this map). I have seen articles use captions like "X empire projected on a modern map showing current borders" - which makes the historical imperfection not only clear, but also informative to relate the past to the present. Arnoutf (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I DO mind however that the current version of the map, with most errors corrected, now looks incredibly ugly. I think that should also be fixed. Sorry, I know how much effort making images takes, but doing it poorly is worse than doing nothing at all. Arnoutf (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternative map showing rise of Frankish empire

I replaced the map with another map showing the rise of the Frankish empire. With that I have already accepted what in my view is an overemphasis on the early Frankish population; but to achieve consensus there is always some giving and taking.
That stated there are several reasons why this map is in my view superior to the Frankish foederati map.

1. It shows the growth of the Frankish power, and included all of the current Dutch (through showing Frankish conquest of Frisia). The Foederati map does not, and its relevance for all the Dutch is therefore less obvious
2. It shows the timeline of the Franks and their emerging empire up to the point where the cultural influence on the Dutch can be defended. It is from the Carolingian empire that Dutch law, Dutch Christianity, Dutch Schools derive; not from the earlier Frankish tribal life.
3. It looks much better compared to the other map, that due to the many (necessary) corrections now looks so bad it should not be shown in mainspace.
   

Please respond to all 3 arguments before replacing. Arnoutf (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me start with saying that the only 'reason' for removal thus far stated by you on the foederati map; is that it "is incredibly ugly"; nothing else. Then, your arguments;

1. The growth of Frankish power is of far lesser importance to the Dutch ethnic group than their settlement of their future homeland. Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire; yet Greeks still live in Greece. The same goes for the Franks; they conquered Western Europe; but only settled a very limited part of it and were assimilated everywhere else. An feat not given by the Frankish Empire map, which depicts political power and influence; rather than this all important settlement, language area and culture.
2. The cultural influence on the Dutch can be defended either way; as different parts of the future Dutch culture emerge at different points in time. Language and certain customs (including law) are already there when Christianity comes along; as they arrived around 360 AD with the Frankish Foederati. A few corrections;

• Early Dutch law was based on the laws of the Salian Franks; which are pre-Carolingian, and more importantly: native to the Low Country Region of Toxandria. (which happens to largely correspond to the Frankish foederati of 360 A.D). It was Salic Law that caused the break up of Charlemagne's Empire itself.
• Clovis was converted in 496 to Catholicism; which is Southern European/Latin rather than Carolingian or the more 'native' Arianism of other Germanic Kings. Either way, it is the act of conversion which is most important here; not the form of Christianity.

Clovis was converted to Christianity, which happened to be Catholicism, some time before 507 (the year of his campaign against the Arian Visigoths). It was this form of Christianity that would continue to play an important role in the society of the Low Countries until the Reformation and even afterwards for the southern parts. Yet Clovis did not bring Christianity to the Netherlands. This was done by conquest (early Carolingians) and missionary activities (Willibrord and Boniface) in the course of the 8th century. Iblardi (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confusing Arianism with Arminianism here ... HP1740-B (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Charlemagne's schools were based on Roman and Greek predecessors; as he tried to model his empire on the Roman Empire. Hence they are an extension of Roman influence; which already existed during the Frankish foederati status.

3. Total non argument. I don't think the map is "incredibly ugly"; I think it's accurate. I really don't care for your personal taste.

HP1740-B (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say we'd drop this whole issue of an early medieval ethnogenesis, as it is for too speculative and too complicated. I honestly can't tell whether the Salii (speakers of Frankish) are more important to Dutch ethnogenesis than the Carolingians (uniting the region, incorporating it into one state, introducing Christianity; I am also speaking of the Pippinids, not just Charlemagne himself) or vice versa. If we had any literature that stated either of these, we could perhaps settle that question. Now it depends too much on personal opinion. I myself cannot choose between the two maps. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that there was no Dutch ethnic group either in the 4th or in the 9th century, nor was there probably any sign that there was going to be one several centuries later. Iblardi (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Additional remarks: (1) Plural foederati is the form normally used for allies of the Romans, not singular foederatus. (2) Note that the region marked as Frankish territory ca. 480 on the "Frankish Empire" map merely indicates (supposed) Frankish presence, not political unity. The tribes north of the Rhine were not united by Clovis. Iblardi (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict Iblardi) Well counter counter arguments are easy.

