Talk:Netherlands/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Drenthe - Emmen or Assen

There has been some repeated discussion whether Assen or Emmen is the largest city of Drenthe. As far as I know it comes down to this:

• The municipality of Emmen has both more inhabitants and has a larger area compared to Assen
• The city proper of Assen is larger compared to the city proper of Emmen.

The issue. Which of the two to use??? (I am open to both, but think this requires some discussion). Arnoutf 17:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• The municipality of Emmen has both more inhabitants and has a larger area compared to Assen. I agree.
• The city proper of Assen is larger compared to the city proper of Emmen. I don't agree, see www.emmen.nl and www.assen.nl. The facts & figures on these sites leave little room for disagreement, in my opinion.

82.95.250.63 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not so sure about the city propers. From www.Emmen.nl (and similar figures onhttp://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmen) I conclude Emmen city proper has about 57,000 inhabitants. The other villages making up for another (about) 50,000; making up for a total pop of slightly over 100,000

The figures for Assen are less clear; the municipality has about 64,000 inhabs. However no separation between the city and other villages is given on www.assen.nl (but I may have overlooked something). Having a look at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assen shows that the difference between muninicipality and city is only a few hundreds to thousands. Dutch wiki gives Assen city proper as 62,000

Following these numbers Assen city is larger than Emmen city. (We agree on municipality).Arnoutf 17:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Emmen: 56,876, see: http://www.emmen.nl/md/1023/tabel2.xls?sid=145a75951109d52054d056462c5f618f

Assen: 64,413, see: http://www.assen.nl/Docs/internet_nl/Stadsinformatie/Statistische%20informatie%202006/Bevolkingnaarleeftijd2006.pdf

The Emmen statistics are Emmen city proper, the Assen statistics include surrounding villages. Therefore the 2 figures aren't conclusive.

82.95.250.63 18:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That is basically what I found as well. The Dutch wiki article states that the other villages in the Assen municipality only add up to about 2,500; and that Assen is about 62,000. But I have not seen the numbers. Indeed not conclusive. Arnoutf 20:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A municipality is not a city, so you 're not right. Emmen is a very large municipality, but the city itself only has about 57000 inhabitants. Assen proper has about 64000 inhabitants, and the surrounding villages just add a couple of hundreds of inhabitants. It's as simple as that. Evil1980 15:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

But the Assen source does not specify the villages explicitly; that's why I said non-conclusive, but I agree with you that Assen city proper is larger than Emmen city proper.Arnoutf 17:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Bedankt! :-) Evil1980 21:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Had been changed (again), picked up by Evil1980. I now inserted a comment explaining this in the mainspace article; let's hope that was the last time. Arnoutf (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Flora and Fauna

Sorry Krator did not like my note on the algae of The Netherlands. I had hoped it would inspire others to add a section on the Wildlife! Ok then as you wish.Osborne 10:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Algae are indeed a subject notable to the Netherlands, but not sufficiently so to warrant a whole paragraph in the main article. If you want to add information, what about adding it to Geography of the Netherlands? That article is too short as is, and information on algae would be a welcome addition. --User:Krator (t c) 10:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Languages

I quote: "Courses in Spanish, Arabic, Ancient Greek, and Latin are offered in schools as well."
In the Netherlands Russian and Turkish courses are offered in schools as well. 83.117.225.78 07:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Frisian is recgonized as secons state language ('rijkstaal') in the Netherlands. It is also recognized and protected as a minority language within the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. It therefor does qualify as an offical languageSee also the Dutch website of the Dutch Ministry of Internal Affairs: http://www.minbzk.nl/onderwerpen/internationale-zaken/binnenlands_bestuur/publicaties/7165/bestuursafspraak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.95.32.9 (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

UserBox

FYI {{User:Catneven/ubx/nederland}} -Catneven 15:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming issues paragraph

• Version one: The Netherlands is often called Holland. This is incorrect as the provinces of North and South Holland in the western Netherlands are only two of the country's twelve provinces (for more on this and other naming issues see Netherlands terminology).
• Version two: The Netherlands are commonly mislabeled as Holland, as North and South Holland are only two of The Netherlands' twelve provinces.

As nicely put by Krator in his edit summary, Note that the two versions under dispute here are conveying -exactly- the same message, but [version one] has an extra helpful see also link. While the logic behind the second version isn't incorrect (though the grammar isn't so hot), it skips half the information, and as a result it isn't as clear. It also doesn't offer the link for further explanation that the first version does. -Bbik 00:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I indeed reverted the wrong version. Apologies. --User:Krator (t c) 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

the Dutch themselves frequently refer to their nation as holland, so i think its wrong to say that it is "incorrect"--more like "improper" or "inaccurate"204.86.62.254 14:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The English sometimes refer to the UK as England that does not make it right. Arnoutf 17:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence `The Dutch established their national identity imitated with French republican nationalism - the tri-colour simply a halved Dutch flag rotated 90 degrees and cut in two.' is most confusing. One has to look up the French flag to see that the sentence refers to a theory about the origin of the French flag, not the Dutch flag. So the sentence does not belong here. It also does not read well. [wilberd] 129.70.15.229 14:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy infobox

Hi all, I have been annoyed by the lengthy infobox on this (and many other country articles) for some time now. I think there is a lot of detail in there that is not essential. How would you think about trimming the infobox to this:

Netherlands Nederland
Flag Coat of arms
Motto: "Je maintiendrai"  (French) 1
Anthem: "Het Wilhelmus"
the Netherlands (dark orange); Legend
Capital and largest city	Amsterdam2 52°21′N 04°52′E
Official languages	Dutch3
Ethnic groups	80.9% Dutch4
Government	Parliamentary democracy Constitutional monarchy
• Monarch	Queen Beatrix
• Prime Minister	Jan Peter Balkenende
Independence  (Dutch Revolt)
• Declared	July 26 1581
• Recognised	January 30 16486
Area
• Total	41,526 km2 (16,033 sq mi) (134th)
• Water (%)	18.41
Population
• 2007 estimate	16,570,613 (59th)
• Density	395/km2 (1,023.0/sq mi) (23rd)
GDP (PPP)	2006 5 estimate
• Total	$541,513 billion (23rd)
• Per capita	$35,078 (10th)
Currency	Euro (€)7 (EUR)
Time zone	UTC+1 (CET)
• Summer (DST)	UTC+2 (CEST)
Calling code	31
ISO 3166 code	NL
Internet TLD	.nl8
Official Motto in French; translation into Dutch "Ik zal handhaven"; English: "I shall stand fast" The literal translation of the motto would be "I will maintain". Here "maintain" is taken to mean to stand fast or to hold ground. The Hague is the seat of the government. Frisian is also an official language in the Netherlands, although only spoken in Friesland; Low Saxon and Limburgish are officially recognised as regional languages. For other ethnic groups see section demographics For other socio-economic indicators see economy of the Netherlands Peace of Westphalia. Prior to 2002: Dutch guilder. The .eu domain is also used, as it is shared with other European Union member states.

Location Map

Copied from User talk:Quizimodo

Map update on Netherlands

Would you mind if I reverted your edit to Netherlands? I find the new map you introduced inferior to the old one.

• The colours are less clear and pronounced. In the thumbnail, it is hard to discern the borders between EU countries because of the colour used. The difference between Europe and Asia/Africa is almost unnoticeable. Water is white, instead of blue.
• The map itself omits several identifying details of the Netherlands. The West Frisian Islands are absent in the new map, and and the islands of Zeeland seem disconnected and distorted. Also, upper and lower Limburg seem disconnected, the IJselmeer is disproportionally large, and a whole province (Flevoland) is omitted. This decreases the value of the map for the purposes of illustrating the article the Netherlands. These areas are important, and a never omitted part when drawing a schematic map of the Netherlands. If a drawing shows the islands of Zeeland, the West Frisian Islands, and Limburg, it will be recognised throughout the world as the Netherlands. This is comparable to how Florida is instrumental in recognising the shape of the USA, or the Baja California peninsula to recognising the shape of Mexico.
• Some detail is omitted. This makes the map less pleasing to look at, and decreases function. Blue water, a slightly more 'brown' colour in mountainous areas, and major rivers make a map seem more natural, and allow easier orientation for a reader unfamiliar with the political situation.
• The relocation of the world map to the upper left corner means that a reader will look at that first, while the focal point of the map should be the location of the country in question: the Netherlands. Also, the addition of a few circles denoting very small countries is not helpful here. This map is to show the location of the Netherlands. Those small circles are usually used for colouring small countries in coloured statistical maps, like Image:GDP nominal 2006 world map.PNG. They have no function here, and just distort the overall picture.
• The map is on a larger scale. While I would agree with, for example, showing more of the Middle East, the addition of more water, more Greenland, and Svalbard to the Northeast serves no function. The larger scale decreases the size of the Netherlands, and also enables less detail on the map.
• Purely aesthetic, the new map is just drawn worse than the old map. If this were a vector graphics image, I could understand, but it is not. The coastline is "spiky" in a lot of places, and the Finnish lakes appear to have changed in appearance overnight and are certainly not an endorheic sea the size of Belgium. Denmark appears to be an island. Greek islands have disappeared, and finding light green Malta on a white background takes a microscope.
• Besides all the negative points above, I could find only a single positive item: the change in projection of the world map. However, I do not think this is worth all of the above.

Overall, I feel the new map is inferior to the old one, and therefore would like to revert your edit. I will await your response before doing so. --User:Krator (t c) 13:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and regarding the Netherlands locator map

Hello, and thanks for your feedback. Yes: I do mind:

• The colours are clear and provide adequate contrast, and are yet consistent with the majority of maps used for most other countries: throughout locator maps in Wikipedia, water is white, and land is green. I may consider recolouring; e.g., water to blue.
• These are locator maps: neither these maps nor the prior maps are meant to (or need to) possess excessive details. The prior maps are far too busy and excessively complex. I can add the Frisian Islands; I can also add Ijsselmeer, but they yield nothing new about where the Netherlands are located -- as well, the colour and encircling on the world maps do that. Speaking of which ...
• The movement of the world map to the upper left is intentional: countries are a global phenomenon, not merely a European one. As well, the current map depicts the EU in relation to the world, while the predecessor does not. In the former, the rather minimal world map in the lower right occludes part of Western Asia, where territories are wholly unclear (e.g., Cyprus); also see the next point.
• The major function of the 'larger scale' is to include territories commonly reckoned in Europe (not just the EU), per the United Nations scheme of countries and regions -- by many accounts, Svalbard is a part of Europe, and Greenland (though generally considered a part of North America) is politically married to Denmark. Nonetheless, this is partially why Greenland is conveniently overlaid by the world map and, thus, taking advantage of the space. As well, those territories tangentially place Europe and its constituents, something lacking in the prior maps. In addition, the basic map will be provided, which can be used for other EU/Europe articles in Wikipedia.
• I am somewhat ambivalent regarding the circles, and may yet remove them; however, I hardly see how they distort the overall picture when they may aid in identifying smaller territories amidst larger ones.
• As above, such maps do not need to depict, say, Santorini; yet, you can't clearly identify Malta on even the preceding locator map or (only after how many insets?) its own locator map (which will be updated) and is irrelevant to the issue of where the Netherlands are. As for its size, the more agreeable map uses an azimuthal equidistant projection, so the Netherlands (and other countries depicted) is no larger than it needs to be. In addition, I can generate maps in SVG format, but decided not to due to simplicity.

I boldly decided to create maps anew and, as you can see, I disagree with you on most points and consider the prior maps inferior. So far, you are the only one who has objected to this new map, which was created to rectify some of the inadequacies of predecessors. One of the fundamental qualities of a locator map is to answer the question, "Where is this country?" -- and the prior maps often failed to deal with this, and thus ... Anyhow, I am open to enhancements, so please do not hesitate to contact me with added feedback or questions. Thanks! Quizimodo 16:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Response

Original map

New map

Copied from my talk page to keep discussion from becoming fragmented. This was a response to my first note on this section. Indents are my comments. --User:Krator (t c) 20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• The colours are clear and provide adequate contrast, and are yet consistent with the majority of maps used for most other countries: throughout locator maps in Wikipedia, water is white, and land is green. I may consider recolouring; e.g., water to blue.

I disagree with your assertion that the colours are clear. Consistency with the majority of maps used for other countries is not a reason to change the current ones without providing arguments why green is better than the other colours. I do not think green is awful, or a bad colour - the older map was just better.

Place the two maps side by side (as I did when creating the newer maps), and tell me which one exhibits the Netherlands more clearly. In the prior maps, the Netherlands is lost amidst a sea of red/orange and unnecessary (almost superfluous) geographic detail. In my maps, only the basic shape of countries is depicted -- which is appropriate given the function of the map; in it, the Netherlands appears rather clearly. Perhaps I'll create a map variant with exactly the same colour scheme as in the prior maps. In addition, your assertion that consistency shouldn't be a criterion for the change rather defeats the purpose of a wikiproject which is devoted to developing standards for this sort of stuff: the prior locator maps significantly differ from most other locator maps, for reasons that remain unclear. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I placed the two side by side quite freqently, and found the Netherlands better depicted in the older one, because:

• The Netherlands is depicted larger in that map.
• That map includes several details used to identify the shape of the Netherlands.
• The newer map has a world map in a place that distracts from the Netherlands.
• The brown and orange used in the older map are more natural and pleasing colours.

--User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with above and below. Quizimodo 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• These are locator maps: neither these maps nor the prior maps are meant to (or need to) possess excessive details. The prior maps are far too busy and excessively complex. I can add the Frisian Islands; I can also add Ijsselmeer, but they yield nothing new about where the Netherlands are located -- as well, the colour and encircling on the world maps do that. Speaking of which ...

Excessive details are are indeed bad. That is why the map does not show cities, roads, and railways. However, the shape of the country should be preserved, and a country should have its recognisable shape. This is not the case with the new map. Furthermore, the existence of the old map shows that it is possible to have a map with the same resolution, including more detail. It depicts the earth in a better way.

See above -- I remain unconvinced that the shape of the country is unrecognisable or should appear as you have indicated. The selective use of colour and contrast, coupled with the use of circles, somewhat obviates this argument. In any event, I can easily add those details to the map. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I will look forward to additions to the map. However, I kindly request that you leave the older map in place as long as these additions are not made yet. It would be bad to have an inferior 'beta' version of the map here. Twenty articles about countries are not a testing ground. --User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, everything is 'beta.' I kindly request that you refrain from initiating an edit war when there is no consensus in support of it. You first ask me if you can revert; upon my reply, you do it anyway -- am I to assume that if I didn't reply, you wouldn't have done anything? Your end result is the same. Assumptions of good faith aside, it seems you have an unknown point to prove -- on no other page has such resistance been mounted to these maps; in fact, relatively little resistance has been expressed (none, in almost all cases) on the other pages where the maps have yet been placed. Quizimodo 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• The movement of the world map to the upper left is intentional: countries are a global phenomenon, not merely a European one. As well, the current map depicts the EU in relation to the world, while the predecessor does not. In the former, the rather minimal world map in the lower right occludes part of Western Asia, where territories are wholly unclear (e.g., Cyprus); also see the next point.

With the older map, the world map was very functional: it showed the location of the larger area depicted, without distracting from the location of the Netherlands. The current one does. I do not deny that countries are a global phenomenon. I think that the older map was better at depicting this.

Actually, the prior world maps were rather dysfunctional, merely consuming space and appearing a collage of black that was of little informative value. They are too small, and one cannot resolve countries in them. In the newer maps, the topical focus is clear: one may first view the world map in the top left to find the country's overall location, and also readily see it in the larger map of Europe below. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In thumbnail size, both world maps do not differ much in detail. Borders (except the US-canada border...) are neigh invisible in both. Only the location of the world map is different, and I find it obstructing the place of the Netherlands as focal point of the image. --User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In the prior map, the world map is little more than an affectation, with the oddly sized Scandinavian countries and excessive details contributing to an overall lack of focus. The world map is far more informative in the latter map and not obstructing -- not only are the Netherlands far easier to locate on the world map (with instances of dark green throughout providing the focal point), but its placement represents a better use of available space on the map. And I can produce PNGs of higher resolution and or SVG maps, both of which will reveal complete country borders. Quizimodo 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What if you made the country borders dark green, or green-grey or something? It would resemble the other map a bit more then (perhaps solving some of the "aesthetic" problems), and it makes the lines stick out better (which, while aesthetic, is also important, far more so than which color is used). -- I agree that they're all but impossible to see currently, even aside from the fact that having borders and water be the same color is typically a bad idea. The whole map wouldn't hurt for having more contrast, either. Whether the water remains white or turns blue, I don't much care, but if it remains white, the light green needs to be made darker, as do the two shades of grey. If it turns blue, perhaps that would solve some of hte contrast issues, but I would still strongly recommend making it darker. There's the whole scale from white to black, use it, rather than limiting it to mid-grey (or mid-green). -Bbik^★ 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the world map, I also prefered it to the right, because it is distracting in the top left corner (One would like to assume that people at least know where Europe is, if not the countries specifically, such that they wouldn't even need to see the world map...), but I can see how it does perhaps "fit" better there. -Bbik^★ 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• The major function of the 'larger scale' is to include territories commonly reckoned in Europe (not only the EU), per the United Nations scheme of countries and regions -- by many accounts, Svalbard is a part of Europe, and Greenland (though generally considered a part of North America) is politically married to Denmark. Nonetheless, this is partially why Greenland is conveniently overlaid by the world map and, thus, taking advantage of the space. As well, those territories tangentially place Europe and its constituents, something lacking in the prior maps. In addition, the basic map will be provided, which can be used for other EU/Europe articles in Wikipedia.

When showing the location of a country, political correctness should not be necessary. No one will need Svalbard and Greenland to orientate themselves, though they are indeed part of Europe. Depicting them on the map is not necessary, and takes up valuable space. The article is about the Netherlands, and that country should be the focal point of the map. The old map shows this in a better way.

The inclusion of other European territories is not political but geographical correctness. The prior maps place undue weight on the concept of the EU (and you're referring to my argument as one routed in political correctness?), despite the concept of Europe dating back centuries. I disagree that an editor would not need other territories to place a country in Europe, and counterarguments for excluding peripheral territories don't hold. The Netherlands is squarely the focus of the newer locator map, while misshapen countries and unclear renditions are the focus of its predecessor. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Svalbard is as important to Europe as French Guyana and the Canary Islands. Both are not depicted. I do not see how showing an insignificant island is necessary on the location map of the Netherlands. I would even argue for excluding Russia and Iceland, but I think that would be a lost cause. --User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You continue to equate Europe with the EU. Svalbard may be part of the former, but it (and Norway) are not part of the latter. Physically, French Guiana is not part of Europe and the Canary Islands are closest to Africa (though are included on the locator map for Spain), while both are EU territory (by virtue of their parent countries); regardless, both of these are highlighted on the newer locator maps (on the world maps). Again, the basis of this map is Europe and the individual countries in it, with the EU as a secondary focus. Quizimodo 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am somewhat ambivalent regarding the circles, and may yet remove them; however, I hardly see how they distort the overall picture when they may aid in identifying smaller territories amidst larger ones.

They are unnecessary detail. Why include a circle for the Bahamas but do not include the West Frisian Islands, to show the location of the Netherlands?