Re 1) Growth of Frankish power is of lesser importance. I agree, the Dutch have their language, legal, church and school system, as well as their first idea of a united state from the Carolingian (Frankish) empire. It was not my idea to push it forward before that, but if we must it should be related to that empire.

Re 2) This is getting problematic; I hope you agree we are talking about predecessors of law, customs and language, as a 4th century Frank would be unalbe to function in todays society. And that is just where it is getting complicated: A lot of customs are generically Germanic, or even generically human. Why stop at the Franks? Why not go back even further?

• Early Dutch law was based on Salian Franks, who based their law in part on generic Germanic custom, and Roman law. So we can go back further that way. In any case, this is a new argument without reference (note a reference should clearly relate it to pre-Carolingian law).
• Re Clovic - 496..... That is a very strong argument to push back the date to 360.
• Re Charlemagne modelling on the Romans. Ok, but if you are serious you just suggested to move back the timeline to approx 50AD when Julius Caesar brought these Roman ideas to the Netherlands.

Re 3) That is just because you created it; the colour scheme violates a lot of theory on pleasing graphical design. It is not accurate at all as it misrepresents Zeeland, Zuiderzee and the rivers, and actually is a representation of the Netherlands close to the 800AD compared to 50AD; while your suggested map is of 350AD.

In other words, non of your argument have any relevance and (as usual) lack reference or any way to check how reliable they are. Arnoutf (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Iblardi. I agree, I think with settling at the 9th century we have already pushed it further back then we should. I was just trying to work towards a possible compromis/consensus where we take 9th century as starting point and from there have a one liner look further back. Of course I should have know the other editor would not be interested in any kid of compromise/consensus that is not 100% according to his ideas. Arnoutf (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

True, that editor has never shown willingness to compromise, admit mistakes etc. Tiring to discuss with. Not to speak of the constant stream of inflammatory comments (or 'sarcasm' of the type "snappie snappie?"), insults ("you hypocrite'") and obtrusive use of capitalization to drive home his point, especially in edit summaries. Annoying, even. Iblardi (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No you're so right on that. He (apparently, it doesn't deserve a name) never does that. It's not like he edited that map like 6 times already; why would he? He's always right and never corrects (or even makes) mistakes.HP1740-B (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see much willingness there. He was practically forced to (or the map would have been removed again) and even then kept demanding (with capitalization) that others correct his map. Iblardi (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

RE IBLARDI,

I am talking, in every matter at hand here; on (direct) predecessors.

RE ARNOUTF, my even easier counter counter arguments,

1.

• The administrative/political language of the Carolingian Empire; was Latin. Dutch doesn't derive from Latin; it derives from the Frankish dialects of the Franks already living there prior to the C-Empire.
• Christianity came with Clovis, who was not a Carolingian, but a Merovingian.
• Carolingian schools' influence on the modern educational system is highly dubious and unclear to me.

2.

• Clovis isn't my main argument for setting the date back to 360 A.D (though it most definitely is for pushing it back to pre-Carolingian times), language and ancestry (family) is.
• No I did not. I don't recall any historical reference to Franks living in the Netherlands around 50 BC, nor do I consider educational views to be a such huge ethnic importance.

3.

Riiiiiiight. Well I'll tell you this;

• give me a link to such a study you mentioned.
• explain to me how your map is accurate in its geography. (this one, I in particular find to be a gem of irony)

In conclusion. Let it be clear that I in no way am saying that "the Dutch" exist in 360 AD; but only that the first big step towards "the Dutch" is made in 360 A.D with the settling of the Franks and the language they brought with them.HP1740-B (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so re 1 (thank you for the arguments): Law goes out of the window with the Latin language; Frankish schooling as well; that leave only Clovis there. The influence of Clovis on the Dutch culture is no shown, evangelisation of the Netherlands was by Irish monks (Willibrord) no Franks. So indeed, no evidence of Frankish relevance at all

Re 2: Language maybe interesting, but it is not sufficient to go back that far. Family is not proven, no source has been given.

Re 3: Read some of the works of Edward Tufte. The map never claims to be anything but a depiction off the Franks on a modern map. The authors do not suggest it to be more, you do, so you should make it right.