I will remove the circles; I admit they are unnecessary in the current maps -- however, note that the Bahamas and similarly circled territories (microstates?) are sovereign entities or somehow unique politically, while the Frisian Islands are not. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. As above, I eagerly await a new version. However, I kindly ask that the older map stays in place until you have finalized the map. I will provide comments and criticism if you want. --User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I welcome feedback, but I see little reason to forego progress until then -- also considering that revised maps may change little from the 'beta' version. However, I will probably retain the circles for the France locator, since Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Réunion (parts of France and the EU, but not of Europe) would be difficult to identify otherwise. Quizimodo 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• As above, such maps do not need to depict, say, Santorini; yet, you can't clearly identify Malta on even the preceding locator map or (only after how many insets?) its own locator map (which will be updated) and is irrelevant to the issue of where the Netherlands are. As for its size, the more agreeable map uses an azimuthal equidistant projection, so the Netherlands (and other countries depicted) is no larger than it needs to be. In addition, I can generate maps in SVG format, but decided not to due to simplicity.

Malta was an example of how the new map was drawn in a worse manner. The other examples, which you did not address, let alone refute, still stand.

I'm unsure of the other points being made, so I cannot respond to them. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Purely aesthetic, the new map is just drawn worse than the old map. If this were a vector graphics image, I could understand, but it is not. The coastline is "spiky" in a lot of places, and the Finnish lakes appear to have changed in appearance overnight and are certainly not an endorheic sea the size of Belgium. Denmark appears to be an island. Greek islands have disappeared, and finding light green Malta on a white background takes a microscope." Malta was the last one.--User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Aesthetics are a matter of style -- for example, the prior map includes an abundance of rivers which seem rather oddly placed or are non-existent in reality. Scandinavian countries are unnecessarily elongated. The Finnish lakes have not changed between any of my map editions (to my recollection) but, in totality, the country does have more fresh water surface area (33,672 km2) than Belgium (30 528 km2) -- even the CIA map for Finland highlights Saimaa (the major Finnish lake). Country borders are white, but Jutland hardly looks like an island. Major Greek islands are depicted and its unnecessary to depcit the entire archipelago , and Malta will be difficult to depict on any map (but willbe especially highlighted on its locator). I can't qualify your opinion of the map being spiky: if anything, this is a characteristic of the European coastline. At its base, this line of argument is baseless -- would your reaction be different if I uploaded an SVG map? The same details would be evident. Again, this is/should be a locator map -- not one with over-excessive details. Quizimodo 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Summarized, I am not convinced the new map is an improvement over the old one. It is of good quality, but the old one was simply better. And that is why I reintroduced the old map on the Netherlands article. Also, please do not try to justify reckless actions and unsupported edits by citing WP:IAR. As you cited being bold, I will cite another thingy starting with WP here: WP:BRD.

I'm all for collaborating, but a reminder that IAR is policy, while BRD is not. As well, noting throughout that something is better does not necessarily make it so and seems an over-compensation -- in my opinion, it's debatable that you have demonstrated this through your reasoning and most of the above is based merely on style. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Any arguments starting with "IAR is policy" are horribly paradoxical. Follow the spirit, and not the letter of the rule. That is, improve the encyclopaedia, but if someone disagrees, try to discuss before pressing your edit through. (Like you have done twice now, by reverting my revert) I am quite reasonable, and a new version of your map sounds promising. --User:Krator (t c) 09:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Life is often paradoxical -- your behaviour (as indicated above) is affirmation of that. Is there a reason to not follow both the letter and spirit of ... Wiki-encyclopedism? One other editor below prefers the older inferior map, and another prefers the newer unpretentious one. You alone have stridently opposed this map, and perhaps that's part of the problem. I'm all for enhancements, but until others are forthcoming or unless there is systemic opposition to this map -- which is not yet the case -- there's little reason to stop the wheels of progress. Quizimodo 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of mass reverting changes to other countries - I am only concerned with the Netherlands article. Feel free to copy and cite parts of my reasoning in discussions on the same issue concerning other countries. Do wikilink my username when doing so.

--User:Krator (t c) 20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Summarised, I feel the current maps are innovations on the preceding maps; however, there is room for improvement, and I look forward to working with other editors (here and on the country project pages) to help enhance the locator maps. One thing is clear: the status quo does not seem to be a viable option. Thanks. Quizimodo 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And both of you: It's not going to kill anything to leave one version of the map (whichever version) for a few days while this gets worked out. Once something is agreed, then go reverting and all, but until then please stop with the edit warring -- that's more disruptive than either map. -Bbik^★ 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I prefer Image:EU location NED.png a great. It's of higher quality, and it's easier to figure out what is land and what is water for those who live in other continents and don't know the exact shape of Europe without. It's pretty standard for water to be blue in maps. This map also shows the rivers very well. I say definitely keep using Image:EU location NED.png, although the other one is a good map, it's not great, as is the more colorful one.  hmwith  talk 20:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree the (orange) maps is great. Ok the water is blue, but the addition of rivers seems fairly random (many rivers in Sweden of about the size of the Dommel are shown, while the Maas is not. Also the used Mercator projection horribly distorts Scandinavia in the version. Althoug the colourful map looks nice and detailed it gives a false idea of detail which is not there in reality. I think both maps are ok, but both leave room for improvement. I would go for the less pretentious map (which is the new suggestion). This map also fits closer with the municipality style maps used (see e.g. Amsterdam) and also can be converted into SVG (preffered graphical format) much more easily. Arnoutf 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:WPC

It seems we are not going to achieve consensus here, though I might support a new map if my major issues with the 'green maps' are dealt with. Take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, and try to achieve consensus there with broad input from the community via WP:RFC.

I kindly request you leave the old map in place as long as discussion is ongoing - it is the last version with consensus. Determining whether that consensus no longer exists will take the aforementioned broad input. --User:Krator (t c) 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we will not achieve consensus here, and that is also to say it may not exist elsewhere either, but that is no reason to stop the wheels of progress and edit war regarding this (and you have reverted this article four times in the last 24 hours). I will seek broader input when I get a moment; in the meantime, I suggest you refrain from reverting. Quizimodo 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is twisting the intention of Wikipedia's rules. I could make an awful map myself and revert three times, concluding that it is "progress". The burden of proof is one the one making the change, and you have provided no such evidence that your change is an improvement. It is disputed, and therefore you should be able to bring up the courtesy to leave the old one in place. --User:Krator (t c) 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How? Your pre-emptive and compulsive reversions are rather discourteous and have done more to fly in the face of Wikipedia's 'rules' than anything I've done. You have provided little evidence to support the prior state, and have resorted to edit warring when you cannot or choose not to persuade. The prior map was also disputed by many editors, for which a clear consensus has not been clearly shown, so we can always restore the original map. This is not going away. Quizimodo 18:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourth opinion: The map is not the territory

Why is this particular map here? It seems to me that the map is being used to show where in Europe the Netherlands is located for those who are either unaware or unclear. If that is assumed, and unless it is expected that someone will be using the map for navigation, then ultra-strict accuracy is probably not going to be the primary consideration. If someone needs to know where the Netherlands is, he or she is probably not going to care or even notice if the Maas has gone missing. For the rest of us, the map is simply window-dressing.

Keeping the primary audience for that map in mind, we should look at how someone unfamiliar with European geography will see the two alternatives offered. The two choices, which I will call the Orange Map and the Green Map, differ most to the non-finely-tuned eye in the level of visual contrast between landmasses, oceans and waterways, borders, and other more or less important details. At my particular screen resolution and color depth, I can see the most important details of the Orange Map, even when thumbnailed, with much more ease than I can discern important details like national borders in the Green Map -- even when it is enlarged. What use is a more accurate depiction of Malta when I can hardly make out where France ends and Germany begins? This concern probably goes double or triple for the visually impaired. As it stands, I think the Orange Map has a clearly superior visual presentation for its purpose, and if the Green Map wants to compete, it will need major changes in how it presents its ostensibly more accurate data. --Dynaflow babble 17:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your initial questions are ones which I asked upon creating the 'green' locator maps: what is the map's purpose, and what is the primary audience? The former 'orange' map places undue emphasis on the EU -- and, hence, I bounce back your quotation from Korzybski -- and its other distortions (e.g., projection) detract from its primary function: to enable a visitor to locate the country of note. These were also jerry-rigged to exhibit non-EU countries (like Norway). If the EU wasn't such a big deal, ideal locator maps might very well be even more focused -- i.e., for the Netherlands, showing the Benelux and surrounding lands, without even have to exhibit far away lands like Malta (unnecessary in the current argument). And if exhibiting the EU wasn't the primary intent of the prior maps, which is perhaps a matter of making a point, they are badly designed to begin with: I have a 1680 x 1050 monitor, and the orange (supposedly its focus) gets lost amid the camel. Consult, say an almanac, and you will note that locator maps more closely resemble the simpler 'green' maps in their design than the 'orange' ones. The world locator on the 'orange' map is totally unclear. In addition, any locator map that needs a legend/caption to clarify its contents is one that needs improvement. So, for the visually impaired (not to mention for those not in the know), a wealth of details in the 'orange' maps may do more to confuse topic matter than anything in the simpler 'green' maps.

The 'green' maps carry over the best of the 'orange' maps (retaining the scheme for identifying EU countries, as needed, and more accurately exhibiting its namesake) while standardising with other locator maps used almost everywhere else and have other innovations. In the 'green' maps, the focus is quite clear -- with the Netherlands contrasting well with surrounding lands -- and the colour grades and general arrangement is simpler (so, a legend for the 'green' maps may not be required, but is provided in the image detail). The world map clearly indicates where the Netherlands are. As well, I disagree that there is difficulty in discerning France from Germany in the 'green' maps, particularly if enlarged; anyhow, is it not an aim of the EU to eliminate borders among its members? ;)

Anyhow, I am working on modifying the maps. However, given the commentary expressed here and little to no opposition expressed elsewhere, I see little reason to forego worthwhile changes in the 'green' maps. After all, Wikipedia isn't static, and (definitely) the 'orange' maps are not the territory. Quizimodo 18:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to point out that I made essentially the same comments as Dynaflow in #Response, since I have a suspicion that edit got lost in all these others made right around the same time.

And actually, adding to it all, what if along with darker colors, the non-EU European countries were made the light shade of green, such that all of Europe is a single color, with EU being darker, and the specific country (Netherlands, here) the darkest, and leaving the grey to non-Europe? Because I'd have to say that (if we're going to assume lack of knownledge about the general shape of the continents in this world) it's actually not all that clear (in either map) that the completely differently colored area is still supposed to be part of the same area as the obviously colored EU, and even less so because the non-EU color in both is closer to the non-Europe color than the EU color. -Bbik^★ 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, in the 'green' maps (R,G,B): dark green (country) = 0,128,0; light green (rest of EU) = 192,255,192; dark grey (rest of Europe) = 192,192,192; light grey (other lands) = 208,208,208. In my opinion, what you suggest would probably dilute the colouring scheme too much and make the map rather unfocused: after all, the point of these maps is more to highlight the country, not necessarily the EU or Europe. (For non-EU country locators, I was envisioning green as before, the rest of Europe as dark grey, and all other land as light grey.) As with the 'orange' maps, the current maps are trying to cover off on all of these points but I feel they exhibit and deal with these differences better: the focus of the 'green' map is unquestionably the country, though it 'centres' on Europe. I think matters regarding over continental shape and placement are clarified by consulting the world map in the top left. Quizimodo 21:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

When doing graphic-design work, especially where computers (and their monitors) are involved, it is important to consider who will be viewing your work and through what media they will do it. People read Wikipedia on huge plasma screens, small CRT monitors, handheld devices, and everything in between. People who are colorblind and otherwise visually impaired read Wikipedia articles. You must accommodate these users, because they will not be able to accommodate you.

The truth is, even to well-sighted readers with fair-to-middling monitors, pale teal the dominates your current version of the map does not stand out from white well enough to make the whole thing work together. You overall intention is good in stripping away unessential detail; you have just done it so far (and this goes for your other EU maps too) in a way that makes the important details you have chosen to leave in extremely hard to see for those of us without good monitors or good eyes. --Dynaflow babble 19:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Try this experiment: Adjust your screen resolution and color depth to a variety of different settings to view your thumbnailed maps, and then try doing the same thing with whatever other monitors are handy. You will probably start to see why resistance to these maps, as they are, is so high. --Dynaflow babble 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I tried that early on: I hardly see how or why the 'green' maps are more problematic when the 'orange' ones are far more complex for not what -- the latter definitely do not conform to any sort of KISS mentality in terms of graphic or cartographic design. The truth is: even well-sighted readers may have difficulty wondering why the pretentious 'orange' maps are designed so badly. We can do better than that, the 'green' maps are a first step, and I am working on suggested variations. And, across more than a dozen articles (to being with), I must point out that the only appreciable resistance yet expressed has been by a few editors on this page ... but there appears to be little else to justify retaining the inferior 'orange' maps and the reversions by Krator. Quizimodo 21:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the orange maps are indeed overly complex, the unnecessary depth of ocean and height of mountains as well as the (random selection of) rivers makes the map not easy to read. There are some problems with the green map as well. The placement of the globe makes it hard to read, also there appear to be some dots in the worldview. The colour scheme of the green map may use some harder contrast to make distinction easier; on the upside, the creator may want to keep improving the maps, while the creator of the orange map explicitly stated that he will not make anymore adjustments. Arnoutf 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- the points regarding worldview map placement and dots are dealt with above, but I acknowledge there is always room for improvement. Anyhow, I will relent for now but have only one thing to say: stay tuned for more/improved maps. :) And, seeing as how this is contentious here almost solely, I will do so for the Netherlands first. Quizimodo 21:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Revival by User:Zakuragi

After two more reverts (gah.) just now, the discussion on the subject seems to have been revived. I point User:Zakuragi to the above (please read it), and then ask any questions or make any new points below. I will be happy to answer. User:Krator (t c) 18:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with your argument about lack of consensus (Krator) sadly this seems to be the reality for these maps. The current orange maps were pushed without consensus (I, a.o., protested), nevertheless agressive reversion without any talk page discussion, and any discussion using the argument the other EU countries used the orange map, so we should mad me give up to the bullies in that situation and leave it at that. Nevertheless that it worked once is not a reason to repeat that abject behaviour. Arnoutf 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for conflict regarding maps

It seems that users Quizimodo and Krator have engaged in a conflict in relation to the map depicted on this page. I would ask both of you not to change the map for two weeks whatever happens (i.e. until July second) as step 2 in conflict resolution suggests. Note that this would be a voluntary agreement for both of you, but it might diffuse the issue. It means that Quizimodo will not change the orange map to the green one, but it also means that Krator will not change the green map to the orange one if anyone (other than Quizimodo) sets up the green map. Of course both of you are welcome to discuss the issue here, or elsewhere, I only ask you to stay away from the edit war. Please mention whether you agree with this suggestion. Thanks. Arnoutf 21:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, but I do reserve the right to change the map to another, newer variant. Quizimodo 21:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that both of you will stay away for the map for two weeks from now. You are free to design a new map, post and discuss it on this talk page and try to get consensys for it, but please stay away from the map on the wiki article (main space). Arnoutf 21:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Understood but be advised that, failing anything else, the current 'orange' map will be replaced with something after that period. Quizimodo 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Personally I am just waiting for 'Modo to seek input on WP:WPC. This proposed break also conincides partially with a period of reduced computer access by myself. Judging from the intentions above, it seems that the happy revert warring will continue after the break, though. "Be advised that it will be replaced" does not read like an editor prepared to concede his point when confronted with consensus. --User:Krator (t c) 22:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I will seek more input, but having to deal with your somewhat disingenuous compulsive edit warring over the last little while is time-consuming as it is. In contrast to my expressed desire to improve the locator maps, you sound rather resigned to preserve a mediocre status quo. Present me with a clear consensus and I'll adhere to it -- for now, I have agreed to refrain until something new arises. Until then (or at least for two weeks), assume the good faith and other wikipolicies you liberally invoke or don't bother commenting. I'll be back later with more. Quizimodo 22:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

S. Solberg J.'s map

I think this is an awesome map. It solves most of my criticism on both maps. I hope we have an agreement here. --User:Krator (t c) 22:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As it seems these maps are disputed too, judging by the revert, I will await the results of a broad discussion. --User:Krator (t c) 22:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My revert is nothing to do with the map, everything to do with trying to stop yet another round of endless reverts on a bunch of European country articles. Actually Solberg's maps probably are the best, but lets get consensus before changing every country to them! Thanks/wangi 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Impeccable timing: I, too, favour this map to the current one. It can still be tweaked through (e.g., clarifying/simplifying globe, highlighting the Netherlands on it, slightly enlarged scope needed?). We should probably have a grand discussion on developing an authoritative locator map to replace the current 'orange' ones. Quizimodo 22:30, 18 June 2007 Quizimodo

I like Ssolbergj's map too. Accurate as it needs to be, simple as it can be, visible at any reasonable size, no bullshit. I would support having that be the solution to the Great Dutch Map War of 2007. --Dynaflow babble 00:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support placing the new 'orange' map of the Netherlands in the interim; however, these newer maps (as mine) still need tweaking and we must develop an agreeable standard (e.g., the colours may remain an issue) so that this issue does not recur -- see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#New_European_vector_maps. I still plan on creating/placing map variants for our review, but (of course) have been pre-occupied. :) Quizimodo 00:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

New European vector maps

You're invite to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 12:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Netherlands or Holland

I am half Dutch and prefer the term Holland because Netherlands sounds like Neverland. --69.234.210.218 20:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Jknight 98 Ik zal handhaven

Read through the first two paragraphs of the article, and you'll find your answer. --Dynaflow babble 03:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and as being fully Dutch and living outside the two provinces forming Holland, I prefer the Netherlands. Peter Maas\^talk 11:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My own Reply: Well when I was in middles school I got fun of because my dad was descended from immigrants from the Netherlands between the Civil War and World War I they called it Neverlands. --69.234.176.81 01:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Yes I'm half-Dutch

I'm fully Dutch as well and I agree with poster. If you market the place as Holland you should accept that this will be the familiar name for foreigners. Taking offence at Holland because you happen to live outside of North-Holland or South-Holland is very childish. Very Dutch, in fact!

Holland is comparable to "Britain" as far as I'm concerned - technically "Britain" is the name of the island which includes England, Scotland and Wales, but most people just use Britain to refer to the United Kingdom as a whole (i.e. including Northern Ireland and all of the islands). This is perfectly acceptable in casual usage and it's a little galling that these articles always have to turn into an obsessive attempt to come up with the technically correct names in my opinion. Blankfrackis (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope Holland is much more similar to using England for the whole of the UK, as Holland is a political rather than merely a geographical division. Although many use England to refer to the whole of the UK, that is in general not acceptable to e.g. the Scots; you should interpret the Holland-Netherlands case similarly (actually the plural in Netherlands is derived from Kingdom of the Netherlands (plural) or before that the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands: referring to Holland, Zeeland, Guelders, Utrecht, etc. - so even the use of the word United is very similar to England-UK indeed). Of course if you advocate the use of England for the whole of the UK (they are comparable as far as I am concerned) I might reconsider. Also see: British Isles Terminology England and say where the Holland-Netherlands case is different. Arnoutf (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"United Kingdom as a whole (i.e. including Northern Ireland and all of the islands)." What do you mean by all of the islands, Blanckfrackis? I hope you do not mean the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey. If you did mean them, you should also read Crown dependencies. Tomeasy_talk 21:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean the many other islands which are considered a part of the United Kingdom - Skye, Arran, Lewis, Benbecula, etc - but are not "Great Britain" (the largest island in the British Isles). I must admit I don't really see what relevance this has to the discussion on Holland though. Blankfrackis (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf - the difference between England and Holland, in my opinion, is that Holland is used frequently in casual discourse within the Netherlands to refer to the country as a whole, but England is never used in this way within the United Kingdom. The argument here is that terminology which has legitimacy within casual discourse can still be seen as legitimate even when it is formally incorrect. That is not the case with England as it has never been a legitimate shorthand for the United Kingdom (either formally or informally) and the term is only used in this way outside of the country itself. That's a far more substantive distinction between the two terms than the fact that one is based on political divisions and the other on geographic divisions as far as I'm concerned. Blankfrackis (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. In Dutch (language) Holland is hardly ever used (except for during Football matches) and Nederland is always used. Agreed, when Dutch "try" to speak English they may use it, but that does not mean this implies anything but incomplete mastery of the English language. On the other hand, the Dutch also use England for the whole of the UK, both in Dutch (Engeland) as in English.