Let me be clear. You need a strong reference that states exactly "that the first big step towards "the Dutch" is made in 360 A.D with the settling of the Franks and the language they brought with them". Otherwise I just won't believe you. Arnoutf (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who you're debating here; but I do believe it was you who brought up law and education in the first place. Also; once again you're focusing on individual figures in history rather than a group; which is more important. Clovis became a christian; and because he did it meant that missionaries were allowed into his realm. Whether those missionaries were Irish, Anglo-Saxon or lama's doesn't matter; what matters is that the Franks (over time) became Christians rather than staying "pagans". The Franks were not traditionally Christian, so it's a cultural rift; resulting in a cultural stage in which the Christened Franks were closer (in a religious aspect) to the Dutch than to their pagan ancestors. It's steps like these that make up the ethno-genesis of "the Dutch". It's but one in a whole series of steps, some miles apart from each other, but still; it's a step. HP1740-B (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re 2 (see also above): Clovis did not "bring" Christianity. The Netherlands were only christianized in full during the 8th century. Quoting Block in De Franken in Nederland, regarding Brabant under the Merovingians: "De Kerstening zal daar pas na het eind van de 7e eeuw plaats vinden." (p. 22, print of 1979), and with respect to the Frankish 'heritage': "Zeker nieuw en aan de Frankische verovering te danken is het christendom, dat de belangrijkste nalatenschap der Franken genoemd mag worden. Niet alleen van de Franken trouwens; tenslotte zijn het vooral de Angelsaksische predikers geweest en de door hen beïnvloede Friezen (zoals Liudger) en Franken (zoals Gregorius de Abt), die het christendom hier brachten, zij het ook onder de bescherming van Frankische wapenen" (clearly referring to the 8th century) (p. 63). He does not mention Clovis in his assessment. Iblardi (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Only trying to link to text provided by you when referring to law, Clovis etc. If these are not relevant nothing of consequence is left.

The other point. Yes these are small steps. History is like that; all small steps, with sometimes no very clear linkages. The problem is now, where do we stop tracing back. Setting that at the Frankish settlement is just as arbitrary as setting it at the out of Africa moment some 60,000 years earlier. Arnoutf (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The minor differences being between the Franks and the OOA-people being that the Franks weren't black, didn't speak a language most closely related to future Old Dutch and didn't live in the Low Countries. Apart from those minor things, indeed, it is arbitrary.HP1740-B (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you know the OOA people were black? And does it matter. And well languages, I am pretty sure 19th century Dutch is much more closely related to modern Dutch; so yeah of course, with more distance in time, more distance in language; the issue remains what is the maximum distance from modern Dutch we want to adopt. I think we agree it is a sliding scale that we have to cut somewhere. That will always be arbitrarily. Arnoutf (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure they were black; but in any case I assume they were of a darker complexion as caused by evolution. Does it matter? Yes it matters; in terms of kinship. My advice to the sliding scale would be to cut it as soon as innovations start to rapidly succeed each other.HP1740-B (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(semi serious). We are much surer the Dutch descend from the Out of Africa tribes than of any other tribe (this due to the many movement in Eurasia since) so kinship of the moderm Dutch with the Out of Africa people likely to be near 100%, with the Franks somewhere at 50% (speculation); the Out of Africa is a better moment (I do not seriously mean this as it does not distinguish between and Eurasion, Oceania, or Americas tribe).

(again semi serious). Weeeeeell some of the most important innovations since then: Tools (stone, and metal); domestication of animals, agriculture, permanent construction (hunebedden). All rather quickly in only 20,000 years; nothing of that magnitude since. More seriously, how large needs an innovation to be (Christianity very minor compared to toolmaking), and how far apart to name something rapidly. Arnoutf (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the foederati map yet again: it is ugly, it gives much less relevant info than the currently used map (the info on the foederati map is hardly relevant or helpful, the location of "mogontiacum" gives zero info to the casual reader who has absolutely no idea what that place is, and the many reversions give little confidence in its accuracy (at least the completely ridiculous description "A map of the Frankish Empire, rivers, limes, the Barbarian lands surrounding it" has been changed after the last removal of this map from this article). Based on a map from a personal website, there is little reason to prefer this map over File:Frankish Empire 481 to 814-en.svg, which is based on a published historical atlas. Fram (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the article on the Dutch ethnic group, not the Frankish Empire. I'm not going to repeat the string of arguments above here; if you want to discus the map you can respond to those arguments.HP1740-B (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