There has been a short period in history only when Holland was official shorthand, that was in the time of the Kingdom of Holland (about 10 year in Napoleontic times); but I think a vassal state created by a conquering army can hardly be an argument that there is a history of "legitimate" or "formal" shorthand. Other elements: Personal unions of noble classes, economic power house of region, less than half the geographical surface area - yet the most visible and powerful of the united provinces are all very similar to England in relation to the other constituent countries; and not at all comparable with Britain (island, by far largest part of the kingdom, etc) vs the rest of the UK. Of course the analogy Holland-England is not perfect, but none can be, as the history is different; in my view it is nevertheless a much better one than Britain-Holland. Arnoutf (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone

A call to all Dutch wikipedians; I'd like to see a more biased tone here! 84.87.138.105 20:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is either irony or misplaced. Arnoutf 22:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It must be irony. Judging from the illiterate style, I'd say that the article was written by The Hague civil servants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, what do YOU have against Dutch people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.211.219 (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

PM the leader of the largest coalition party?

Hallo ArnoutF, thanks for your attention to my minor edits in this article. I do not object to your removing the words 'but not always' as they are not essential here. But in view of your comment 'I do not know of a largest coalition party not providing prime min', there is something to be clarified here.

Partly it depends on the period we look at. It is true that the last five PM's (den Uyl, van Agt, Lubbers, Kok, Balkenende) each led the largest coalition party upon becoming PM. But this does not mean it is a standard rule. In the complete period 1945-1972 NONE of the PM's was (at the time of taking office, that is). When Drees first became PM in 1948, the KVP held 5 more seats than the PvdA in the Tweede Kamer (32-27). Biesheuvel became PM in 1971 when his party ARP held only 13 seats (CDA, of course, did not yet exist).

On top of that, all PM's who came from KVP (Beel, de Quay, Marijnen, Cals, de Jong) were members, but certainly not the leader of the largest coalition party at the time they took office.

Rather convincing, isn't it? I will be interested to learn your comment. Occasionally I may try and make another contribution, and I trust that our efforts will not bother, but rather replenish each other. Regards, Paul kuiper NL 21:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you are right, I did not know of the older ones I agree that there is no rule. To be honest I thought you were referring to the largest party in cases where it was not part of the coalition (for example in the CDA-VVD coaltion when PvdA was largest). My mistake. Also the point you make that members who are not leaders of their party have become PM is well taken. I changed it back and added a sentence to give the context in which I made my mistake: "In practice all prime minsiters since the 1970s have been the leader of the largest coalition party." PS thanks for the very open comments, I would much prefer to work together rather than to have to argue every little detail. I may have been a bit blunt in my edit but that maybe coloured by some trouble I am having on another article right now. Hope to meet you soon in other edits. Arnoutf 22:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Apparently you have not yet made the change you announce above. If you are still to do this, I suggest that it might read 'since 1973' rather than 'since the 1970s' as it is not applicable to Biesheuvel (1971-1973); Den Uyl, who took office in May 1973, was actually the first MP since WOII who was (upon taking office) the leader of the largest coalition party. As this is not really essential, of course I leave this to your judgement. Bye, Paul kuiper NL 23:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Weird, I was pretty sure I did make the edit, perhaps something went wrong. I did it again with 1973 now. Arnoutf 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Marijuana on board Dutch airlines - legal?

Seeing as marijuana is legal in the Netherlands, is it allowed on board their airline? Not smoking, obviously, but what about ingesting etc? Davez621 10:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha, no it is not. First of all its use is in a bit of a grey area neither being legal or illegal. Secondly it IS illegal to transport it out of the country. Arnoutf 17:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, what about domestic flights within the country? Davez621 13:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You think there are many domestic flights in the Netherlands? Or are you just trying too be funny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.20.147 (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, only at a coffeeshop or at home. Nowhere else. Daimanta 16:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Marihuana is not legal in NL, it is largely tolerated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.117.3 (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been officially recognized as being equal to "de facto legalized". —msikma (user, talk) 20:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sprotection

Ok, I have had it with this ludicrous vandalism. I will request sprotection, if possible indefinately. It has to stop NOW, once and forever. Daimanta 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? Ludicrous vandalism is easily revertable. More intelligent vandalism, that would be a good reason~to request semiprotection. Niels(F)^{? en | nl} 00:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with NielsF on this one. I don't see how the vandalism on this article has exceeded the level of revert, block, ignore. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The revertability isn't what concerns me. What does concern me is that pretty much all of the anon-edits are vandalism and most edits in this article are vandalism or reverts of it. It is hampering the production of a good article. Daimanta 07:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I was about to make a (constructive) edit when I noticed the protection. Vandalism happens. Vandalism gets reverted. That doesn't hinder productive edits, though. Oh, well. May I make a simple request? It is a small matter, but the first mention of "polder" is not wikilinked. The second instance of the word, a couple of paragraphs later, is wikilinked. Would someone be kind enough to reverse this situation? I had never heard of a polder and would have appreciated a link to the first mention of the word so I could check it and gain a better understanding of the context. Thank you. 152.16.188.107 08:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It is done. F-402 08:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, can it be turned off again, anon IPs are trying to make constructive edits, while the vandalism (IMHO) never was beyond the ludricous level nor the unmaintainable frequency level. Arnoutf 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-8 22:45

Economy

Could someone change the unemployment figures? The latest Eurostat figures are 3.3%. The latest CBS (Dutch statistics agency) figures are 4.4%. Thank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.173.100 (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the figures into actual data (Q3 2007). Unemployment has further fallen to 4.0% and economic growth is at 4.1% (see CBS (www.cbs.nl).

The following discussion is a closed of the proposed merger of this article. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: No consensus for merger - no merger

Merging "Netherlands" and "Kingdom of the Netherlands"?

Hi,

I propose to merge the articles Netherlands and Kingdom of the Netherlands.

I know this proposition has at first glance no chance of success because those two articles theoretically deal with two distinct entities: the Netherland is a European region; the Kingdom of the Netherlands is the federation bringing togeteher three subjects: the Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. At first view there is no reason to merge these two articles.

But that's theory. The fact is the Kingdom of the Netherlands is the official name of an independent country, subject of public international law and "the Netherlands" (in the definition given in the Netherlands Wikipedian article) are only a part of it, as Jutland is only a part of Denmark. For example, in every treaty establishing the European Union (Treaty of Rome, of Amsterdam, of Maastricht, of Nice...) it's clear that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a member state of the EU. I think the same apply in every international organization the Netherlands are part of. What English Wikipedia calls "The Netherlands" is not an independent country.

And on Wikipedia, the confusion between the two entities is total. For example, every article about the EU states that the Netherlands are part of it, and links from every such articles or template boxes lead to the Netherlands article, instead of Kingdom of the Netherlands. Furthermore, all non-political facts about this country are given in the Netherlands artcle, not in the Kingdom of the Netherlands article. All should be put into the article dealing about the independent country subject of international law.

Maybe it's important for clarity to have two separate articles about two different subjects. But the separation used today in English Wikipedia isn't good at all. There should be one great article about the country, including most of the text which is now in Netherlands, and in it a political chapter explaining exactly the status of "Kingdom of the Netherland" as the status of this country. This large article must be named Netherlands, because "the Netherlands" are the short form of "the Kingdom of the Netherlands", as "France" is the short form of "the French Republic". Reading the European treaties show us clearly that the term "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is used every time a long form is needed for the name of the country and the term "Netherlands" is used when a short form is needed. There must be one article merging the two existing articles and it must bear the short form name, like every other article about independent countries.

After that, a new article can be created, under a name such as Netherlands (proper) or Netherlands (continental part) or anything else you want, speaking specifically of the continental part of the country. And I even say: speaking specifically of the administrative and political specificity of "the Netherlands" as one of the parts of the federation called "the (Kingdom of the) Netherlands". Every historical, geographical, cultural facts should be put in the main Netherlands article and not in this one.

What do you think of it ? Every suggestion and comment are welcomed!

Švitrigaila 11:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this merge. As you said, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a federation of three self-governing nations/countries, of which the Netherlands is one. The comparison with Denmark and Jutland is moot, since Jutland is not self-governing and is only a geographical part of Denmark but not a political subdivision. The Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are equal, self-governing constituent parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, like England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But would you suggest merging these articles into one? I sure hope not.

Yes, the terms Netherlands and Kingdom of the Netherlands are incorrectly used to refer to the same thing. But that is where Wikipedia comes in: it can clarify the confusion: that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a political union/federation, of which the Netherlands is the European part. If the confusion is not clarified sufficiently, the articles require cleanup, not merge.

As far as linking to the Netherlands as an EU member is concerned ("For example, every article about the EU states that the Netherlands are part of it, and links from every such articles or template boxes lead to the Netherlands article, instead of Kingdom of the Netherlands"): those links are correct. The Netherlands is an EU member state, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are "overseas countries and territories". Yes, it's more complex than that: since the citizens of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are citizens of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (there's one citizenship for the entire Kingdom), they are EU citizens. But the islands themselves are not part of the EU.

What you have to keep in mind is that the Netherlands is a country, that Aruba is a country, that the Netherlands Antilles is a country, and that these three countries are tied in one Kingdom. This is all very complex, and needs to be explained in great detail, to avoid any confusion. But this detail is not reached through a simple merge, using one misnomen.

To summarise: the Netherlands is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, but it is not the Kingdom of the Netherlands itself. Any confusion needs to be fixed through cleanup. Merging is the wrong answer to an otherwise legitimate concern. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not fully agree with you, Švitrigaila. It is true that only the Kingdom signs international treaties, but the common practice is that the Netherlands initiates negotiations on international treaties and that at a later stage the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are asked if they want to join (as a remark: this practice has caused that the NA and Aruba are not signatories of several important UN treaties and is critized by the "Raad van State van het Koninkrijk", the highest advisory body of the Kingdom government). It is true that the Kingdom of the Netherlands signed the EU treaties, but it is specified in the treaty that only the Netherlands is a member of the EU. Part Four of the Treaty of Rome (articles 182-188) specifies the relationship of the Community with oversees territories of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France and Denmark as listed in Annex II of the Treaty (and Annex II includes Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles). Other international treaties of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are similar in the fact that it is implied that the treaty only applies to the Netherlands.

Here in the Netherlands the institutions of the Government of the Netherlands and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are regularly confused. This stems from the fact that the Kingdom government and the Netherlands government are very similar, it consists of all the ministers of the Netherlands completed by a Mandated minister from the Netherlands Antilles and a Mandated minister from Aruba. The Parliament of the Netherlands is also the Parliament of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (this is subject to much critisism). The "Raad van State van het Koninkrijk" is the Netherlands "Raad van State" completed by a member from the Netherlands Antilles and a member from Aruba. All these institutions may look the same for the untrained eye, but de jure they are different.

Completing the Kingdom of the Netherlands article with some info from the Netherlands article is fine with me, but the article about the Kingdom should be named Kingdom of the Netherlands, because in official documents the Netherlands has never been used to describe the Kingdom of the Netherlands since the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands was created in 1954. If you read the Charter you will see that in fact the word "Kingdom" is used as the short form for the Kingdom of the Netherlands and not "the Netherlands", because that term is used for the constituent country. Also in the press the term "Netherlands" only applies to the European part of the Kingdom, and Kingdom is used when describing the Kingdom of the Netherlands. A similar practice is used when describing the citizens of the Kingdom; Nederlanders (Dutchmen) is only used to describe citizens of the Kingdom living in the Netherlands (thus, European part). All citizens of the Kingdom taken together are described as Rijksgenoten (fellow Kingdom men, rather untranslatable actually, as you English "lost" the Germanic word Reich/Rijk :)). I must warn you that calling the Kingdom of the Netherlands just "Netherlands" in wikipedia articles may offend people in Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, because the three constituent countries are entirely equal. It is only at the Kingdom level that the Netherlands has considerably more power. Maarten 12:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We both wrote this at the same time, Aecis, so I only now read your contribution. But I must say that I fully agree with you. Maarten 12:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

From the FAQ-section of the website of the Dutch "Ministry for the Interior and Kingdom Affairs":

Zijn de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba onderdeel van Nederland?
Nee, de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba zijn, net als Nederland, landen in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. Ze hebben beide een eigen regering en een eigen parlement. Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden kun je zien als een laag bovenop de besturen van de drie landen. Er is een Koninkrijksregering, die bestaat uit de Nederlandse regering aangevuld met vertegenwoordigers van de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba. Het buitenlandse beleid en de defensie van het Koninkrijk zijn zaken die op dit niveau worden geregeld.

— www.minbzk.nl

Partial translation: "Are the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba part of the Netherlands? Answer: No, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are, like the Netherlands, countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands". I think that when the Government of the Netherlands denies that the NA and Aruba are part of the Netherlands on the first FAQ-question, wikipedia should not say that they ARE part of the Netherlands.

You say that the Netherlands is the short form of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. I've shown that in Dutch common practice (both legal and in the press) this is not the case; the Kingdom of the Netherlands is usually shortened to Kingdom, never to Netherlands. It may be so that English speaking people refer to the Kingdom of the Netherlands as "Netherlands", but I think that's because they are not very much aware of the distinction between the two. In the Netherlands we regularly speak of the United Kingdom as "Engeland" (England), but does that mean we should change the title of the United Kingdom article on the Dutch wikipedia (nl:Verenigd Koninkrijk) to "Engeland"? I don't think so; that may offend people in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Why then change Kingdom of the Netherlands to "Netherlands" which may offend people from the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba? Maarten 14:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge; suggest speedy close Agree with concise arguments by Maarten and Aecis; nothing to add to that. Arnoutf 16:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry, but I still don't agree with it at all. Maybe merging the two articles is not the solution, but the problem is not resolved. I still claim that:

1. "The Netherlands" (in the definition given in its Wikipedian article) is not a country, and is not a member of any international organisation;
2. "The Kingdom of the Netherlands" is the name of an independent country, member of EU, NATO, UNO and a lot of other international organizations;
3. In the international law, "the Netherlands" is used as the short form of "the Kingdom of the Netherlands" every time a short form name is required in an official text.

Maybe some examples I gave above weren't very wise. The situation of Jutland in Denmark is certainly not comparable to the European part of the Netherlands in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Let's forget it for a while and let's read international treaties.

For an example to my argumentation, let's read the Treaty of Maastricht (1992). At first glance, we can see the form "the Netherlands" is used everywhere. But it is always used in enumerations of short form names of member countries: see article 146 and article 194 for examples. But if you read the protocols, then the long form of names are used. And the long form name of this country is "the Kingdom of the Netherlands". What is clearly writen in the Protocol of Social Policy is:

« NOTING that eleven Member States, that is to say the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Portuguese Republic, wish to continue along the path laid down in the 1989 Social Charter ... »

The Kingdom is clearly named as the member state of the European Union! It's only an example, but you can check every international treaty signed by "the Netherlands" and the result is always the same: the signatory is always "the Kingdom of the Netherlands", whose short form name is "the Netherlands". In international law, "the Netherlands" and "the Kingdom of the Netherlands" are exactly the same thing.

Check the list of members of the UNO, you'll find a list of short form names, in which is "Netherlands". Would that mean that the territory of Aruba, for example, is not part of a UNO member? Yes it is. It is a territory part of "Netherland", as New Caledonia is a part of the member called "France". Once again, "Netherlands" is used as the short form of "the Kingdom of the Netherlands".

Now let's turn back to my comparisons. Jutland was not a good example, let's take New Caledonia instead. France has several overseas territories. Some (Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Réunion) have the status of overseas departments. That status is in the French Republic a bit like the new status Bonaire will have next year in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Others (New Caledonia, French Polynesia...) have a very different status with a very wide autonomy. This status is very near Aruba's status in the Kingdom. And like Aruba and Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia enjoys a lot of special dispensations towards European treaties (it has its own currency for example). But why then do we never make a difference in France between "the French Republic" and "France"? Because it's the same thing. Of course, an inhabitant of New Caledonia making a trip to Paris will say "I'm going to France" and no-one will answer him "But you're already in France!" That's obvious he is not, according to the meaning he uses for that word. In France, we use an unofficial word to speak about the European part of it : "la France métropolitaine" (Metropolitan France) or even "la Métropole" (the Metropolis). It's an unofficial term. In international treaties, the term "the European territory of France" is used instead.

So my question is :

Why is there on Wikipedia a large article for France with every links converting towards it and a very minor one about Metropolitan France which is only a part of France, and in the same time a large article for Netherlands with every links converting towards it and a very minor article about the Kingdom of the Netherlands when the first is only a part of the second?

I think that must be corrected. Every link toward Netherlands must be redirected toward Kingdom of the Netherlands, except few ones that can lead more properly toward Netherlands.

I think that the first meaning of "Netherlands" is the country named "Netherlands", that is in fact "the Kingdom of the Netherlands". Then, even if we don't merge the two articles, the Netherlands page must be either a dab or a simple redirect to Kingdom of the Netherlands.

I think that a lot of false statements written in both articles must be corrected. For example: "The Netherlands has an international outlook; among other affiliations the country is a member of the European Union (EU), NATO, the OECD, and has signed the Kyoto protocol. Along with Belgium and Luxembourg, the Netherlands is also one of three member nations of the Benelux economic union." = false! It's the Kingdom of the Netherlands. "The country is host to four international courts: the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Court..." = false! It's not a country: the country that hosts them is the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

And I think it's better to merge at first the two articles for practicle reasons, mostly because nearly everything in Netherlands should be put in Kingdom of the Netherlands and after that a new separate article can be created aabaout the continental part of the Netherlands.

Švitrigaila 11:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Švitrigaila's suggestion has some merit, yes -- it seems that it's indeed the KotN which is a member of international organisations and the EU and so on. —Nightstallion 11:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Švitrigaila's suggestion has some merit, yes. As I said above, it's a legitimate concern: we don't seem to succeed in making the legal status of the constituent parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands clear enough. That could be a task for the WikiProject Netherlands and perhaps the WikiProject Countries. But merging is not the answer. As Maarten has made clear, the Netherlands != the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and it would be incorrect to use one name to refer to the other. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the comparison with France is not the best possible as France has declared many of its overseas areas part of the country in each and every situation; basically these are French communalities that happen to be at remote location. The (current) Netherlands Antilles situation seems to have more communalities with that of the Channel Islands, the Island of Man, and the Falkland Islands. Neither of these are represented in international treaties, except through the UK, none of them is officially part of the EU.

Nevertheless there is some merit to making links to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the information on the current page Kingdom however should IMHO not be merged into the Netherlands article, as it is very specific about the relation between the European and Caribbean parts of the state; which is only a minor part of the politics of the whole. Perhaps rename the current Kingdom artcle to something like "Relation between countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands", which would free the Kingdom of the Nl to povide a redirect to the Netherlands page. Arnoutf 14:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, when you read article IV-440 of the European Constitution (it's not in practice, I know, but the same could be said for every other European treaty), you'll see that « This Treaty shall apply to (...) the French Republic, (...) the Kingdom of the Netherlands ... ». There are some provisions excluding Aruba, the Netherlands Antilles and New Caledonia from the scope of some articles, but the text applies to them by default because New Caledonia is in the French Republic and Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Channel Islands are another thing as they are not part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Švitrigaila 14:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for my merit... I don't think this discussion is a dispute because we know the same facts and all is only a matter of presenting them. If a merge is impossible, it's not important. I saw that move as a way to the aim, not as the aim itself. But supposing we succeed to rationalize the use of "Netherlands" and "Kingdom of the Netherlands" in Wikipedia: that will lead to other problems we can only see a part of.

For example: what about nationality of Dutch people? On Paul Verhoeven's article I can read he is "a [[Netherlands|Dutch]] film director". If nationality comes from the Kingdom, the link has to be corrected by "[[Kingdom of the Netherlands|Dutch]]". And the same apply for every Dutch citizen. But that's not all: what about Dutch citizens living before the creation of the Kingdom, like Baruch Spinoza who lived in a republic?

That leads to the next problem: what about the continuity of the country? As it is presented now, the Kingdom was created ex nihilo in 1954 and what is called "the Netherlands" is in continuity with the country of the same name that existed before. But, if I don't mistake, this country was officialy called "the Kingdom of the Netherlands", wasn't it? I see the present "Kingdom of the Netherlands" as a continuity of the old "Kingdom of the Netherlands" and what is now called "the Netherlands" is a creation of 1954.

Aecis asked me above if I would want to merge England and United Kingdom into one article. Certainly not considering how those two articles are written today. The History section of the first article stops when the United Kingdom is formed, and the following history is in United Kingdom. But if everything concerning the United Kigdom was written in England and if United Kingdom contained only institutional informations about the British Constitution, and if every links from other articles dealing about citizenship of persons or membership in international organizations and so on leaded to England instead of United Kingdom, then yes: I would ask for merging the two articles. But England and United Kingdom are far better separated than Kingdom of the Netherlands and Netherlands are.

A last thing: "Netherlands" is indeed the short form name of the "Kingdom of the Netherlands", even in official usage as I showed above. It's never referd as "Kingdom of the Netehrlands" every time a short form name is required (contrarily to the Czech Republic for example). If I read in a newspaper the reaction of the Netherlands about an international event, it's obviously the Kingdom of the Netherlands who's speaking. Like it or not, it's like that. The fact is the government of the Netherlands has never tried to avoid it, as every other country having name concerns can impose its views in international organizations. So "Netherlands" is an ambiguous term. I clearly don't know how we can avoid the Netherlands page to be a disambiguation page between Kingdom of the Netherlands and the article about continental Netherlands.

Švitrigaila 14:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed the Kingdom that is a member of all international organisations, because it is the only souvereign entity. The Netherlands, Aruba nor the Netherlands Antilles can conclude international treaties as souvereign states. I said exactly that in my first post, and I have never contended that. The Kingdom concludes treaties on behalf of the three constituent states and it is common practice that the Netherlands initiates treaty talks and later asks Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles if they want to join, which is now being critized by the Council of State of the Kingdom, as said earlier by me.

But that is rather irrelevant in this matter. In treaties the short form "the Netherlands" may be used for the Kingdom, but that does not mean that the Netherlands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are the same thing! The Netherlands is one of the three constituent countries within the Kindom. The Netherlands and the Kingdom may appear more or less the same, as the Kingdom institutions are dominated by the Netherlands, but legally speaking they are distinct. The three constituent countries are entirely equal, and only on the Kingdom level (separate entity) the Netherlands has more power.

That is also the major difference between France and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Netherlands has brought into existence a new federal layer that is legally distinct from the other three entities, France has only given New Caledonia autonomy. I linked a FAQ-page of the Ministry of Home Affair and Kingdom Relations where the Ministry denies that Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are part of the Netherlands, but instead of the Kingdom (another legal entity!), but that doesn't seem to convince you, so here's the Preamble of the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands (source: [1]):

PREAMBLE
The Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba,
noting that in 1954 the Netherlands, Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles expressed freely their will to establish a new constitutional order in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in which they will conduct their internal interests autonomously and their common interests on a basis of equality and will accord each other assistance, and resolved in consultation to adopt the Charter for the Kingdom;
noting that the ties with Suriname under the Charter were terminated as of 25 November 1975 by means of an amendment to the Charter by Kingdom Act of 22 November 1975, Bulletin of Acts and Decrees no. 617, Official Bulletin of the Netherlands Antilles no. 233;
considering that Aruba has expressed freely its will to accept the aforesaid constitutional order as a Country;
have resolved in consultation to adopt the Charter for the Kingdom as follows.

It is made very clear in the Preamble that the Kingdom and the Netherlands are two entirely different entities (legally speaking, as in practice the Netherlands dominates the Kingdom, as said earlier)

Now I'd like to go back to your three points:

1. "The Netherlands" (in the definition given in its Wikipedian article) is not a country, and is not a member of any international organisation;

This is true, the Netherlands is a constituent country within the Kingdom. The first sentence in the Netherlands article says exactly that.

1. "The Kingdom of the Netherlands" is the name of an independent country, member of EU, NATO, UNO and a lot of other international organizations;

Exactly right, but the Kingdom concludes treaties on behalf of the three constituent states. The Kingdom has also an observer status at the CARICOM, that is not on behalf of the Netherlands, but of the Netherlands Antilles and of Aruba. The Kingdom is indeed a member state of the EU, but Part Four of the Treaty of Rome specifies that they are not to be considered part of the EU (see: Special member state territories and the European Union). The Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands also consists of an article that specifies an op-out clause for international treaties for Aruba and/or the Netherlands Antilles:

Article 25
1. The King shall not bind the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba to international economic or financial agreements if the Government of the Country, indicating the reasons for considering that this would be detrimental to the Country, has declared that the Country should not be bound by them.
2. The King shall not denounce international economic or financial agreements in respect of the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba if the Government of the Country, indicating the reasons for considering that a denunciation would be detrimental to the Country, has declared that denunciation should not take place with respect to that Country. An agreement may nevertheless be denounced if exclusion of the Country concerned from the denunciation is incompatible with the provisions of the agreement.

1. In the international law, "the Netherlands" is used as the short form of "the Kingdom of the Netherlands" every time a short form name is required in an official text.

That could be so, and that's highly irritating, but I think I have made very clear now that the Kingdom and the Netherlands are two separate legal entities and that it cannot be compared to the concept of Metropolitan France etc. Maarten 14:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What is very irritating is that Dutch jurists have decided to call "Netherlands" the European part of the Kingdom in a time when "Netherlands" was already used as the short form of the "Kingdom of the Netherlands". Another name should have been far more practical. But we won't rewrite history. I won't take back any of my opinions, but I think they are not opposite to yours. Except for this only thing: you still consider the "Kigndom of the Netherlands" and the "Netherlands" as two terms for two different entities that can't be melt neither by name nor by meaning, and I consider that "Netherlands" is an ambiguous term referig sometimes (most of the time in fact) to the "Kingdom of the Netherlands" or sometimes to the European part of it only, depending of the context. It's not the first time we have an problem on Wikipedia with a geographic term with two senses. For example, Ireland refers to the island of Ireland, while Republic of Ireland refers to the republican country that occopies most of the island... dispite the fact that its official short and long form names are both "Ireland". Švitrigaila 15:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree with your first two sentences. And I am glad that we seem to agree that the Kingdom and the Netherlands are two legally separated entities (as is made very clear in the Preamble of the Charter), a situation which is very different to the concept of Metropolitan France for instance (I repeat all this, because this is very important). We seem to disagree on the question to which the term "Netherlands" usually applies, you say that it most of the time applies to the Kingdom. The Netherlands may be the short form for the Kingdom in Treaties, but in Dutch common practice "the Netherlands" is barely ever used as the short form for the Kingdom, and it is even considered incorrect by most people (I bring into mind the FAQ-question on the Ministry of the Interior website: "Are the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba part of the Netherlands? Answer: No, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are, like the Netherlands, countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands".). This practice is also made clear in terms that are related to the Kingdom: the Kingdom of the Netherlands department of the Government is called "Koninkrijkszaken" (Kingdom Affairs), in the Netherlands we call the people of the NA and Aruba rijksgenoten ("fellow Kingdom men"), and the press always uses "Koninkrijk" to refer to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Some examples: [2], [3], [4]. Sometimes it is referred to as "Dutch Kingdom", but always the word Kingdom is used.

So for the Dutch it sounds strange that you say "Nederland" or "Netherlands" when you refer to the "Kingdom of the Netherlands", so why would confuse us all by renaming the articles to terms that no one will clearly understand, like "Netherlands (consituent country)" and a "Netherlands" by which you mean the Kingdom (I assume you don't want to merge anymore??). If you do that that, there is a problem with the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, because the Charter never calls the Kingdom "Netherlands". Maybe there should change something in the content of the articles, but please, don't rename them, and please, don't merge them either (I very strongly oppose this last option, as the Netherlands and the Kingdom are clearly distinct entities, but I noticed that you don't consider merging an option anymore either?). The issue is complicated enough, so why use terms then that no one really will understandsand that are only will be used here on wikipedia, only because in some treaties the short form "Netherlands" is used for the Kingdom?

About the EU again, yes the Kingdom is a member state of the EU, but the treaties make clear that the NA and Aruba are not to be considered part of the EU territory, so what's wrong about it then when you call the Netherlands a member state in the Netherlands article? Denmark is also a member of the EU, but yet the Treaties stipulate that the Faroe Islands are not part of the EU:

As explicitly asserted by both Rome treaties, the Faroe Islands are not part of the European Union. Moreover, a protocol to the treaty of accession of Denmark to the European Communities stipulates that Danish nationals residing in the Faroe Islands are not to be considered as Danish nationals within the meaning of the treaties. Hence, Danish people living in the Faroes are not citizens of the European Union. (Other EU nationals living there remain EU citizens.) The Faroes are not covered by the Schengen free movement agreement, but there are no border checks when travelling between the Faroes and any Schengen country.

So the fact that a souvereign entity signs a treaty doesn't mean that the treaty affects its entire suvereign territory. Maarten 15:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the merging of the two articles.

The constitutional situation concerning the Netherlands versus the Kingdom of the Netherlands is complicated and the two notions are for a big part overlapping.

The charter speaks of three countries, The Netherlands, The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, however the three are not constitutionally the same and the concept "land" is not univocal in its meaning. Remember that the Charter is a very provisional document. Too illustrate this: for all intents and purposes, internal and external, the country "Netherlands" uses the same name as the whole namely "Kingdom of the Netherlands".

The Charter of the Kingdom, while the highest legislative document of the Kingdom, refers for the institutions of the Kingdom to the Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, while prescribing certain additions to rule on certain matters pertaining to Aruba and the Antilles. The Charter and the Constitution are supplemental when it comes to the matters pertaining the Kingdom as a whole (as stated in the document of clarification to the Charter)

While the Charter provides for basic laws to regulate the government of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, it states that the government of the Netherlands (the European part) is regulated by before mentioned Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in which also the institutions of the whole are constituted.

The latter document however fails to constitute separate institutions for the "country" Netherlands, while it could have done so. It leaves the government of that country to the same institutions the Charter speaks of and which were in existence long before the Charter.

It could be said that the "Country Netherlands" and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are overlapping concepts in that sense. The Kingdom has two functions, a Charter function pertaining to the whole and a Constitution function pertaining to some matters of the whole but mainly the government of the territory in Europe. In that sense the government of the territory in Europe and the government of the Kingdom as a whole are two sides of the same medal called "Kingdom of the Netherlands"

Again, nowhere the "country Netherlands" defines itself as such officially. Externally nor internally. This is different for Aruba and the Antilles which have their own basic law. The institutions that run the affairs of the European part of the Kingdom are not separated from the Institutions that run the whole. The Dutch cabinet doesn't sit one day as the government of the Netherlands and the next day as the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands but ALWAYS as the latter. The ministers are not separately installed as ministers for the Kingdom as a whole and as ministers of the European part. The institutions, while practicing in different judicial contexts, are literally the same for Charter and for Constitution purposes and not just similar (as Maarten says). They are just added to for Charter purposes by two plenipotentiary ministers. It is however still the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom of the Netherlands either way!

In that light it seems to me that definitionally the separation between the two terms cannot be upheld. While it is used in common parlance to bring some clarity into a complicated matter, it is wrong to use the term "Kingdom of the Netherlands" only in its Charter context while ignoring it has a meaning in the Constitution context as well.Gerard von Hebel 16:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we will ever agree on all this, and it's not really our "fault", it's just because the Charter sucks. The Council of State of the Kingdom also kind of says this, though in more polite terms (read this document, chapter 5 (in Dutch)). The discussion on nl:Overleg:Koninkrijk der Nederlanden is also very, very long (with a lot of input from you, Hebel, I see now :)), and yet there is no agreement there either, it just died out a year ago or so. I really don't know what to do about all this anymore. Maarten 17:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

All that said, the local government, provinces and municipalities are those of the Netherlands, not the Kingdom; the culture and history are that of the European part, etc. A full merge would also require that the relevant section of Aruba and Netherlands Antilles should be merged. This would most likely result in reduction of these elements for Aruba and the antilles into obscuruty. I think it is not a good idea to fully merge the things. Arnoutf 17:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree! Maarten 18:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your argument, because it's an ad consequentiam fallacy. I do agree with your position though, as I think no merge should be done. The Wikipedia naming conventions suggest we name things by their most common English name. For the Netherlands, that is a place in Western Europe, a member of the European Union, and a place where people supposedly wear clogs all day. Therefore, the article on the Netherlands is named the Netherlands, because it is the primary topic by that name. Similarly, links should direct to the most common thing meant. For example, "Russia" in cold war related articles usually means the Soviet Union, not the Russian SFSR. The same applies to the France example above. Kingdom of the Netherlands is a legal and political term with a vastly different scope and use. It should only be used and linked wherever Netherlands is used in that specific legal or political context. Not surprisingly, this is exactly why the articles as they are now are written the way they are. This one about a country in Europe, and Kingdom of the Netherlands about a legal and political term. User:Krator (t c) 19:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the whole situation concerning the Charter and the Constitution is mind bogglingly illucid to say the least! I'm always reminded of the endless discussions concerning the (British) Crown in the Commonwealth Realms. The notions and concepts are played around with like voodoo puppets, given double meanings in a mumbo-jumbo reminiscent of religious exegesis. But not only in this case, that is the way these constitutional notions work sometimes. I get the feeling a lot of the time this is done deliberately to save "de kool en de geit", as we say in Dutch, in politically and emotionally volatile situations. Using obfuscating language so that everyone can say "You see, it's really actually framed in the way WE like and not the way THEY would like it.

I think the language in the Charter and the (lack of) fulfillment of them in the Constitution as well as the position of the Constitution towards the Charter and vice-versa were framed in order to allow the Netherlands (in Europe) to keep acting as a sovereign entity without involving the others, as is allowed by the Charter in situations not pertaining to the other countries, which are most situations! In order to be able to do that, The Netherlands (in Europe) had to be somehow identifiable with the Kingdom on its very own without the others. The government of the Netherlands (in Europe) was therefore placed in the hands of the same institutions relevant to the Kingdom as a whole (note Maarten, that the Kingdom government and the Netherlands government are legally and diplomatically not separate institutions!) The Charter even notes that the government of the Netherlands (in Europe) is regulated by the document called "Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands" which has a kind of in-between role in the whole thing.

It seems to me that the Charter would allow the Constitution to set up separate institutions for the Netherlands. They never did that of course because well..... They didn't want to!

For the purposes of Wikipedia I would think it was better served by one article explaining how the Kingdom is a term used both in the context of the Charter and in the context of the Constitution (for the purposes of the autonomy of the European "country"). The whole thing is now just clogging up the information.Gerard von Hebel 21:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A while ago I framed this text (partly to order my own mind about this). Perhaps it's helpfull in some way.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is an independent state consisting of three entities: The Netherlands (in Europe), The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. Officialy (and confusingly) however, the term Kingdom of the Netherlands is also used when discussing matters pertaining the Netherlands (in Europe), partly because the institutions for the Netherlands (in Europe) are not constitutionally and diplomatically separate from the institutions of the Kingdom as a whole, although these institutions operate in two different and seperate legal contexts. In common parlance however "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is mostly used when discussing the Kingdom as a whole, while "The Netherlands" is mostly used when discussing the European part of the country, but the terms are ambiguous.

The constitution of the Kingdom is layed down in two documents. The Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands which is the highest ranking legislative document in the Kingdom and the Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, to which the Charter not only refers for the definition of the institutions of the Kingdom as a whole but which also regulates the government of the Netherlands (in Europe). The relations between the three countries are regulated in the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands. This document stipulates that the three parts are equally part of the Kingdom and autonomous. The governments of Aruba and The Netherlands Antilles are regulated by their respective basic laws, while the government of the Netherlands in Europe is regulated by the Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The Charter stipulates that the institutions named in the Charter and further defined in the Constitution, are added to by representatives from the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba when discussing matters pertaining the Kingdom as a whole. The Council of State can be added to by representatives from Aruba and The Netherlands Antilles when appropriate while the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom of the Netherlands deliberates with two plenipotentiary Ministers from the two Carribean parts of the Kingdom on matters pertaining to the Kingdom as a whole, while deliberating without them on matters concerning the Netherlands (in Europe) only.

The first paragraph might be used to explain some of the ambiguities. The rest is perhaps superfluous.Gerard von Hebel 22:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I was actually thinking myself of such a section (that could be called 'Regarding the term "Kingdom of the Netherlands"'), which in my view should be on the Kingdom of the Netherlands article (I still oppose a merger). Such a section should also point out that in Dutch common practice the Kingdom of the Netherlands is shortened to "Kingdom" instead of "Netherlands" (by both politicians and press) in a way to avoid confusion (and to avoid offending the people of the "West-Indies"!), though in international treaties the Kingdom is referred to as the Netherlands. The more you get into this, the stranger it gets. I mean, look at that FAQ-question (sorry to bring this up again, but it is very illustrating): "Are the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba part of the Netherlands? Answer: No, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are, like the Netherlands, countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands". How can you explain that to someone who just read the Treaty of Rome that specified that the Netherlands (as the short form of the Kingdom of the Netherlands) is a member state of the EU?

I came across a speach by André Rouvoet that illustrates the sensitivity in this matter, and I feel that I must share this with you, even though it's in Dutch:

Hoewel minister De Grave er wat ons betreft meer vaart achter had mogen zetten, had hij onmiskenbaar de goede richting te pakken én, dat is in Koninkrijkszaken cruciaal, de goe-de toon. Zijn opvolger, minister Pechtold, bleek die broodnodige prudentie te ontberen met als dieptepunt zijn brief van 24 augustus waarin hij staatkundige veranderingen afhankelijk maakte van financiële verbeteringen. Het oude verwijt dat steeds de relatie tussen Nederland en de Antillen heeft gekenmerkt, speelde onmiddellijk weer op. Nederland vereenzelvigt het Koninkrijk met Nederland en dicteert. De Nederlandse Antillen moeten slikken of stikken. Gevolg: ergernis in de West, verstoorde verhoudingen en verlies van momentum; geen frisse wind, maar meer een storm in de Caribische porseleinkast. Het zal allemaal wel te maken hebben met de behoefte van deze minister om te zeggen wat hij denkt en heilige huisjes niet te sparen, maar echt behulpzaam voor de verhoudingen in het Koninkrijk is het niet.