While that is completely true, it is a bit of a two-edged argument, as for that exact same reason one could argue to remove reference to (or at least a map of) the Franks altogether. Let's leave this up for now while we continue getting the history section developed; but I hope everyone is willing to fairly consider that in the redeveloped history section there may or may not be a place for a map of the Franks at all. Arnoutf (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Supposed 'irrelevance'

The Franks are a major contributor to the Dutch ethnic group. This is something we bring forward very clearly in the article. So how can it possibly be said that a sentence explaining their arrival in the Netherlands, is irrelevant?HP1740-B (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I do not deny the Frankish empire of the 7th century is important. I do however doubt that the 4th century arrival of the Franks as a vasal tribe to the Romans is very relevant.

Yes the Franks arrived in the 4th century; but their empire only became large and stable in the th century. That leaves a gap of 300 years. Were the Franks dominant in the current Netherlands during all those 30 years. Are the 7th century Franks the exact same as the 4th century Franks. In stable times this maybe argued with little support. However between the fourth and the seventh century the migration area happened.

I don't know, whether 4th century Franks are the same as the 7th century Franks. I think it is speculation. No source has been provided that states that the Frank presence in the Netherlands was non-interrupted. Hence the 4th century Frank presence is unsourced.

Furthermore as it is the Frankish empire and its successors (e.g. the Holy Roman Empire); as well as Carolingian alphabet, school system and law that started convergence of many European peoples it is that empire that should be taken as the starting point, whatever came before is in my view equally irrelevant to the Dutch ethnic group as discussing the exodus out of Africa several 10,000 years earlier (which obviously contained the tribes that would later become the Dutch).

In brief, I require a source of undeniable academic quality that links the Frank foederati to the Frankish empire, to the successors of that empire in more than only name and family ties; for me to be convinced it is relevant.

In brief. There is no clear evidence of relevance, hence per WP:truth we have to adopt the cautious hypothesis that the fact is indeed irrelevant. The burden of proof lies with the other claim. Arnoutf (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My request for reference was reverted with the remark "see reference at back of section". There is something seriously wrong with this for several reasons.

First of all. A reference has to placed with the claim it supports, not at the end of the section. If this is not done, the reader/editor has to guess whether there is a reference and can therefore assume there is none.

The actual reference is to an old, out of print Dutch book titled DE FRANKEN IN NEDERLAND (The Franks in the Netherlands) by Blok (1974). When I look at the internet the description of the book is: Geschiedenis van de Franken, die onze streken bevolkten na de ineenstorting van het Romeinse Rijk. "History of the Franks who lived in our region [ Arnoutf note: Netherlands] after the collapse of the Roman Empire." With that title I once again seriously doubt that this book beyond a doubt establishes the link of the early Frank migration (prior to the collapse of the Roman Empire and hence probably outside of the scope of the book) to the current Dutch. In other words I am not convinced at all by this source. Arnoutf (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also the section seems internally conflicting. As it now stand it says that the Franks were to the

"Dutch culture by introducing (or rather implementing) and consolidating Christianity and imposing the social and administrative structures of the Frankish state"

I tend to agree that this is indeed the relevance of the Franks.

However the section now states that the Franks had this influence starting from 360 onwards (without interruption). I am pretty sure the influence meant is that of the 7th/8th century Frankish empire, not that of the Frankish Foederati, once again raising the issue where the relevance of mentioning the Foederati lies. Arnoutf (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually believe the Franks sat on their asses for 3 centuries, then forming their empire out of the blue? The Frankish Empire begins with the foederati; their alliance with Rome. The Franks then spend about 200 years fighting nearly every western threat found in the Roman Empire. Ignoring their social and administrative value; perhaps most important is the language they spoke. Frankish became Old Dutch; nowhere else in their vast Empire did they leave their language to survive today other than in the Low Countries; the lands they settled in sufficient numbers to maintain their tongue; and they first settled as a foederati in Brabant in 360 A.D.HP1740-B (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for eloquently rephrasing my question; which was indeed "What did the Franks do during those 3 centuries". They may have set on their asses, they may have drunk beer, they may have developed and lost light-speed rocket propulsion, they may have been marginilised, or even wiped out to be replaced by another tribe with the same name. I don't know; that why I want a reference about those 3 centuries. Arnoutf (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course if we want to speculate I would suggest to start slightly earlier: "The history of the Dutch people started about 170,000 years ago when human started to become populous; a major step in the development of the Dutch people was slightly later when, about 60,000 years ago tribes migrated to the areas which later would be come the Netherlands. After some minor setback due to a climatic variations the Dutch evolved from 15,000 years ago onwards. The first lasting cultural influences were in Drenthes architecture about 7000 years ago, rapidly followed by the migration of the Franks in 360 AD".