— link

And the following is also illustrating, it's the advice of the "Werkgroep Bestuurlijke en Financiële Verhoudingen Nederlandse Antillen", that explored the current constitutional reform of the Kingdom:

Aanbevelingen Koninkrijk “Nieuwe Stijl”:

1. Zolang de Caribische Koninkrijksdelen niet onafhankelijk willen worden, blijft het Koninkrijk in zijn huidige transatlantische samenstelling bestaan. Een heroriëntatie op de rechten en plichten van het lidmaatschap van het Koninkrijk dient plaats te vinden.
2. In het nieuwe Koninkrijk is geen plaats meer voor het Land Nederlandse Antillen en dit maakt verandering van het Statuut noodzakelijk.
3. De instelling van een onderraad van de Rijksministerraad voor Koninkrijkszaken, waarin naast de (gevolmachtigde) ministers van de Caribische Landen van het Koninkrijk, afhankelijk van het onderwerp de meest betrokken Nederlandse bewindslieden zijn opgenomen.
4. Een gezamenlijke Koninkrijksdienst moet worden opgericht.
5. Het democratisch tekort van het Koninkrijk dient te worden opgelost.
6. De waarborgtaak van het Koninkrijk krijgt een nieuwe invulling door het gezamenlijk vaststellen van normen voor rechtsorde, goed bestuur en overheidsfinanciën. Het Koninkrijk houdt hierop actief toezicht.
7. De vereenzelviging van Nederland met het Koninkrijk wordt doorbroken.

I see that the last two quotations are a bit off-topic, but I think they are important in this matter. Maarten 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Traductions, please? Švitrigaila 16:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole debate is passionating, and I didn't think it was to be so long when I started it. I wonder one thing: what about the continuity of the State? That notion exist for every state, I guess, so it must exist for the two entities we are speaking of. Do everybody agree that before 1954, "the Kingdom of the Netherlands" and "the Netherlands" existed and were the same thing? This thing was an independent state? And since 1954 there are two distinct entities, one called "the Kingdom of the Netherlands" and the orher "the Netherlands". But which one is the continuation of the existing one? I don't have the answer. It should help. Švitrigaila 16:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Kingdom of the Netherlands remains the Kingdom of the Netherlands. In 1954 no state was discontinued; the Kingdom was only reconstituted in a new, federal, form, with three equal constituent countries. The thing is that one of these entities has become known as "the Netherlands", so that term is not used anymore in everyday parlance for the Kingdom. So the thing that changed is that the Kingdom of the Netherlands (the souvereign state) after 1954 is not referred to anymore as "the Netherlands", but as the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Maarten 21:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In a bold move I decided to add an additional section to the Kingdom of the Netherlands article about all this. I also translated the previously mentioned Dutch quotes. Please take a look there. Maarten 12:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Then, if I clearly understand, before 1954 there was a State called in its long form "the Kingdom of the Netherlands" and in its short form "the Netherlands" ; the constitutional organization of this State changed in 1954 and in its new organization this State still exists today as a subject of international law, called "the Kingdom of the Netherlands" in its long form and "the Netherlands" in its short form ; and since 1954 a new local level was created, called "the Netherlands".

If I clearly undestand then, everything concerning the history of "the Netherlands" before 1954 should be put in the Kingdom of the Netherlands article. Everything concerning the membership of the state in international organizations should be put in Kingdom of the Netherlands. Every link concerning the citizenship since and before 1954 of a Dutch citizen should lead to Kingdom of the Netherlands. Thus Baruch Spinoza's Dutch citizenship should lead to Kingdom of Netherlands (even if the Netherlands were a Republic then). I say it once more: it should be simpler to merge Netherlands and Kingdom of the Netherlands into one article and to create after a new article about the "Netherlands" (as the Eurpean part of the Kingdom).

As I clearly proved above, despite the terminology used in Dutch laws, in international law the terms "Kingdom of the Netherlands" and "Netherlands" are still today clearly interchangeable, and there is no intention from the Dutch government to have this habit changed. As Gerard von Hebbel siad above, there are no specific institution of "the Netherlands" different of the institutions of the Kingdom. Even the government is the same one. We have a kind of federal State where one of the three federated State is merged as one entity with the federal State itself.

The distinction between the two articles is absurd in its current form. If you oppose merging the two articles, I wish someone made concrete propositions to improve the quality and the accuracy of the two separate articles. The section you added in Kingdom of the Netherland is far from a solution to the problem. Furthermore facts are distorted when you write « Outside the Kingdom of the Netherlands, "Netherlands" is sometimes used as the conventional short form to describe the Kingdom of the Netherlands. International treaties, for instance, frequently shorten the Kingdom of the Netherlands to "Netherlands". » It's not "sometimes" used as the short form. It's always used as the short form everytime a shortform is needed, as for every other ccountry wuth a long and a short form. The whole section is then a POV presenting only one side of the discussion. I'll try to write in this talk page my all version of how the articles should be, but I need time.

Švitrigaila 13:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Another remark: France is officially called "the French Republic" in its long form. This name is sometimes shortend as "the Republic" in official texts. For example, an article of the Constitution states that "French is the language of the Republic." What does it mean? I still wonder exactly... but I think it means the country in its institutional or administrative form, in contrast with the country in its geographical or historical or cultural definition. Isn't it the same thing for the distinction between the Netherlands and the Kingdom? In its geographical, historical or cultural definition, "the Netherlands" usually refer only to the European part of it. In its administrative form, "the Kingdom" refers to the whole of the three parts. It doesn't interfere with the fact that France is called "France" on the international stage for all it is as a whole, and that the Netherlands are called "Netherlands" for the same usage. Švitrigaila 13:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your last two statement. To confer it to the situation of France. As the official name of the nation is the French republic all reference to non-republican France should be removed from the article (ie prior to the revolution and during 19th century monarchy). Sounds absurd??? That is basically what you suggest for the Netherlands.

The problem seems to be whether the country Netherlands within the Kingdom is the core of the nation, or that the Kingdom should be. If you look at Maartens note in the Kingdom page you might notice that the non-Netherlands part of the Kingdom only account for a few percents <5 of both inhabitants and land surface (in statistics we would not call it a significant part). Hence it is not at all strange to write about the Netherlands as the central bit.

In your so-called ideal structure yu should take due account of the huge difference in importance; basically for me a reason against, as in that case the Caribbean islands will only become a footnote in the current article. Arnoutf 14:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

@ Švitrigaila, you said the following:

"As Gerard von Hebbel siad above, there are no specific institution of "the Netherlands" different of the institutions of the Kingdom. Even the government is the same one. We have a kind of federal State where one of the three federated State is merged as one entity with the federal State itself."

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is not the same as the Government of the Netherlands. That is what I tried to explain to you earlier (and that is also the difference with the concept of Metropolitan France). The Government of the Kingdom is described on Kingdom of the Netherlands#Government, please read that first. The executive branch is for instance formed by the Queen and the Council of Ministers of the Netherlands, complemented by two Ministers Plenipotentiary (one from Aruba, one from the NA) to form the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It is true that the Charter refers to the Constitution of the Netherlands for the exact description of the Council of Ministers (its competences, composition, powers etc.), but that doesn't mean that the Council of Ministers of the Netherlands is exactly the same as the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom. Even Gerard von Hebel acknowledges that both instututions operate in a different legal context. Gerard von Hebel argues that the Government of the Netherlands doesn't sit one day as the government of the Netherlands and the next day as the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands but always as the latter. I disagree with him on this because the Council of Ministers of the Netherlands never has jurisdiction over the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba, and cannot initiate Kingdom laws that apply to those constituent countries, only the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom can. He argues that the diplomacy of the Netherlands and that of the Kingdom are not separated, and I disagree with him, because in my opinion only the Kingdom has diplomats. But we both (and every other person I know of, except for you) agree that Government of both entities are not exactly the same, and that's very verifiable by just reading the Charter (please do!).

You said that about the new section in Kingdom of the Netherlands that "The whole section is then a POV presenting only one side of the discussion." I'm very disappointed in this comment. Why would it be POV. I only established that in Dutch common practice (both press, politics, and government) the word Kingdom is used to refer to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and I referenced that to a speech of André Rouvoet, a comment by the "Werkgroep Bestuurlijke en Financiële Verhoudingen Nederlandse Antillen", and a comment by the Council of State of the Kingdom. Because of this discussion, I scanned news articles etc. on how many times they use the words "Kingdom" or "Netherlands" for the Kingdom of the Netherlands. I thought that Dutch media of low quality would sometimes refer to the Kingdom of the Netherlands as "Netherlands", but even they don't do that! It's always Kingdom, always!

So would you please answer this last question: why would you merge the content of "Kingdom of the Netherlands" with "Netherlands", with which you would offend many people from Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, and which is contrary to Dutch common practice? Only because in international treaties the short form for the Kingdom of the Netherlands is "Netherlands"? Why would you let such a small legal fact decide the name of the article "Kingdom of the Netherlands"? Please remember this comment by the "Werkgroep Bestuurlijke en Financiële Verhoudingen Nederlandse Antillen": "the identification of the Netherlands with the Kingdom needs to be eliminated" (De vereenzelviging van Nederland met het Koninkrijk wordt doorbroken).

Last remark: a few years ago fellow non-Dutch Wikipedians tried to "make" The Hague the capital city of the Netherlands instead of Amsterdam. Luckily this move didn't succeed, because to many Dutch it would seem very weird that you refer to The Hague as the capital of the Netherlands; every Dutchman knows Amsterdam is the capital. To many Dutch, and especially to our fellow Dutchmen of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, it would seem very weird that you refer to the Kingdom of the Netherlands as "Netherlands" instead of "Kingdom". Why wouldn't you let the Dutch define their own constitutional concepts, be it their capital or their Kingdom?

I deleted the word "sometimes" for you from that section.Maarten 17:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

An example of low quality media that uses "Kingdom" instead of "Netherlands" for the "Kingdom of the Netherlands" (video). In the introductionary speech, the guy talks about the Kingdom. (Just came across this video). Maarten 18:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Abitrary Edit section

The Netherlands is a distinct nation and the Dutch are a distinct people, very different from the Antilles and Aruba. Political boundaries come and go, but all three need to be described individally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholmondeley-Smythe (talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This argument is so long that is why I do not really have the time to read all of this but obviously almost all opposes this merge (I say almost all since I am not sure that it is really all but personnally I believe it is all). So let us close this argument since it is very obvious that the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Netherlands are different, very different things. I will give an example, just like the United States the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a confederacy or some federation of such type while Florida is much like Netherlands wher both of them are member states of the federation. Now in that argument it is like that the proposer of the merge would like to merge the Florida article with the United States article here in Wikipedia. This cannot be! Florida and United States are two very different things/places just like the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Netherlands. Another example can be with the United Kingdom and the England. It just happens that it is confusing because of the names which are almost the same. Now is not that much simpler? And yeah the opinion above is right Netherlands is NOT a country it is more like a member state. The contents of the article that it is a country should be corrected. -- Felipe Aira 13:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you miss the point of the discussion. The Netherlands (partial state, or member) is written as if it were a country (cf USA). However your comparison Florida<->US is not very good, as both historically and in numbers of inhabitants (>>95%) the European part of the Netherlands is very dominant (more like Hawaiian Islands vs the combined rest of the US). In the context of the UK it is more like Great-Britain vs Falklands than England-Scotland. Anyway, the Dutch situation (as well as UK, US, and Frenc) is unique and not easily solved. Removing all kind of state-form/govt issues from the (European part of) the Netherlands article is IMHO not an option Arnoutf 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the Merge--having an issue with short nicknames for countries and regions of same (constituant countries, I think is the term) is really all irrelevant. The fact is the two articles are quite correct, and if some editor is hanging links to the wrong entity, shame on them. Should be treated like any such systemic issue. For starters, put a post of the problem in the VP and ask all editors to check the context of such links. Secondly, if the Netherlands/KoN terms are subject to being misapplied, someone needs to run a BOT and locate some context samples--repeat as needed to keep the mis-matches to a mininum (I'm presuming sampling sentences will point to errors of context on a casual reading). Perfect is likely an ephemeral state, lasting a few days if you're lucky. But there is no reason to break things which are already fixed. // FrankB 06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with FrankB. I have one thing to add, the proposer of this merge had a problem with "Dutch" in biographies redirecting to the Netherlands. For example, he found that "Dutch" in the first sentence of Baruch Spinoza should redirect to Kingdom of the Netherlands rather than Netherlands, because the Kingdom is the sovereign state. Apart from the fact that in the time of Baruch Spinoza the Kingdom did not exist yet (the Netherlands were a republic), I don't think that wikipedia biographies should necessary link sovereign states. Sean Connery links to Scotland, and not to the United Kingdom. Maarten 13:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I do not remember if I have used my monthly bold word quota yet, but my objection is simple:

Wikipedia does not define topics and article subjects according to their legal or historical correctness, but to common English usage.

In layman's terms, this means "Netherlands" is a country (yes.) in Europe, because it is most commonly (but legally incorrectly) refers to that place. The confusing part here is that "Kingdom of the Netherlands" refers to a legal and historical entity. Not because this is legally or historically correct, but because "Kingdom of the Netherlands" refers to that entity in common English usage. User:Krator (t c) 16:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not resolved. The fact is is the situation is complex and there is a natural tendancy to arbitrarily simplify it in order to present it. But by doing that, we drop some facts and we reinvent some. We can't reinvent facts only because they would be simpler if we did. What are the facts here?

A summary of the facts : Before 1954, there was an internationally recognized State called "Kingdom of the Netherlands" in its long form and "Netherlands" in its short form. The short form name of a State is not a nickname. It's as official as the long form name and it's used in certain institutional contexts. As "Mr. Lubbers" is not a nickname of Rudolphus Franciscus Marie Lubbers, it's just one of the admitted formats for his name. This state had a Constitution and a legal system. The chief of this State was called the "Queen of the Netherlands". This State was member of some international organisations, such as the United Nations.

After 1954, the Constitutional organization of this State changed. It's still called "Kingdom of the Netherlands" in its long form and still called "Netherlands" in its short form, in any legal use of a short form of a country name (The Treaty on European Union is a good example where the "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is a signatory country and a member State, and where it is called "Netherlands" every time a short form name is needed, contrasting with the Czech Republic that has no short form name). The Chief of this State is still called the "Queen of the Netherlands" and she's still the chief of the whole State. This State is still a member of several international organizations under the short name "Netherlands" and the long name "Kingdom of the Netherlands". That new "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is totally in continuation of the previous one. The citizens, the territory, the international personnality of the pre-1954 Kingdom are the citizens, the territory, the international personnality of the post-1954 Kingdom.

Since 1954 the European part of the Kingdom, one of its three constituant entity, is called "Netherlands" in the Charter of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It creates a great confusion. It makes a second "object", distinct from the existing one, but with the same name. These "Netherlands" and the "Kingdom of the Netherlands" are two distinct entities, and it's normal they have two distinct articles on Wikipedia. But there is still a naming problem. Both entities are called "Kingdom of the Netherlands" in their long form name and "Netherlands" in their short form name.

For the whole State, see above. For the European part, let's read the Charter itself : It's called the "Charter of the Kingdom of the Netherlands" and it deals about the whole State; in its preamble "Netherlands" are, with "Aruba" and the "Nederlands Antilles" one of the three constituant entities. But after that, it speaks about a Constitution, either as "the Constitution of the Kingdom", or as "the Netherland Constitution" or as the "Constititution". What is that Constitution ? The same Constitution that was that of the pre-1954 Kingdom of Netherlands and that is still the Constitution of the Netherlands today. Article 5 states that « The Monarchy and the succession to the Throne (...) shall be governed (...) by the Constitution of the Kingdom. » (in fact by chapter 2 of the constitution of the Netherlands). The confusion is total.

Both the whole State and one of its three constituant entities are called "Kingdom of the Netherlands" and "Netherlands". Those are the facts.

So what do people do to distinguish them and what can we do on Wikipedia ?

Everybody here did find examples showing that in the Netherlands themselves, when the distinction must be clearly understood, the usage is to call the whole State "the Kingdom" and the European part "the Netherlands". OK. It's a way like another to make the distinction clear when it's needed. But that usage is only local and not spread outside the country. Here, in France, we call the continental part of France "L'Hexagone" (the Hexagon); I'm not sure someone outside France can understand what it is about. But maybe you should say : "Your usage of "Hexagon" is only a nickname, while "Netherlands" are official"? They are not. There is no attempt by any Dutch governement to have the international institutions recognize the distinction of "Kingdom of the Netherlands" and "Netherlands". That distinction is for internal usage only, and not used in international usage.

It's clear and I fully agree that since the two entities are distinct, they must have two distinct articles on Wikipedia. But I don't agree neither on their names, nor on their contents. If you look for the something called "Netherlands" or if a link from another article leads to "Netherlands", I guess that in 75% of cases it could lead either to one article or another with no harm (for example : « XXX spent ten years in the Netherlands with his parents... » could be true whereever the link leads to). But in other cases, the link should nearly always lead to the Kingdom. « YYY is a Dutch citizen... » should lead to the Kingdom because nationality comes from the Kingdom. « Netherlands sent troops to Afghanistan... » should lead to the Kingdom, and so on. The only exceptions are when we speak about sports (Aruba and Netherlands Antilles have their own Olympic teams) or about the European territory of the Netherlands (« Germany invaded the nethralnds in 1940... »)

Nearly everytime you're looking for something about the Netherlands, it will be about Netherlands as a State. And the State is what is discribed in the article presently called Kingdom of the Netheralnds. On Wikipedia, a rule is that if a term can lead to different subjects and if one of this subject is predominent, the name must be used for the this subject. Thus Paris leads to Paris, France, not to Paris, Texas. So Netherlands should lead to the article now called Kingdom of the Netherlands, not to the article today called Netherlands. Or we should at least make a dab page giving the reader the choice between the two articles. But the distiction between the two subjects as it is now and the repartition of facts in the articles as it is now are utterly inadequate. You look for Netherlands and you read: 1. It's a constituant part of something larger called "the Kingdom of the Netherlands" (false in the most used meaning of the word "Netherlands"), 2. It's a country (false if you consider a country is an independant State), 3. It's a member State of UNO, NATO and EU (false: the entity discribed in Kingdom of the Netherlands is, not that discribed in Netherlands).

What we should do is to make one main article called Netherlands (and make a redirect from Kingdom of the Netherlands to it). This article should clearly state that it's a independent State, member of UNO, NATO and EU, with the Queen of the Netherlands as its head, "Kigdom of the netherlands" as its long form name. Every historical facts about the Netherlands, including Antiquity and Middle Ages should be put in its historical section. A sentence must warn that in some legal contexts, "Netherlands" can refer to the European part only, with a link to a second, new article (called for example: Netherlands (European part) but a better title can be found), about the European part in its singularity only. Of course, this second article will be far shorter than the main one.

To conclude: There are two entities, yes. But both have the same two names. Giving arbitrarily a name to one and the other to the second, in order to simplify the facts to present them better, is reinventing the facts. And to mix all that is about one entity with all what is about the other, and then to redistribute the mixed facts arbitrarily in one or the the other article is completely misleading and not worthy of an encyclopedia!

Švitrigaila 16:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If follow your argument to some extent. However I disagree with several things.

First of all: Before 1954 is imprecise. It should be "between 1830 and 1954". This may seem trivial but please note that if we adopt your suggestions pre 1830 history should be rephrased in the article.