Ok there are some minor gaps in the timeline, but all these episodes were in my view important; and the ancestors of the Dutch have probably not sat on their asses for abot 100,000 years so let's add that paragraph!!! (or am I too cynical now?)

Of course the above is meant jokingly but the core of the issue is there. Where do we start. After much discussion it was decided earlier to start with the Frankish empire (ie about 700). There were advocates with rather strong arguments who stated any date prior to 1555, or 1585, or 1648, or even 1830 would be ridiculous. With a long and exhaustive argument we have reached consensus that we do trace back the earliest roots to the Frankish empire, but do not claim the ethnic Dutch existed at that time, only that it is the start of their ethnogenesis.

Now suddenly and by a single editor the timeline is pushed back another (+/-)350 years. Even worse, without a strong reference supporting those 3 centuries.

So that reopens the whole discussion: Where do we start..... (not my choice, nor my actions) Arnoutf (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Where do "we" start "what"?HP1740-B (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Where do we start relating a tribe of mankind to the Dutch. It should be somewhere between ~170,000 (first human) and ~170 years (current Netherlands founded after succession of Belgium) ago. Arnoutf (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous comment above. 250 A.D is a time in which the Franks come to the Low Countries (settle/"intermix") and bring their language which will evolve into Old Dutch. That is the first step from general "Germanic tribes" towards the Dutch.HP1740-B (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet another 100 years back to the past. I am still waiting for the references for the claims made; apparently unilaterally breaking a hard discussed consensus is fine, while asking for reasons and references is ridiculous.... But then again I am talking to an editor with a long history of violating basic decency in communicating with fellow editors and the strong conviction he is always right, without having to provide proof and whatever the counterarguments. Arnoutf (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That should of course be 350/360 AD. Then; for which claims do you need references? On whether the Franks spoke Frankish? I also have no idea what 'consensus' you speak of. The only consensus I found was to start Dutch ethno-genesis with the Franks in the Low Countries. So what's new here? HP1740-B (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was to start the ethnogenesis with the Frankish Empire. which did not exist in 360. Arnoutf (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link, o great Arnoutf, to this consensus.HP1740-B (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok no consensus. There never was consensus about adding the Franks, a strong POV pusher got his way with adding them after stating (without references) " the Dutch emerged truly emerged in the early 9th century, ". So indeed, the options seem to be open again, should we list the Franks at all. Arnoutf (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My my, no consensus you say? How odd... I could have sworn you were sure a moment ago.HP1740-B (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I was convinced we agreed to add the Franks. Apparently everybody just gave up resisting you so they were originally added without consensus. I am happy to remove references to them if you insist. Arnoutf (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No that's fine. Leave them. They'll be a constant reminder to me that people shouting "No, that's against consensus" all the time; aren't always right.HP1740-B (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that as there is no consensus, there is no consensus to mention the Franks either. Arnoutf (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm always right remember; so I don't have to worry about that. ;-)HP1740-B (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and what can we do about it? :-) Iblardi (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice that you take it lightly and with a smile. I truly hope you will adopt this 'lighter' style of conversation as that will make improving the article much easier. But hey, a smile a day keeps the doctor away, so let's use them :-D Arnoutf (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Where do we start the history

HP1740-B kindy pointed out that in spite of serious discussion there has never been achieved consensus exactly when to start the history of the Dutch.
That places all above in a larger context, as there are now multiple possible options (all have been seriously proposed at some time):

1. Start with the first settlements of the Franks; as these are likely to be the first ancestors who have stayed in the area (start around 360 CE)
2. Start with the Frankish (Carolingian empire); as a lot of Dutch culture and medieval history traces back to the empire (start around 800CE)
3. Start with the creation of the political entity of the 17 Netherlands (Habsburg Netherlans) as this was the first (fairly) modern unity of the Dutch lands (1481)
4. Creation of the Spanish Netherlands by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V in 1555 (even more independent)
5. Oath of abjuration, the Dutch no longer recognise their king (1581)
6. Peace of Munster, the Dutch republic is recognised as separate country (1648)
7. Succession of Belgium, creation of current Dutch nation state. Romantic nationalism and related etnicism at its height (1830).