Second (I quote your text) I disagree with the statement: "Nearly everytime you're looking for something about the Netherlands, it will be about Netherlands as a State." This is plain not true. When talking about: Tulips, clogs, windmills, Delftware, Amsterdam, euthanasia, same sex marriage, Amsterdam, polder, Rotterdam, etc. etc. etc. you are NOT talking about the state but about the European part. In the context of Wikipedia I think the times you are looking for the state are not 'nearly everytime' probably not even often, more likely 'incidental'.

For this last reason alone I think the issues should not be treated as you recommend as that will only create more, rather than less confusion.

As I have said frequently before. If we merge there are baiscally two options both of which are not workable:

1) A merged article where each country in the Kingdom gets about equal attention. This would be ridiculous, as the European part has more than 95% of the land and the population, let alone the longest recorded history and would only get a third of the article. This would cause confusion as most people looking for the Netherlands will be looking for the European part. Hence (IMHO) this is not an option

2) A merged articles where the attention is paid in relation to importance/population. This would basically come down to deletion of the current Kingdom of the Netherlands article as fewer than 1 in 20 words are to be used (fewer than 600 in the whole of the article based on current length). This is basically only 2 paragraphs, which is about the amount now already reserved for the Kingdom parts.

I hope you agree both versions are not possible, do you have another form the new article could be?? Arnoutf 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Švitrigaila, your arguments are all historical, political or legal. I have, in the same minute as you wrote, reasonably demonstrated that all those arguments (how true they might be) are irrelevant to this discussion. You may have missed my note in the edit conflict. User:Krator (t c) 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The discussion has become to long for me and I lost heart. Sorry. Švitrigaila 12:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggest to close

It is clear there is no consensus for the merge. There seems to be only one single strong supporter (Švitrigaila), and many in opposition. Consensus about this is not likely to develop anytime soon, so I think we should close this thread and remove the tags. Arnoutf 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It's been a few weeks now since the last discussion. There have been no new developments, and no signals of a developing consensus. Maarten 15:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, has been up for long enough. Couldn't find a template so closed manualy Arnoutf 22:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not solved

The discussion about merging the two articles is closed. All right. But the problem is still the same and no one managed to propose any solution. The articles are still the same as they were before the discution started. A lot of untruth lay in the articles and in some arguments given in the talk page itself. For instance, User:Krator writes:

"For the Netherlands, that is a place in Western Europe, a member of the European Union, and a place where people supposedly wear clogs all day."

The place in Western Europe and the member of the European Union is not the same thing. When you read the Netherlands article, you still can read on the text:

The Netherlands has an international outlook; among other affiliations the country is a member of the European Union (EU), NATO, the OECD, and has signed the Kyoto protocol. Along with Belgium and Luxembourg, the Netherlands is also one of three member nations of the Benelux economic union. The country is host to four international courts: the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Court. All of these courts, as well as the EU's criminal intelligence agency (Europol) are situated in The Hague, which has led to the city being referred to as "the world's legal capital."

All that refers to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, not the Netherlands. And all the boxes at the end of the same article have no place in this article. They all refer (except, maybe, the first one) to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Of course they are missing in the Kingdom of the Netherlands article. Why is there a "Sovereign states of Europe" box in the Kingdom of the Netherlands article and a "Member States of the European Union" box in the Netherlands article? It's misleading and tends to let think that unsovereign states can be members of the European Union. If you consider that the continental part of the Netherlands is the member state of international organizations, then read for instance that treaty about Benelux and you'll see that it's signed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The same apply for every international treaty. As I already showed above, "Kingdom of the Netherlands" and "Netherlands" are synonyms in international law. "Netharlands" is the short form name and "Kingdom of the Netharlands" is the long form name. As I showed above, the Dutch government itself makes no distiniction in international law. The distinction between a "Kingdom of the Netherlands" and "Netherlands" exists only in domestic law.

On Wikipedia, we have a praiseworthy tendency to make clear every small detail. I'm not against that. So if there are two distinct entities it may be normal to have two distinct articles. But by doing that, we are more Catholic than the Pope since the Netherlands don't attempt to use this distinction on the international stage. You voted to maintain the two articles, all right, I respect the vote. But this quest for perfection must be coherent. We can't carry on melting in both articles everything that concerns either one or the other entity. We can't vote to have a Netherlands article distinct from the Kingdom of the netherlands article and then writing that "the Netherlands are part of the European Union and Benelux". But I feel sadly no-one cares, as if having two distinct articles was an aim by itself and the content has no importance.

Švitrigaila 12:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Although agree something maybe improved; your statement asks for a clear black and white approach, the muddled confusion (also legal) between Netherlands (Europe) and Kingdom of the NL, makes this nigh impossible; someone who has an advanced degree is "state law" may shed light on this. Also some of you points are not true. The Dutch carribbean are e.g. no member of the EU.-- Arnoutf (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's impossible to dismelt the two entities, then let's make only one article. Either we have a black and white approach, or we have a grey one, but we can't have a grey and grey one. Of course the Netherlands Antilles are not a member of the European Union: they are not a sovereign state. But as a part of a member state, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, they are part of it, like New Caledonia is a part of it, being part of France. You can read it here, in the Treaty itself. Švitrigaila (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As you have done, I quote myself above:

"Švitrigaila, your arguments are all historical, political or legal. I have, in the same minute as you wrote, reasonably demonstrated that all those arguments (how true they might be) are irrelevant to this discussion."

This still applies, and makes further discussion along historical, political and legal lines useless. User:Krator (t c) 11:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You haven't demonstrated anything, alas. If my arguments are "all historical, political or legal" and then are "irrelevant to this discussion", what is relevant to it? I still don't know, even after I read everything you wrote. If I read your:

"Kingdom of the Netherlands is a legal and political term with a vastly different scope and use. It should only be used and linked wherever Netherlands is used in that specific legal or political context. Not surprisingly, this is exactly why the articles as they are now are written the way they are. This one about a country in Europe, and Kingdom of the Netherlands about a legal and political term."

, I conclude that for the same reasons there must be two articles about France: one France and one French Republic. But there is only one article. Furthermore in the country infobox in the Netherlands article it seems it's impossible to write that the "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is the long form name of the country, while there is no problem to write in the same infobox in France that the "French Republic" is the long form name of France. Why? Švitrigaila (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The French analogy you use is unsound. While indeed, the legal terms are similar, the modern English useage is different. And, as I pointed out numerous times above, it is the latter that matters. Summarised:

• You are correct in your political, historical and legal reasoning.
• However, the titles and topics of Wikipedia articles are defined according to common English useage, not to political, historical or legal reasons.
• Therefore, this discussion is irrelevant.

User:Krator (t c) 14:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Krator; we are not writing a legal encyclopedia we are writing an encyclopedia that can be understood. (Note France has made its overseas territories part of the country, where Netherlands has more countries within the Kingdom (cf GB) so any analogies with France are tentative at best). But indeed this whole discussion is irrelevant; and I will stop responding to it. Arnoutf (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And once again we have a very good example of the plague of this encyclopedia: "It's better to write false facts that most people think correct than to write right facts that most people don't know." But no! An encyclopedia must give facts, not commonly received ideas. And why not writing: "In common English usage, Pluto is a planet, so even if it is not by its new definition a "planet", we must write on Wikipedia that it is a planet since Wikipedia articles are defined according to common English usage"? Furthermore, this discussion has nothing to do with "common English language". You can read European treaties in Dutch language if you want. Tell me after that if there's a distinction between "Koninkrijk der Nederlanden" and "Nederland" in those treaties. Don't accuse English usage, it's Dutch too. It's universal. And I don't like your way of saying "your arguments are irrelevant to this discussion" or " the analogy you use is unsound" and so on without explaning why. If you want to discuss my arguments, discuss them, but don't tell me they don't hold without giving counter-arguments. Švitrigaila (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

France is a single country, with overseas municipalities. The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of 3 countries. Hence the analogy is not valid. Also taking your analogy to the extreme the opening line of the France article is "France (French: IPA: [fʁɑ̃s]), officially the French Republic". Hence that article is clearly about French Republic, therefore section in the article of France needs dealing with monarchies and empires to be removed; as these parts are not about the French Republic but about different states. Everything not about the republic is a clear show of "writing false facts that most people think correct than to write right facts that most people don't know.". I do not think you are suggesting just that? If you are, good luck, start getting rid of the falsehoods in the France article. If you are not sayng that, you evidently accept shades of grey so I do not see your point. Arnoutf (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I made myself very clear before, but I'm in favor of merging the two Netherlands article, not of dissociating the France article. I think it's a good thing that France and French Republic are one article (maybe we could say that "French Republic" is its long form name now but I don't think it's worth because contemporaneousness of other facts, like the name of the prime minister for instance is implicit). What I want to show is that, if we don't merge the two Netherlands articles, then we come against problems. And I would like that an answer would be brought to those problems, and at first I want to show them. I don't rejoice of them. I want someone to find a solution... Švitrigaila (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Švitrigaila's arguments hold. I combine that opinion with the argument that they are irrelevant for defining the topic and scope of this article. User:Krator (t c) 16:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

...and reading all what you wrote, I feel we're going to adopt the curious following solution: One single article, called Nethelands containing everything about the two entities, a clearly a merged article; and a second one, Kingdom of the Netherland explaning only the institutional form of the Kingdom. That is, instead of one grey article and instead of two articles, one black and one white, we'll have two articles, one black and one grey. That could be a solution, but the grey article must be more precise: it must explain the difference between the Kingdom and the Netherlands since its beginning, it must explain that both names are usually interchangeable and when, it must explain that the Kingdom is member of the international organizations, it must explain that the nationality is a matter of the Kingdom, it must explain that in international law "Netherlands" and "Kingdom of the Netherlands" are the same thing and finally its infobox must give "Kingdom of the Netherlands" as the long form name. Of course the "Sovereign states of Europe" box must be taken from the Kingdom of the Netherlands article and be put on the end of Netherlands. But by doing so, I don't know what matter will be left to built the Kingdom of the Netherland article. Everything that can be in it should have to be in Netherlands too. Švitrigaila (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I also agree with some of the arguments, but not with the analogy with France.

My suggestion would be to start with rewritng the current Netherlands article (needs to be done anyway as the article is not very good as is) taking account of Švitrigaila ideas. Once that is completed we can see what is left for the Kingdom article, if it is nothing, we can reshape it into a redirect, if there is a role for it after all, fine; apparently there is reason to have 2 articles after all. Does this sound like a workable approach. Arnoutf (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can rename the current "Netherlands" article to something like "Netherlands (country)" and make "Netherlands" a disambiguation page (because there is indeed an ambiguity between multiple meanings of "Netherlands"). That way, links on Wikipedia will have to explicitly choose which one they want to go to, or else go to a disambiguation page. --71.141.96.144 (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that there is already a disambiguation page; linked on the top of this article. Making "Netherlands" the name of that page would in my opinion not be a good idea. When we do that readers who type in "Netherlands" in the search field would land there not here. I think that the vast majority (probably far over 90%) of such readers will be looking for this article, not any of the other meanings. So, no, don't think this is a good idea. Arnoutf (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Navigation

For keeping track of this kind of stuff, I am about to remove:

See also: Ranked list of Dutch provinces and List of cities in the Netherlands by province

These articles may become neigh-orphaned. User:Krator (t c) 22:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Image choice

I am not at all happy with the choice of images in the article. We have now Michiel de Ruyter under older history (no William of Orange, no Floris V, no van Oldenbarneveld (political leaders) no Maurice (political and military leader), no Erasmus (figuring somewhere in the appendix of the article), van Leeuwenhoek, Drebbel, Ersamus or Spinoza (scientists/philosophers). We only have an (admittedly great) admiral. However, de Ruyter has never been a figure shpaing Dutch history for centuries (which all of my other exampes have been). Similarly Anne Frank represents the whole modern history. There have been other great Dutch people in the 20th century as well. Under Government we show the Queen. Although in name she leads the government the Netherlands is first a democracy, second a monarchy; hence an actual political leader (probably Balkenende) and not the head of state should be pictured (cf in the case of Cuba, Chile etc. showing images of Castro, Pinochet (head of state and political power) is obvious; not in the Netherlands). Furthermore the flower auction in Aalsmeer is pictured in economics, while Philips, Shell, Schiphol etc etc are of much larger importanc, and the medievial dom tower (currently not even a religious building) is pictured under religion rather than a mosque, a Dutch reformed church buidling.
Summarised. The images seem to have been chosen to confirm stereotypes about the Dutch rather than to illustrate the article. All these images need urgently be replaced. Soon Arnoutf 23:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I put up Anne Frank and Michiel the Ruyter, purely for illustrative purposes. Feel free to change them, but do keep in mind that not only the subject of the image matters, but also the quality (photographic or otherwise). There are only so many maps of the Netherlands and Coats of Arms we can put up. Note that the article is in general bad shape, and that I advocate doing things in the right order: 1. Make the text good. 2. Make the images good. Or better, both at the same time.

For example, the History section is a huge mess, missing everything pre-1500 and post World War II. Culture has.. nothing. Government is a collection of loosely associated lists. User:Krator (t c) 00:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I got in through looking at images as I was trying to make the use of coat of arms consistent over all articles (the SVG version only marginally looked like the PNG one, so at least make sure we use the same).

Sadly I have to agree that this core-Netherlands article is in a bad shape; and text indeed has preference over images. I did not realise the images were recent, I thought they had been up forever. I will list improvement of this in the WP:Netherlands as a top priority.Arnoutf 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I boldly put comments in Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands, and agree with Aecis there that the article needs improvement. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Arnoutf 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed some. Happy? :) --User:Krator (t c) 17:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Arnoutf 18:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible typo, revision suggested

"when King William III of the Netherlands died without male issue."

Revision suggested.

82.74.28.173 05:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a request for a gender neutral alternative, or is the use of the word male as adjective wrong in this context? User:Krator (t c) 08:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I found/fixed the problem, does it work now? -Bbik^★ 11:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Largest city

Amsterdam is the largest city according to each of the official numbers of the Dutch Statistics Bureau (september 2007 figures).
Amsterdam Grootstedelijke agglomeratie (larger agglomeration)= 1,024,594; Stadsgewest(city county)=1,467,906; City proper=744,460 CBS Adam
Rotterdam Grootstedelijke agglomeratie (larger agglomeration)= 982,615; Stadsgewest(city county)=1,167,966; City proper=580,711 CBS Rdam
I have no idea where the recent idea that Rotterdam is larger than Amsterdam comes from, these figures show beyond doubt the opposite (and I was born in Rotterdam myself ;-).Arnoutf 18:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your accurate information. Indeed, it is popular belief that Rotterdam would be larger than Amsterdam. There is good reason for it too. I guess the methods of counting vary considerably, and Rotterdam was in the recent past already and still is a more integrated metropolitan area. For instance, Spijkenisse can be reached by metro from Rotterdam, but Zaandam will not be connected with Amsterdam by the future new local north-south metro line. Ad43 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

True, it can be even argued that The Hague is part of the Rotterdam Metro Area; and that is indeed larger than the Amsterdam area. However, I think we should look at the city proper, or otherwise stadgewest. Arnoutf 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

City proper figures should be used, because the definitions of metropolitan agglomeration and urban area used by Statistics Netherlands would make the Randstad the largest city. User:Krator (t c) 20:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. The real, one and only Dutch metropolis is the Randstad. Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam are constituing headquarters of it. Mark my words, you will agree in at last 2050. Ad43 23:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice bit of Crystal Balling there ;-) Let's wait and see (in 43 years). Arnoutf 10:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The 11 Largest Agglomerations

According to recent data, see Geography of the Netherlands:

• Rotterdam - 1,091,111 inh. (Rotterdam, Nieuwerkerk aan den IJssel, Capelle aan den IJssel, Krimpen aan den IJssel, Rhoon, Hoogvliet, Spijkenisse, Schiedam, Vlaardingen, Maasland, Maassluis, Rozenburg, Ridderkerk, Krimpen aan den Lek, Berkel en Rodenrijs)
• Amsterdam- 1,027,974 inh. (Amsterdam, Diemen, Duivendrecht, Amstelveen, Badhoevedorp, Zwanenburg, Oostzaan, Zaanstreek: Zaandam and Zaanstad a.e.)
• The Hague- 717,169 inh. ('s-Gravenhage, Rijswijk, Wateringen, Voorburg, Leidschendam, Wassenaar, Delft)
• Utrecht - 609,115 inh. (Utrecht, Nieuwegein, IJsselstein, Houten, Bunnik/Odijk, Zeist, de Bilt/Bilthoven, Maarssen, Vianen)
• Eindhoven - 365,790 inh. (Eindhoven, Veldhoven, Geldrop, Nuenen, Son en Breugel, Best, Aalst)
• Haarlem - 310,936 inh. (Haarlem, Heemstede, Aerdenhout, Overveen, Bloemendaal, Vijfhuizen, Spaarndam, Velsen, Hillegom)
• Parkstad Limburg - 241,000 inh. (Heerlen, Kerkrade, Landgraaf, Brunssum, Simpelveld, Voerendaal, Onderbanken)
• Amersfoort- 203,921 inh. (Amersfoort, Leusden, Soest, Baarn, Hoevelaken)
• Tilburg- 225,000 inh. (Tilburg, Goirle)
• Arnhem - 193,871 inh. (Arnhem, Oosterbeek, Rozendaal, Westervoort, Huissen, Velp)
• Leiden - 193,280 inh. (Leiden, Voorschoten, Leiderdorp, Oegstgeest, and Warmond (part of the municipality of Teylingen)

Ad43 (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this in the context of city size? There are at least 2 reasons why we should not use this figures. (1) We are talking city, not agglomerationsize (we could also use area as a measure for city size and make Apeldoorn biggest). (2) The figures in Geography of the Netherlands are unreferenced, and should therefore not be used.

Please do not come up with all kinds of arcance numbers to prove that Rotterdam is the larger city; according to city proper figures (references provided) it is not. Redefining what a city is, without unambiguous sources, is at best violation of policies against original research. Arnoutf (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

See the Dutch Wikipedia. It surely can be trusted in this matter. Ad43 (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is (excuse me for saying) useless. Where in Dutch wiki should I be looking (nothing relevant in the Nederland article), please provide the exact article (preferably section as well - I can read Dutch easily as I am Dutch native speaker, and living in Utrecht). Secondly, why should we trust Dutch wiki? There about as many Dutch people editing in English Wiki as in Dutch Wiki; so I see no reason why information from that one should be better. Of course there may be sources cited in Dutch wiki, but these can be used here to. Thirdly, even if Dutch Wiki made an argument, we should still follow English Wiki guidelines about what a city is.

In brief; if we decide that agglomeration-size will be used, that requies airtight; reference supported arguments. Just listing the agglomeration sizes (note that I don't disagree with that, only whether they should be used) is no such argument. Arnoutf (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think you mean nl:Geografie van Nederland. Ok, 2 questions: How do I know I can trust an article that does not cite its sources? The article never says agglomeration rather then municipalities should be used, so how did you arrive at that decision?Arnoutf (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Especially in the Dutch situation, urbanization is a hot and urgent issue. Therefore acurrate and ~the most recent encyclopedic information might be most useful, even if this challenges popular and /or traditional beliefs. Ad43 (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it? I live in the Netherlands and yes "verrommelen" is an issue. But I fail to see where that links to this issue. And yes I agree, I like it when information challenges popular/traditional beliefs; that is what science is for (challenging these beliefs). However we need a published reference (showing scientific rigour) otherwise every idea could overthrow all beliefs. Encyclopedic information should be based on such references otherwise it is just the popular/traditional/personal belief of the author. So again, please provide sources. Arnoutf (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sure this information can be checked in the well-known Yearbook of the Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, which is, as you may know, a most authoritative source and is also available in an English version, if I am right. Ad43 (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

About CBS, true; and yes that is a very good sourc, but I did not add this information, and do not much care, so if you want it in, you have to find the reference.