All have been suggested. My personal preference would be either 800 (Carolingian empire) or 1481 (creation of the 17 Netherlands). But then again I am a bit of a history fan so may be projecting too far back. Arnoutf (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to adopt 1481 also. Iblardi (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As ethnic groups do not suddenly appear out of the blue, options 3 through 7 (especially 5, 6 and 7) are to be considered (in my opinion) impossible. That, leaves options 1 and 2.:

Option 2; It has some very good arguments; and not being part of the migration period means that it is better documented. A lot of social and political structures of great importance are established here. Such as common law, and feudalism; the latter construct being of great importance later on in history. There are however 2 major problems with this point in time; and that is that by 800; Old Dutch already exists for at least 250/300 years; as does Christianity in the Low Countries. Those are two cultural features which I simply find too important. After all, language and religion are just huge parts of any culture. That is my main, if not only, objection.

Option 1; Though it covers the language/religion issue, it also has its difficulties in that it is composed of 3 little steps which are somewhat far apart from each other; but which together for a great leap:

• Arrival of the Franks; (360 CE)
• Christening of the Franks; (496- c. 700 CE)
• Old Dutch; (500/550 CE)

That's roughly 200 years between each 'step'. That's a lot of time. The solution might be between option 1 and 2. Let's call this Option 1,5.

Option 1,5; starting around 500 CE. (language, religion, consolidation/isolation)

• Old Dutch. (c. 500 CE)
• The Clovis (of the future Merovingian dynasty), does three things:

1. He conquers Gaul; (486 CE)
2. He unites the Frankish lands and becomes the first King of the Franks; (c. 510 CE)
3. He converts to (Chalcedonian) Christianity, to appease the majority of his subjects, which are no longer the Franks; but the Gallo-Romans. (496 CE)

Of these, point 2. is least important but point 1. and 3. are of great importance. Conquering Gaul leaves the Franks as a minority (except in the Low Countries) within their own Empire and sees their own King(s) changing their interests to the (richer, more populated) lands outside the Frankish heartland.

I would say that this, with the mentioning of their arrival in 360 CE without directly linking them to the Dutch at that time, is my preferred option.HP1740-B (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the language issue should be taken into consideration. We do speak of Old Dutch from c. 500 onward, and language is an aspect of cultural identity, but it is only one aspect. As for Clovis' conversion to Christianity, I think you are attaching too great an importance to that episode. Of course it is important, but as I tried to show by quoting the source further above, it had no immediate far-reaching consequences for the larger part of the Netherlands, where Brabant and the territory across the Rhine remained pagan at least until the 8th century, and for the northern parts well into it. I am not sure of the relevance of the conquest of Gaul, except that it perhaps enabled the later expansion into the present-day Netherlands. I would have to think a little more about the other arguments. Iblardi (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[added after e.c.] Part of the problem is that we need a number of markers to set the Dutch apart from other ethnic groups, and the further we go back in the past, the fewer those markers are. Language alone would hardly justify having our description start way back in the Merovingian period, because very little in the sense of ethnic markers (ethnonym, collective identity, recognition as such by others) follows until the period of nation-building in the 16th century. Iblardi (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Iblardi. The language issue is interesting. As far as I know (am I no linguist so may misinterpret some of the subtleties) Old Dutch is recognised from 500 onward. Most commonly however, Middle Dutch (1150-1500) is considered the first "true" ancestor of modern Dutch. So there are several things we should weigh carefully.

• Is language alone sufficient to push back the starting date of our history account.
• If so, is Old Dutch, or Middle Dutch the first relevant ancestor language of modern Dutch.

I have no clear answers to either question, but I tend to say: No language alone is not sufficient; I would prefer to take Middle Dutch as starting point. But that is my opinion, not strongly supported by sources, so take it for what it's worth an opinion. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add my own counter-proposal; maybe we can eventually find some common ground. I think that, when describing the Dutch ethnic group, the following key events need to be taken into account:

c. 500: Beginnings of Old Dutch (Malberg Glosses)

(perhaps also: c. 1200: start of Middle Dutch literature)

c. 1500: Political unification of the Netherlands (including the French-speaking regions). Incipient sense of collective identity. Around the same time: development of origin myths: Batavi. Dutch, or at this stage rather "Netherlandic", identity is seen as something distinctive by foreign commentators.

c. 1600: Northern Netherlands independent. Exploitation of Batavian Myth to advance a sense of national solidarity, which has not yet developed on a regional level but has some presence in the cultural elite.

c. 1820: Romanticism: development of the idea of the Volk as something unique, semi-mystic and primordial.

c. 1870: Modernization of the Netherlands: enhanced mobility of the population. Start of cultural homogenization. Identity becomes "Dutch" rather than Hollandic, Brabantic etc.

20th century: Fully developed cultural identity on a nation-wide scale. Increasing homogenization caused by modern media. Iblardi (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Just wondering, one question about modern history. Should we deal with the current difficulties in definition; e.g. are Arubans, or Surinam people Dutch; or well integrated Morroccon and Turkish. CBS does not use ethnic but rather allochtoon/autochtoon; etnic registration is illegal, etc. Or is that too much related to modern not yet finalised debates? Arnoutf (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I cannot resolve that question. That, again, is one of my main problems with this article: it tries to isolate one part of Dutch society based on what are to me rather vague, artificial criteria, which are not officially recognized by the Dutch government and of which it is unproven that they play an important role in Dutch society. But I am trying to work with the framework we have, and I am fairly convinced that it should be possible to write a history of Dutch ethnicity without having to account for the above problem by describing an idea which is at times more, at times less relevant, rather than a concrete group of people. Iblardi (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You're proposal has a number of issues; I'll address them below, together with some general remarks.

• 1. Though Middle Dutch looks more like Modern Dutch, which is logical seeing that it's younger than Old Dutch, Old Dutch still is very much Dutch. It wasn't just a West Germanic dialect spoken in the Low Countries; it was an identifiable language.
• 2. Prior to true political unification; there had always been political contact between the Dutch fiefs. They weren't islands. Economically, politically and culturally they were already heavily interlinked for ages.
  • 2.a. It's quite remarkable when you look at the wars they fought; they almost exclusively fought with fiefs within the Low Countries; showing some form of common interest.
  • 2.b. An ethnic group does not have to be politically united. In fact, most ethnic groups in this world do not have a country of their own.
• 3. The political unification of the Low Countries indeed included the French fiefs as well; yet, when the Seventeen provinces revolted against Spain, the Union of Arras contained the French fiefs, whereas the revolting provinces were all Dutch. This is very odd given the supposed 'unifying' character of the pragmatic sanction. It would indeed suggest both were 'united' earlier.
• 4. A nation isn't the same as an ethnic group.
  • 4.a. Nationalism tends to focus on a country's inhabitants; often regardless of ethnic origin. Often focusing on the love for the country or its people. But that isn't a prerequisite for an ethnic group. Lot's of people, though all belonging to the same ethnic group, have waged wars with each other.
• 5. Ethnic groups aren't cultural eenheidsworsten. Regional variation is the rule rather than the exception. So whether someone sees himself as a Brabander, Hollander or Zeeuw rather than or prior to a Dutch national isn't very important. What is important is that the cultural structure and language of those Brabanders, Hollanders or Zeeuwen are closely interlinked; and form a frame which we call "Dutch".

HP1740-B (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I took the freedom to number your comments.