Remains the second issue; and in my opinion from the start the most important and least answered question, why should agglomeration instead of municipality be used. Arnoutf (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The notion of municipality is less stable and shifting in the Netherlands and is already somewhat outdated in certain respects. New administrative entities are developed nowadays, such as enlarged, combined, and collective municipalities, e.g. Sittard-Geleen and Westland and, on the other hand, internally reorganized municipalities with numerous submunicipalities, boroughs and subcouncils like Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Ad43 (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"The notion of municipality is less stable" I disagree. The council of mayor and elderman is very important and bound to municipality, hence it is neither instable nor outdated.

New administrative entities such as Sittard-Geleen. No, Sittard-Geleen is a classical municipality, although it is not the same as the population center Sittard (the historical City=Municipality system).

Indeed the Rotterdam-Amsterdam submunicipality is interesting, but as of yet, there is still the Rotterdam/Amsterdam main municipality.

All this said, I still hear no argument why agglomeration should be adopted instead. There should be a very strong reason for agglomeration over municipality. That the classical municipality may indeed be less stable in the Netherlands compared some other countries is not an argument in favour of adopting agglomeration. So why is agglomeration a good term; is it more objective/stable then municipality (I doubt that), and who says it is a good idea (otherwise it is original research to put agglomeration over city). Arnoutf (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Within the Dutch situation, the size of a municipality tends to become of much less importance than the socio-economic cluster it belongs to. Using the rather modest amounts that hold true for the population of cities such as Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht and Eindhoven --to name but a few-- does give only a very poor and totally inadequate image of their real quantitative weight. It is mainly for that reason that modern surveys base their data and their policy making on agglomerations rather than municipalities. Ad43 (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, while I see some value in your observations we need a good source that says exactly what you are stating. To be honest I think the whole of the Randstad can be considered a single entity for many international comparisons. Without such source these edits would be a violation of the guideline against original research Arnoutf (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In some sense, it is true that the Randstad is on its way of becoming a big integrated metropolis. Such was already predicted in the sixties. Only the speed of this expansion has somewhat slowed down than was foreseen. All reliable socio-geographic sources however acknowledge the notion of the postwar urban agglomeration in the Netherlands. It has no use to deny it. One does not need to be a keen observer to see this. Neither should there be a special need to argue for it. Ad43 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have another concern regarding the 11 agglomerations. If we are to use agglomeration as the measure, who decides which settlements are part of an agglomeration and which are not? Which source uses the "clusters" Ad43 has described above? Who counts Zaandam as part of Amsterdam, for instance? Why isn't Helmond part of the Eindhoven agglomeration? And what about other agglomerations? Groningen, for instance, has about 180,000 citizens, Haren has about 19,000. That creates an agglomeration of about 200,000, which would be on the 10th place on this list. What about Twentestad, with Almelo (72,000), Borne (21,000), Hengelo (81,000) and Enschede (154,000), together about 330,000 citizens? Aecis^Brievenbus 01:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer is simple: use the yearly Statistical Yearbook of the Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, there can be no discussion about that. Ad43 (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree that there are agglomerations in the Netherlands that extend beyond the municipality. Apparently the CBS lists these (although without their criteria being mentioned I do not know why), but I can live with that, as indeed, CBS is trustworthy source.

However, this still does not answer the question what we should list under largest city: City proper (i.e. that what says Rotterdam (gem Rotterdam) on the "bebouwde kom" signs. For the largest cities this is only somewhat smaller then municipality, although in the case of Sittard-Gelleen very different - see also the Assen/Emmen discussion); Municipality which is the legal entity having a single mayor, municipality council and eldermen; or agglomeration, which has no legal definition, only de facto and socio-demogaphic similarities.

Personally I would favour city proper. This has some legal status through bebouwde kom sign and would help to get rid of the weird effect of indeed municipalities like Sittard-Geleen. Municipality is agreeable as well as that has the most important legal status (we have to redo the Assen-Emmen thing in that case). As agglomeration is (at least not shown to be) not well defined and has no legal status I would not use that. I can be convinced but the arguments must be strong Arnoutf (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

From the administrative POV municipalities are to be dealt with, from a socio-economic POV agglomerations are much more significant. These entities are mutually and complementally informative. Therefore we should present both types of data, just like the CBS does. Ad43 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but the infobox can only hold a single largest city. I still think that should not be agglomeration. Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind to not disturb Wikipedia to make a point, please. Thank you. User:Krator (t c) 19:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry I have every intention to come to an agreement on this talk page.

On another note, I would like to get rid of the non-sourced city sizes (urbanisation para) and only leave the official CBS ones up; I guess nobody objects as this is getting rid of redundant non-reliable information. Does anyone has the relevant statline link at hand so we can source it following WP:REF, thanks Arnoutf (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We should not list this at all on this page. It's all quite arbitrary, and we cannot write anything in good faith without deceiving the reader in some way. Or we'd have to explain the whole mess I'm writing down now to a reader who doesn't know the difference between a COROP region and a Stadsgewest. For the section that is now in Amsterdam#Definitions, I did some research in this area. To use Amsterdam as an example, there are four different definitions of the "Agglomeration Amsterdam", all with different population figures. Three of these can are from the CBS, and one from the statistics department in Amsterdam. All of these regions are defined in a different way: some by "close economic ties", others by "contiguous built up area", and again others by "close ties in services provided" (approximate English translations).

The following links are good for analysis. [5], statline], grootstedelijke agglomeraties en stadsgewesten, COROP-gebieden. The COROP area link is a map. In the Grootdstedelijke agglomeraties en stadsgewesten link, use the maps on pages 8 and 9. In the three CBS figures, Amsterdam is larger than Rotterdam in two of the three definitions. The single definition where this is not the case is the COROP area. Read the Grootdstedelijke agglomeraties en stadsgewesten link for more information. We cannot, in good faith, use any of these definitions, and present them as "the truth concerning the size of metropolitan areas". Dutch has a nice word for this: klucht. User:Krator (t c) 12:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I agree the whole agglomeration thing is ill-defined and we should be extremely careful if at all in adopting any of it. All in all the page needs major overhaul, so plenty to discuss. Arnoutf (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Dont look for pseudo certainties here. Municipalities also display a great lot of arbitrariness and they lack proper demarcation of socio-economic networks. Agglomerations at least indicate these to a high degree. Ad43 (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary municipalities maybe, but at least they have a defined legal demarcation. If you think that the agglomeration is based on socio-economic networks I do not understand the current set. In my opinion following that rationale Almere should be added to Amsterdam and Zoetermeer to the Hague. Also some of the combinations seem arbitrary - Why is Delft (large univesity and several industries so enough employment to go around so should not that be separate?) added to the Hague, while the much closer and much more bound (to the Hague that is) Voordorp is seen as part of Leiden. I think the arguments for these seemingly abitrary choices must be made clear before we can use these. (note that while CBS is a good agency their decisions have no legal power so the arguments underying classification are essential for acceptance). Arnoutf (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The notions of suburbs and satellites do count here. Delft can be regarded as completely contiguous to The Hague, while Almere and Zoetermeer were deliberately planned on a certain distance. It is not clear what you mean with Voordorp, which belongs to Utrecht, while Voorburg belongs to greater The Hague, and Voorschoten does belong more to the influence of Leiden than to that of The Hague. Somehow you are confusing these suburbs. Possibly, it becomes a little demanding for ordinary citizens like you and me. Apparently, the notion of agglomeration is not that vague. Certainly, CBS will have good criteria for it. Ad43 (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC) .

Sorry typo, meant Voorschoten all along.

As Voorschoten is between The Hague and Leiden I can't see why it should be to the Leiden agglomeration. And if it is undecided between the Hague and Leiden, that implies Leiden and the Hague are a single agglomeraiton. Also if Leiden (pop 117.000) can be the center of an agglomeration even if it touches the Hague agglomeration, why is then Delft (pop 95.000 not that much smaller) part of the the Hague aggl., rather then the core of its own? How much space do you need for contiguous relations anyway, because Delft is almost grown into Rotterdam/Schiedam as well. I would say socio-economically Delft has as much right as Leiden to be an independent core (large and old university; world famous Delft blue; high tech companies - none of which are in the Hague), so geographically the case to add Delft to the Hague (or maybe Rotterdam) can be made, but socio-economically, I doubt that.

You are right about the geographic distance between Zoetermeer and Almere and their 'mother'-cities, however Zoetermeer, through Ypenburg has now also as good as touched the Hague. And obviously Zoetermeer-the Hague and Almere-Amsterdam are socio-economically much more related then e.g. Delft-the Hague (your argument for use of agglomerations is the socio-economic similarity, not geographic unity).

So to me it is vague. Maybe (I say maybe) CBS has good criteria for it, but they may also have taken a pragmatic approach (nothing wrong with that). However, without these criteria out in the open I am not happy at all to do anything more then just listing the numbers and do not embed them in any way else in the flow of the article. Arnoutf (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid, rather your topographic knowledge is vague, not the concept of agglomeration itself. Take any good map of the Randstad. It does not need to be new, e.g. the ANWB tourist map Randstad midden en Zuid; scale 1: 100,000; edition 1989, will do. Check your statements here. They clearly show that your perception is wrong. Delft is through Rijswijk almost seamlessly connected to The Hague, while it is on a rather wide open distance with Rotterdam. The same holds true for Voorschoten with regard to Leiden and The Hague respectively. Contrary to what you are stating, agglomerations are not ill-defined. Their demarcation only asks for a closer inspection and a sometimes subtle observation. So much for blunt measures. Now a more qualitative criterium. Ask any citizen of Leiden if he/she feels to be under the spatial or mental influence of The Hague as his/her geographic kernel city. Do the same with Haarlem versus Amsterdam. They will immediately classify you as a total outsider. How come? It has to do with history. Both cities were already very prominent before their later neigbour cities began to grow and flourish. This means, they have their own status and character and will not easily subordinate to relatively new or booming cities. I suppose that Delft has had just too little critical mass versus The Hague, and was rather 'unfortunate' with the already absorbed Rijswijk as its close neighbour. If necessary, I could give quite analogous explanations with regard to Eindhoven-Helmond (not one aglommeration) versus Sittard-Geleen (a closer tied one). But hopefully, my examples of the Randstad already will give you a more sophisticated view of the matter. Ad43 (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the "closer inspection and a sometimes subtle observation" you are talking about, constitute original research. CBS is a reliable, relevant and authoritative source, so I see no reason not to mention their data though. Regarding Eindhoven/Helmond, it may not be one agglomeration mentally, but they are one of the eight plusregio's in the Netherlands. Aecis·(away) ^talk 12:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is original research, forbidden on the English Wikipedia - I know that the Dutch Wikipedia has a more lenient policy towards this, but please keep to the local rules. It is not up to us to decide which municipality belongs to what agglomeration. We need reliable sources, such as Statistics Netherlands, to back up the claims in the article(s). And those reliable sources are not at all clear which municipality belongs to what agglomeration. So, a few direct questions to Ad43:

• On what source do you base the population data at the top of this section? A link would be appreciated.
• Which definition of metropolitan area does that use? (Stadsgewest, COROP-region, Grootstedelijke agglomeratie, other?)
• Why did you choose that definition, and not another? This choice itself needs a source, not an argument.

User:Krator (t c) 13:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course the data I used are CBS-based. I would not call them original research. Here you are for some relevant CBS references:

• 2006bevolkingskerneninnederlandart.pdf
• 2005grootstedelijkeagglomeratiesstadsgewestenafgebakendart.pdf
• 2004k4v4p037art.pdf

You are welcome. Ad43 (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like an answer to the second and third questions. Thank you. User:Krator (t c) 10:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check the references above. Ad43 (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with all of those three documents. These do not answer my question: one deals with bevolkingskernen, the second is deals with grootstedelijke agglomeraties and stadsgewesten and the last one uses (but does not explain) grootstedelijke agglomeraties for some research irrelevant to what we are dealing with here: population data). These documents use three different definitions (a fourth would be COROP-area, a fifth definitions used by the municipalities themselves). These do not explain:

• Which data you used for the data in the Geography article and the one on top of this talk page section.
• What definition they use.
• And on the basis of what source (cite paragraphs if you are convinced it can be found in the sources you linked) you chose that particular definition.

Furthermore, none of those sources contain the data mentioned above. I partially quote you above.

Unknown from Ad43:

• Rotterdam (?) - 1,091,111
• Amsterdam (?) - 1,027,974

Below, all data from [6], statlinelink] - add Rotterdam using Statline Web Selector. All data 2006. The data for Stadsgewest:

• Rotterdam (SG) - 1 174 034
• Amsterdam (SG) - 1 468 122

Grootstdelijke agglomeratie:

• Rotterdam (GA) - 988 764
• Amsterdam (GA) - 1 021 870

COROP-area

• Rotterdam (COROP: Groot Rijnmond) - 1 353 670
• Amsterdam (COROP: Groot Amsterdam) - 1 211 503

Municipality

• Rotterdam - 586 377
• Amsterdam - 742 981

Please, answer the questions above, and I hope the above treatise on your data explains my reluctance to accept it blindly with the notice of "CBS".

User:Krator (t c) 12:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, these are basically my guestions. I have been asking one question I think is not covered under your questions for which I have not received an answer: what is the source that shows it is relevant to use agglomeration rather than municipality? Arnoutf (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Here you find a practical CBS definition:

• Grootstedelijke agglomeratie
• Gebied met een aaneengesloten stedelijke bebouwing.

Toelichting:

• Een grootstedelijke agglomeratie is stedelijk gebied in morfologische zin. Het is een aaneengesloten gebied met stedelijke bebouwing waarin de meeste menselijke activiteiten plaatsvinden, de meeste banen aanwezig zijn en de meeste openbare voorzieningen zijn gelokaliseerd. De grootstedelijke agglomeraties vormen de centra van de stadsgewesten. De gebieden met een stedelijke bebouwing zijn afgebakend aan de hand van de digitale kaart van het bodemgebruik naar de situatie van 1996. Welk gebied het centrum van het stadsgewest is, is bepaald aan de hand van inwonertal (meer dan 100 duizend), aantal banen (meer dan 50 duizend) en potentieel aan regionale klanten (meer dan 150 duizend). De indeling in grootstedelijke agglomeraties is niet landelijk dekkend en is beschikbaar vanaf 1 januari 2000. Het aantal grootstedelijke agglomeraties bedraagt 22.
• Zie ook: Stadsgewest

Ad43 (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And here you find the exact list of Grootstedelijke agglomeraties en het peri-urbane gebied

<2004k4v4p037art.pdf>, on p.46.

Thank you for your constructive attitude. Ad43 (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Remains the question: Why is it relevant to add agglomeration data at all? (Yes I have been repeating this point, but that is because this is in my opinion the main question that underlies all else, and I have not received a good answer yet). Arnoutf (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For your convenience, I repeat : at least for these two reasons:

• these data have much more socio-economic relevance
• these data much better indicate the degree of urbanisation .

Ad43 (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion, however you have not given a reference that supports this idea. (The CBS references provided do not support this reasoning only the composition of the agglomerations). Without such reference the question is not answered. Your suggestion are basically as hollow as the following counterargument in favour of using municipalities: "Municipality have much more aesthethic relevance and indicate the degree of UFO sightings much better" and that this is a reason to keep with Municipality. I hope you agree these reasons are hollow, if not ridiculous. Your arguments are logically the same (although not in content), and have therefore be supported by an external source that confirms the idea (which I obviously will not be able to find for my above nonsense about municipality) but without which your idea about agglomeration is worth equally little as mine about the municipalities and UFO sightings Arnoutf (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for you, but this nonsensical comparison is far fetched and completely out of the blue. Read the referenced sources and you will see that this is not my personal opnion, but standard socio-geographic policy. Perhaps you better inform yourself instead of fruitless and pointless polemising. Ad43 (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

1) The logical structure is exactly the same as that of your arguments (so not out of the blue). Far fetched indeed, but so are your claims; unless supported by decently referenced sources.

2) Reading the sources I find this text from the 2005 rapport most relevant to your point, although it does not say what you are saying at all, but merely it is added as a possible alternative. By the way thanks for not following referencing guidelines so I had to find this on CBS myself instead of following a provided link Sinds een aantal jaren is er sprake van een groeiende aandacht voor de ontwikkeling van stedelijke gebieden, niet alleen in Nederland (zie onder andere het Grote Stedenbeleid), maar ook in andere lidstaten van de Europese Unie en bij de Europese Commissie. De reden is de constatering dat Europese steden enerzijds een belangrijke bron vormen voor economische groei, maar anderzijds vaak worden geconfronteerd met grote onevenwichtigheden op sociaal en economisch gebied. De aandacht van de Europese Commissie voor de stedelijke ontwikkeling heeft haar regionale beleid als achtergrond. Dat beleid is erop gericht de sociale cohesie binnen de Europese Unie te bevorderen door onevenwichtigheden tussen regio’s te verminderen. De Commissie pleitte dan ook al een aantal jaren geleden voor een meer gerichte aandacht voor de ontwikkeling van de stedelijke gebieden (Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen 1997 en 1998). Dit pleidooi vond onder andere zijn weerslag in de Structuurfondsen voor de periode 2000–2006, Daarin is nu expliciet een plaats ingeruimd voor hulp aan stedelijke gebieden (Raad van de Europese Unie, 1999). Daarmee nam ook op internationaal niveau de vraag naar statistische gegevens voor de stedelijke gebieden toe (Comité van de Regio’s 1999, Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen 2000). Om aan die toegenomen vraag naar ‘urban statistics’ op nationaal en internationaal niveau te voldoen moest eerst de vraag worden beantwoord voor welke ruimtelijke eenheden die gegevens beschikbaar zouden moeten worden gesteld. Stedelijke verschijnselen spelen zich immers af op verschillende ruimtelijke niveaus. Behalve de stad zelf en haar interne geleding zijn dat onder meer de stedelijke agglomeratie, het stadsgewest, de conurbatie (policentrisch stadsgewest) en het stedelijke netwerk als een nog verdergaande vorm van schaalvergroting van de stad (Ministerie van VROM 2000). Aan een systematische informatievoorziening voor stedelijke gebieden op veel van deze schaalniveaus heeft het in Nederland heel lang ontbroken. In tegenstelling tot sommige andere landen kende men hier in de statistische informatievoorziening nauwelijks een traditie voor dit type informatie. Alleen bij gelegenheid van een aantal naoorlogse volkstellingen zijn enige activiteiten op dit terrein ontplooid. Dit betrof voornamelijk een afbakening van agglomeraties in morfologische en sociaal-economische zin (CBS 1950 en 1964a; Schmitz 1966). Een systematische presentatie van cijfers voor die gebieden vond echter niet plaats. Vanaf het midden van de jaren vijftig in de vorige eeuw lag namelijk het zwaartepunt op een categoriale benaderingswijze van het verstedelijkingsvraagstuk door de invoering van een typologie van gemeenten naar urbanisatiegraad (CBS 1958). De typologie wordt daarna enkele keren geactualiseerd (CBS 1964b en 1983) om ten slotte te worden vervangen door een indeling van gemeenten naar stedelijkheid (Den Dulk et al. 1992). Recentelijk is het CBS gestart met het verstrekken van statistische gegevens voor grootstedelijke agglomeraties en stadsgewesten. In dit hoofdstuk worden de resultaten van het daaraan voorafgaand onderzoek naar de afbakening van de eenheden op deze twee ruimtelijke niveaus gepresenteerd. In het onderzoek naar de afbakening van deze gebieden stonden methodologische aspecten in relatie tot de statistische praktijk centraal. Het onderzoek werd door het CBS in samenwerking met de Commissie van Advies voor de Regionale Statistieken (CARS) uitgevoerd 2).