• Re 1. No comment.
• Re 2 and 2.a. If so, I would say that this is largely a result of geographical factors. Yet this is not true. There was political contact between Flanders and the kingdom of France (Guldensporenslag) and Holland and England (Floris V). There was political (and cultural) contact between the eastern regions and Germany. Otto von der Lippe was bishop of Utrecht. Willem II was "Roomskoning". Holland and Zeeland were ruled by the German house of Wittelsbach.
  • Re 2.b. This is true, but those are mostly modern, self-conscious ethnic groups. We do not have evidence that the medieval Dutch considered themselves as such.
• Re 3. Interesting, needs explanation.
• Re 4. No, but there is such a thing as "ethnic nationalism". Furthermore, I know that you disagree, but the terms are more related to each other than you may think. Natio in its original meaning also bears connotations of shared descent (nasci means "to be born"). It sometimes means the same as gens, which is the Latin translation of Greek ethnos (cf. gentes and ethne for "heathens"). The difference is less clear-cut than it may seem.
  • Re 4.a. Yes, but people have to first gather an idea of who their "brothers" are, so to say. A 15th-century inhabitant of Holland did probably not feel more related to an inhabitant of Limburg any more than to someone from Bremen. Nation-building has succeeded in creating this feeling.
• Re 5. See ethnicity. It is not about what we call them today, it is about what they would have called themselves back then. Iblardi (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

RE Re 2. Flanders and France can be explained because it fell in the West Frankish Kingdom; economical contacts with Holland and England are not military in nature, which is what I referred to. Wars with fiefs to the East were practically non existant. Guelders for example fought the the Frisians, the Hollanders, Bishop of Utrecht and the Duchy of Brabant over and over again; but never fought Münster. Also; the noble rulers should be disregarded; they transcend ethnic boundaries.

RE Re 2b. Please read this; Ethnic_groups#Ethnies_and_ethnic_categories.

RE Re 3. Interesting indeed; true indeed the present day language border between French and Dutch is near identical to the border between the Unions of Arras and Utrecht. To me, that's not a coincidence; and neither was it to the Dutch at the time.

RE Re 4. Etymology is not of importance; the origin of the words making up "nationalism" might convey a different message; but nationalism today is a markedly different concept.

RE Re 4b. I find that extremely hard to believe; if only for geographical reasons. Economic, cultural and linguistic similarities/differences would have had to be noticed.

RE Re 5. No, See RE Re 2b. Self-identification is not omnipotent.

HP1740-B (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: If we work with those categories as described on the ethnicity article; we might just be able to write the "perfect" ethnic history. I see huge similarities between your list and my views on already present cultural traits without real expressed identification.HP1740-B (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, have not read recent remarks of HP1740-B yet) If I am summarising this, we should be looking for the first time in history that all modern Dutch identified themselves as a group. This needs to include Holland, Brabant, Frisia, Guelders and Utrecht/Sticht; and with the Union of Arras (interesting indeed) most of the modern Belgium provinces and some Northern France.

Personally I think that common identity started to develop througout the middle ages, among others through the shared LowLands versions of Germanic literature (Elegast late 12th, early 13th century, Reynard, 13th century The Legend of Thyl Ulenspiegel and Lamme Goedzak 14th century).

The wars between Holland, Utrecht (Sticht) and Guelders on the other hand show that there was at the time also a clear distance between the fiefdoms. (BTW the Hollandic people were at the time probably more closely tied to Arras than to Maastricht)

It seems indeed a gradual process, with some sense of linguistic, literature, art, legal and political unity to emerge at the end of the middle ages (around 1500) Arnoutf (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re HP1740-B. It is very difficult to talk about ethinicism of a group of people who also are the vast majority of a nation state (as is the case with the Dutch) without getting some interference between the concepts. That is something we will have to deal with in this article. We simply cannot ignore it; but it is not an easy issue. Also: No Self-identification is not the only mark of ethnicism, but neither is shared descent (i.e. genetics). Arnoutf (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re HP1740-B, 2b: This is indeed what I was thinking of. The emergent Dutch of the 16th century could perhaps be described as an ethnic category. We might have some common ground there. I think I remember a remark somewhere by Ulrich von Hutten, who ridiculed Erasmus' folk as being "substitute French" instead of "real" Germans, but I would have to look that up. We may be able to do something with this and other contemporary material, provided that we point out the underlying theoretical framework. Iblardi (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic History Framework

Feel free to add, change the frame on this page User:HP1740-B/Ethnic History; once that's filled in we can hopefully turn the results into an article.HP1740-B (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess your intention is to use the collected ideas as a framework to build prose for the actual article.

Nice idea; always easier to work together on bulleted lists. I added a thought where I think the Dutch became special in the middle ages. Arnoutf (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed that is my intention.HP1740-B (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Good initiative, HP1740-B. I will be adding material during the next few days. Iblardi (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)