3) 'standard socio-geographic policy' What does this mean, is this your idea of (and you presume it is standard), did you get it from somewhere (if so where). You just cannot use these kind of "argument killers" without references; I could as easily say "common sense shows your arguments are invalid". That will just not do.

Polemising. Ok, if you want that. You are just not enough of an expert/lack the notion of scientific rigous/common decency/or are too lazy to provide the references; which means your edits cannot be taking seriously. Only by providing detailed, page specific references to high quality sources can you convince me this does not hold. Have fun.

PS Interestingly the map in the 2005 document does explicitly exclude Delft from the The Hague agglomeration if not from the The Hague grootstedelijke gewest; as do the most recent maps from 2007. That makes one wonder who should check the references. Arnoutf (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems you now have abandoned any form of constructive debate and entered the field of black comedy. In that case, you might be better served by a literary quote. Try this one, unreferenced as it may be, but you are zealous enough to trace back its source: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Ad43 (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

abandoning constructive debate. Thanks, this at least means you agree I started this lengthy discussion constructively.

Reading back your arguments and unwillingness to give relevant insight in your sources you have never been willing to engage in a constructive debate, not even from the start.

My constructive approach in this discussion have been over and over again to ask the relevant question, for you to provide the references that explicitly support your claims. You have (very unconstructively) not done so (against relevant wiki guidelines). After a lot of bickering I have indeed taken the (very constructive) effort to check the sources you (not me) claim to support your suggestion. I even went to the effort of providing a literal quote from a source provided by you (again very constructive to help the discussion along). I have looked up your sources (you were unconstructively only being providing in a cryptical way against relevant wiki guidelines). Reading them I have established your own sources do not support your claims. What's unconstructive about that all, except showing beyond doubt that the whole discussion above should not have taken place if the original editor (you) had done your homework and checked the issues properly before inserting them.

Of course I maybe wrong and it is very unconstructive for me to doubt the infallibility of Ad43. Arnoutf (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you finished? And did it relieve you? You are so caught up in your hedgehog position that it seems dangerous to even try to contradict you. Ad43 (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No it did not relieve me, I hate talking to people who take my arguments as seriously as a brick wall would; and only repeat their usupported assumptions like a broken grammophone. I will stop talking about this issue until some new and literature supported arguments are presented. Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks heavens, this is a great relief to me. Ad43 (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ad43 was right all along. He made a good, cogent point. I find Arnoutf's attitude here, as elsewhere, very unpleasant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well very nice such a rude remark, long after Ad43 and myself came to an understanding. Arnoutf (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Renewed urbanisation section

Would you mind if I introduce the lists you provided as they seem to fall from the blue sky now. I was thinking of something like (to prevent edit conflict I'll leave mainspace article for now, as you may still be working on it):

The Netherlands is very densily populated country (ranked 15th but preceded in that list by only 3 countries with a population over 10 million). It is therefore not strange that the Netherlands is a very urbanised country. Interestingly in the Netherlands there are many medium sized cities but no truly large cities, with the largest city Amsterdam at about 750,000 inhabitants in its municipality being one of the smaller European capitals.
LIST FOLLOWS
However, looking at the municipality size alone does not give a comprehensive overview of the urbanisation of the Netherlans. There is discussion to what extend the combination of the four largest cities, and the communities connecting them may form a single agglomeration, the Randstad in the future. At this moment however, the structures between these cities are not yet developed to a level the Randstad can be considered an agglomeration. Many of the larger Dutch cities are, however, the cores of a significantly larger agglomeration.
LIST FOLLOWS
Of course we might need some references here, and probably have to work on the content a bit; but do you like the idea how we can embed the lists in a bit more sensible way? Arnoutf (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dutch people just generally like lists. See nl:Nederland. User:Krator (t c) 12:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That is original research on your part ;-) (By the way I am Dutch and do NOT like lists that are not embedded into a narrative). Arnoutf (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So am I. User:Krator (t c) 12:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course this paragraph still asked for some textual and visual extension.

• I assume, you will not mind my adopting, borrowing and modest rephrasing of your editing proposals. It can be the first step. Thank you. Ad43 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• As a second step, I added a new subparagraph on the Randstad. Ad43 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Then, I reordered the whole paragraph and added two maps. Ad43 (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me; it was never intended as a final version but as some quick draft. Regarding the current version I think some copyedit need to be done, especially I think the tone needs to become a bit more serious-encyclopedia, but I think it is a good start. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic error

From the linguistic point of view the name "Netherlands Antilles" seems not correct. Better might be "Dutch Antilles", or eventually "Netherlandish A." Natubico (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Linguisticaly imperfect maybe, but still this is a non-issue because it is the official English name (see. e.g. CIA factbook) and hence cannot be considered for change. Arnoutf (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Many rich inhabitants, poor country

"With just over half of the reserves used up and an expected continued rise in oil prices, the revenues over the next few decades are expected to be at least that much." Proposed addition here: "Still, all possessions of the country, including these gas reserves, are worth some 35 miljard less, than it's debts are high." Natubico (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Debt = 219 billion Euro; Half the reserves have historically yielded 159 billion. However, prices in the 80's were far below the current ones so we can safely assume the remaining reserved are probably worth more then twice that (ie way over 300 billion). Not counting all other properties of the Netherlands (buildings, land and forests, train tracks, Schiphol airport, several companies, etc etc etc). I cannot see why the proposed sentence makes any sense. Seems to be unverifiable original research at best. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It was in a paper years ago. And there may be something in it. Of course prices are higher than longtime ago, but the prices of what has to be bought with those revenues are much higher as they once were as well. And talking about buying, that is what will happen with as good as every cent, the remaining gas reserves will still bring in. Per saldo not one cent will be used for paying back, what has been lent, It all is necessary to keep this land 'turning', in other words for all day governmental spendings. And what's more, it even is not enough. New loans are added repeatedly, as a result of which the total debt is still growing. So forget about the gas reserves as a possession, that neutralises the negative worth of the public debt. Natubico (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not completely sue what you mean. I think it is very hard to try to neutralise the debt of a country against one single resource. The good thing about rising prices (inflation) is that debts relatively grow smaller because of this. Arnoutf (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Stuwwal = Push Moraine?

I haven't got a backgroudn in geology so I'm not sure, but a google search suggests that "stuwwal" should be translated as push moraine.Correct?Fairlane75 (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My dictionary gives "dam rampart" - another one give "lateral moriane" take your pick bikerams (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a single word for it in English. Looking at moraine it does not qualify as the stuwwallen are not formed by material transported by the glacier. Similarly a rampart is something else. I think we need a geologist to come up with the correct word, rather then making one up ourselves. Arnoutf (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

According to IATE, the EU translator, stuwwal translates as "Push-moraine" in English and as "Stauchmoräne" in German. But the Dutch Wikipedia article nl:Stuwwal has an interwiki link to the German Wikipedia article de:Eisrandlage. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I would go for push-moraine in that case.

Checking on the German wikie. Eisrandlage seems to refer to any kind of demarcation of the ultimate front of the Ice-age glaciers, not limited to "stuwwallen" (although I cannot be completely sure I understand German wiki 100%); wikiing through German wiki to de:Endmoräne the Stauchendmoräne/Stauchmoräne is defined as "Stauchendmoränen, die sich oft durch sehr hohe Reliefenergie auszeichnen, entstehen, wenn durch den Druck eines vorstoßenden Gletschers älteres Material, das vor der Gletscherfront abgelagert wurde, unter horizontalen und vertikalen Druck gerät und dabei gestaucht und aufgeworfen wird." - In my best German this is exactly what a stuwwal is - ie a steep incline formed by the pressure of the glacier front. So I think Dutch wiki is not pointing to the most relevant German sister article. Arnoutf (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Crime and punishment

WhisperToMe (talk · contribs) has just created a section on crime and punishment in the Netherlands. I agree that such a section should be included, but as it stands, it only focusses on 419 scams. That is obviously an issue, especially in the Amsterdam area, but mentioning only this, to the point of linking to the article Advance fee fraud in {{main}}, puts undue weight on this particular form of crime. Should this section be hidden for the moment, until a more comprehensive section is written, with a link to Crime in the Netherlands in the header text? Aecis·(away) ^talk 14:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aecis.

In more detail: Crime and punishment could be included, but in my opinion they would fit much better in a section "Law and Justice" then within demographics.

Also the Nigerian scam is truly only a minor part of the whole of the Dutch crime and punishment issue. E.g. bicycle theft, embezzlement and fraud (e.g. the building consortium fraud), robbery (e.g. street robbery), vandalism/hooliganism, drug traficking (especially in the border areas), smuggle (Rotterdam, Schihol), etc etc should be included. As well as a section about the duration of punishment (max 30 year - no minimum; and that actual length is about 2/3); life sentence (which in the Netherlands tends to lifelong indeed); TBS (ie mental hospitilisation), etc. should all be part of such a section.

I would link this to mains: Law enforcement in the Netherlands; Law of the Netherlands; or something else in the Category:Dutch law. Arnoutf (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly see including 419 as undue weight, but I am totally fine with moving the crime section AND making it more comprehensive (i.e. having one sentence about AFF and other sentences about other crimes) - We had a similar discussion in Talk:Nigeria and we agreed to make a crime section mentioning 419. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but 419 is called Nigerian scam not Dutch scam; although it exists in the Netherlands, the Netherlands are hardly well-known for it. (in spite of the warning by the US consulate). I am pretty sure (as I argued above) that the actual damages/revenue in the Netherlands from this form of fraud are only a very minor part of total crime damages. Hence naming this crime as a single case would be a bit weird (somethng like adding a crime and punishment section in the US article only listing "hate crime"). Arnoutf (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What I will do is see if I can find more references to 419 activity in the Netherlands. I believe I will find it; I don't mind if the information is re-organized, though. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dutch Embassy in DC has a page too, and it specifically addresses 419 in the Netherlands and tells people how to identify Dutch phone numbers: http://www.netherlands-embassy.org/article.asp?articleref=AR00000241EN WhisperToMe (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Dutch Embassy in Canberra also discusses this: http://www.netherlands.org.au/pages/page104_en.asp WhisperToMe (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• And this article discusses a warning from a Dutch office in Taipei about 419 from the Netherlands: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2003/10/22/42412/Netherlands-office.htm WhisperToMe (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• And I have these: IHT article citing Netherlands and The Guardian article citing the Netherlands. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of you may be interested in the mirror discussion at the Crime in South Africa page here: [7] --Kit Berg (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, how are we going to incorporate 419 in an article about crime in the Netherlands? If embassies are making statements warning against 419 in the Netherlands, surely a significant problem exists. If the embassies did not consider the problem to be significant, why would they report it? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement there. "If embassies are making statements warning against 419 in the Netherlands, surely a significant problem exists." It may also be that US tourist are (for some reason) very vulnerable to this. In other words it may well be that the problem in the Netherlands is small but that for US tourists (an insignificant group in the Netherlands) this is a big problem; big problem for small group does not mean that it is a big problem overall. Therefore an embassy issued warning without any supporting evidence about absolute numbers and relative proportion about total crime can just not be used to make any of the claims you make. (compare the warning the Israel embassy is likely to give about antisemitic sentiments in some countries, such a warning does not make anti-semitic sentiments the most prominent crime in such a country). Arnoutf (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a logical flaw of some type of begging the question. Your argument is (in my opinion) something like:

1) 419 is a crime (likely but still an assumption)

2) The US embassy warns against 419 in the Netherlands (fact proven by your reference)

3) The US embassy would only warn against significant crimes for US citizens visiting the country (assumption)

4) Therefore 419 is a significant part of crime within the Netherlands as a whole (does not follow logically from strain of reasoning before)

My main problem is in stages 3 and 4 (3 is an assumption for which no evidence has been provided). Translating 3 to 4 assumes that the crime in any country is mainly defined in relation to the effect on US citizens. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about this also in relation to both this and the Crime in South Africa page, I think the assumption that is wide open for dispute is the fact that a warning or description of a crime as 'serious' implies that it is statistically significant.

As an example, child pornography is viewed as a serious problem in the UK. I can provide references for cases, investigations, prosecutions, etc. It is serious because, although not statistically common, it is a heinous crime. There are task forces and agencies dedicated to combating this crime, and many statements from public figures detailing the fact that it is viewed seriously. This is merely an indication that it is viewed as a problem, not that it is widespread in that country. I wouldn't dream of making a separate section for child pornography on pages dedicated to countries within the United Kingdom. I think that the AFF fraud is also less relevant on country pages than on 'Crime in XXX country' pages though, hence the note here. Kit Berg (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Windy?

Its a flat country and there are a lot of windmills. I'm guessing its a fairly windy country. Is it? -OOPSIE- (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Today it is ;-) But yes it is reasonably windy; not relevant enough for the article I think. Arnoutf (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Motto: "persevere"

Wouldn't "I will persevere" be a much more accurate translation of the motto than "I will stand fast"? The dictionary definition is "to persist in anything undertaken; maintain a purpose in spite of difficulty, obstacles, or discouragement; continue steadfastly". —msikma (user, talk) 20:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Je maintendrai is derived from the motto of the house of Chalon (see René of Châlon), which was Je maintendrai Chalon. Willem the Silent changed it to Je maintendrai Nassau, and later dropped "Nassau". Translating it with persevere removes the original context, namely that of a connection to a place. One cannot persevere a place, yet can maintain, hold, or stand fast in it. User:Krator (t c) 20:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we create an article for Je maintiendrai (currently a redirect to Coat of arms of the Netherlands), explaining this? We've already got articles on other national mottos. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sustainable nation

Seeing as the Netherlands are one of the few sustainable nations on Earth I think this sould be included in the article, just like with the Republic of Ireland. Thoughts? --SelfQ (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure. This was discussed on the template country infobox (I think) a while ago, and the index was not included as it is little known, little used and is the point of view of a single organisation (ie it is not as if this index is endorsed by some institution at the level of UN, IMF or similar). Arnoutf (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else willing to comment? --SelfQ (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Capital

If the Hague has the Netherlands government why isn't it the capital? 122.105.217.71 (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's just how it is. See: Capital of the Netherlands Arnoutf (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the constitution says, it's just wrong. According to the article on capital it's where the government is. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The capital article opens: n politics, a capital (also called capital city or political capital — although the latter phrase has a second meaning based on an alternative sense of "capital") is the center of government. It is almost always the city which physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government and fixed by law but there are a number of exceptions.

Please notice the careful use of the word "almost". The Netherlands is one of the "nots" making up the difference between always and almost.

There has been some discussion on this definiition, as Oxford dictionary (the authorative dict of UK eng). does not explicitly limit the meaning to seat of govt. Hence there is no reason to say the Dutch situation is "wrong".

The Wikipedia capital article is unsourced, while capital of the Netherlands explicitly cites the Dutch constitution (of course you can argue that the Dutch constitution is wrong, but that would kind of upset the w

ole worldorder wouldn't it, when wikipedians can disqualify national constitutions.....). Arnoutf (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It says that the capital is the center of government. The hague is that, not Amsterdam. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)io

Coronation of the Monarch could be considered center of govt. And as I said the capital article is completely unsourced, therefor it could also say the capital is the landing spot of extraterrestrials for that matter. Arnoutf (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Dutch situation is just that: the Dutch situation. There is no right or wrong in cases like this. This is just the way it is. Amsterdam is the capital and the government is seated in The Hague. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note the full first paragraph of the article Capital: "In politics, a capital (also called capital city or political capital — although the latter phrase has a second meaning based on an alternative sense of "capital") is the center of government. It is almost always the city which physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government and fixed by law but there are a number of exceptions" (Italics added for emphasis). The Netherlands is one of three or four (depending on how you view South Africa) exceptions. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked up web definitions and they say something like "a capital is the center of government". We're both right about what the article says so therefor it contradicts itself. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The web is not necessarily a reliable source. Please accept that the Dutch situation is an exception that is just as it is. Arnoutf (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of there being the word capital if it doesn't mean where the government is? 122.105.217.71 (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a retoric question. What it the point of having a word "green". Arnoutf (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway look here "Capital: the most important city or town of a country or region, usually its seat of government and administrative centre". This is a definition that explicitly states that while it usually is, it need not be the seat of government. Arnoutf (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then why isn't NY the USA's capital? 122.105.217.71 (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the USA is wrong in calling Washington DC their capital. Have fun making that point at the USA article. Arnoutf (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

the UN says that they are both Dutch cities are capital. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's nice for the UN (where do they say that btw?). In any case, that is outside the mandate of the UN and therefore completely irrelevant, as much as it is outside the mandate of the CIA (who say that Amsterdam is the capital). Arnoutf (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is completely outside the scope of Wikipedia talk pages, and can only have negative consequences if prolonged. As our friendly IP-address will probably not stop when I ask him, I suggest that you cease responding Arnoutf. Any rampant edits to the capital of the Netherlands on any related pages will simply be reverted per WP:BOLLOCKS. User:Krator (t c) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It says so at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WUP2005/2005WUP_DataTables13.pdf. Krator, where does it say that this is outside the scope of talk pages and why do you think i won't stop when you ask me? 122.105.217.71 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you see footnote 12 of that document? It says "Amsterdam is the capital, The Hague is the seat of government." Aecis^Brievenbus 00:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't. Answer the questions please. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 12 answers your question: Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, while the government is seated in The Hague. This makes the Netherlands one of the few countries in the world where the government is not seated in the capital. This does not make The Hague the capital of the country though. Just to avoid misunderstandings, could you repeat the questions you want an answer to? Aecis^Brievenbus 10:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Krator, where does it say that this is outside the scope of talk pages and why do you think i won't stop when you ask me? 122.105.217.71 (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is outside the talk page, and the whole of Wiki to challenge things like the correctness of laws. You stating that the Dutch constitution is in error naming Amsterdam capital places this discussion outside the scope.

Can you please stop this discussion, it has and never will lead to changes in main space. (There, I asked). Arnoutf (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf I asked "where does it say" not "why". 122.105.217.71 (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As no one has explained where it says that this discussion is outside the scope of the talk pages I think it is reasonable to continue until someone does. If anyone objects please explain why. 122.105.216.1 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Could it be an useful suggestion to broaden this discussion as to the question of whether or not the British drive at the right side of the road? The moment that issue will be satisfactorily clarified this capital issue might be finally resolved. Ad43 (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your point being? 122.109.250.74 (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

His point being extremely delightful yet quite accurately drawing an analogy to your trolling. Tomeasy_talk 23:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am trying to correct the inconsistency between the capital article and this article. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency, if you understand the word almost always. However, I do not want to enter this discussion with you here again as my arguments are congruent with those of Arnoutf and Acesis and I do not see the point of repeating them. Tomeasy_talk 09:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Map needs update

the location of the netherlands map here needs a update now that the Netherlands has recognized Kosovo as a independent nation.

(in Dutch)[8]
(in Dutch)[9]
(in English)[10]
--SelfQ (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)