Wikipedia

Talk:Dutch people/Archive 12

< Talk:Dutch people
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Vlaemink in topic Common ancestry and culture ?
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dutch people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Impact of Dutch culture.

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the 3rd paragraph of the article we read: "Despite the small size of the Netherlands, the Dutch left behind a legacy in excess of their mere numbers. The Dutch people are generally seen as the pioneers of capitalism, and their emphasis on a modern economy, secularism, and a free market ultimately had a huge influence on the great powers of the West, especially the British Empire, its Thirteen Colonies, and ultimately the United States."

Is this a fact or an opinion? Where is a reference that "Dutch people are the pioneers of capitalism and free market"? Free market existed since Athenian trades all over the Mediterranean. Moreover, words like "huge influence" constitute an exaggeration on many levels. I think the role of the article should be a little more based on facts and less on opinions and exaggerations like these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.83.105.6 (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dutch people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dutch people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dutch people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nuber of People

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The number of Dutch people in Belgium is a lot exagerated since there only live about 11-12 milion people in Belgium. So even if you count flemish people as being Dutch as well, this is still not a fysicaly possible number of people. Falco iron (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Party true. It depends where you start. In the late Middle Ages (1600), the historical entities of Flanders and Brabant (Southern Netherlands, now: Belgium) had 20 times more inhabitants than the Northern Netherlands. From that time on until World War 2, about 80% of Southern Netherlandisch people fled because of almost continuous warfare. Many to the UK, Germany and the Northern Netherlands. And later to US, Canada. There they were referred to as "Dutch", because the name 'Netherlandisch' got out of use. They are however not Dutch, as coming from the current country the Netherlands.

The problem here is the word "Dutch". Which is mixed up through history.

On topic, actually big parts of Northern France as well were Flemish or Southern Netherlandisch 350 years ago. So, speaking of 10 million Belgians being of (Southern) Netherlandisch descent is even too little. There are about 5 million people in Nord Pas due Calais from Flemish descent. They have been assimilated. Just as the Flemish and Brabandisch people who migrated to North America and who now have some 5 million descents.

It's about ethnicity here. Not about language. Correctum86 (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

In the late Middle Ages (1600), the historical entities of Flanders and Brabant (Southern Netherlands, now: Belgium) had 20 times more inhabitants than the Northern Netherlands. That is an outrageous figure. The Northern Netherlands probably had about 0.9-1 million inhabitants in 1500, the Southern Netherlands (including Picardy) c. 1.7. See [1] and [2]. Iblardi (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Netherlandish"

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

To clarify the difference between Dutch and Netherlandish: Dutch refers to a nationality, while the latter refers to an ancestry. In fact, the Dutch have Netherlandish ancestry. And since the Southern Netherlands (roughly nowadays Belgium and North Pas due Calais in France) always been much more crowded (50 times more inhabitants until 17th century) than the Northern (nowadays Netherlands), most Netherlandish people have in fact their roots in the Southern Netherlands. As from the 16th century, massive immigration happened from the Southern Netherlands to other places in the world. Among which of course the Northern Netherlands. Correctum86 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  • @Correctum86: In modern English "Netherlandish" is used only when referring to art and artists in the Burgundian and Habsburg Netherlands during the 15th- and 16th-century (see Early Netherlandish painting), it is not used as a name for an ethnicity, or as a catch-all name for speakers of the Dutch language. So what you're repeatedly doing is replacing a correct term (Dutch) with a term that doesn't have the meaning in English that you seem to think it has. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that doesn't make the term "Dutch" correct when talking about ethnicity. And definitively not when talking about ancestry of contemporary descents in the US, Ausyralia, Canada, or even other European parts of the world as France, Germany or the UK. This article can surely discuss Dutch people, but then it should only talk about nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctum86 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Dutch" is, in a very simplified way, used for both language, ethnicity and nationality in English, and the same goes for some other languages/ethnicities/nationalities, which leads to a lot of confusion. But that's the way it is, and the only way to get around it is to clarify it in a footnote or similar. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

West Frisian

Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion

An editor Human Taxonomist (talk · contribs) removed reference to Frisian. I challenged the removal and he has reverted me. However WP:BRD applies, thus this section.

The question is whether Frisian should be removed from the list of languages of the Dutch People which has:

  • Dutch
  • Dutch Low Saxon
  • Limburgish
  • West Frisian (Frisians)

I note that it already makes clear that this marks Frisian as the language of the Frisian ethnic group, so the question is really, is Frisian not a language of the Dutch People at all? That needs discussion and consensus because it argues that (1) Frisians are not Dutch at all. That is, as the other editor asserts, they are a distinct and separate ethnic group. Frisian and not Dutch. The counter position is that one can be Frisian but also Dutch because Dutch is an inclusive term. In English you have the term British that describes several ethnic groups but English for one of those groups. For the Dutch, there does not seem to be an overarching term (in English) to describe a Nederlander. We use the word Dutch for that So should Frisians be excluded from the category of "Dutch People"? What do other editors think? Are there sources on this? Specifically is there a reliable source that states that Frisians are not Dutch. They live in a Dutch province but are not Dutch people?

Additionally, as Frisian is an official language of the Netherlands and is taught in schools in the province, and as many Dutch people in the province are not ethnically Frisian, it does follow that many of these would speak or understand Frisian (despite the reputation of the language that makes it less aspirational for such people, unfortunately). So Frisian is still an official language for some Dutch People in the Netherlands. I am not sure that is enough of a reason for including Frisian on its own though. The main issue, as I say, is does Frisian ethnicity mean that person is not Dutch? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  • These are all fair and valid points, but 'Dutch people' here is focusing on a specific ethnic group, not simply people of the Netherlands. Flemings are ethnically and linguistically closer to the Dutch (especially southern Dutch) than Frisians are, but they are largely excluded from the scope of this article. Frisian is not a native tongue among non-Frisians in the Netherlands, and few Dutch even learn it as a second language. Frisians have never been referred to generally as being 'Dutch', as the Scots have never been referred to as English. 'Dutch' has never been a separate, expansive term equivalent to a term like 'British'. There is no specific 'British' language, but 'Dutch' does refer to a specific language and cultural group. This is why I do not think Frisian should be included under languages. Human Taxonomist (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I would also point out further that Frisian is only an official language in Friesland. There is nothing in this article showing that Frisians identify specifically as 'Dutch', or that 'Dutch' has ever referred to West Frisians in an ethnic or cultural sense. In that reasoning, you could include 50 languages there or more from what all ethnic minorities speak in the Netherlands. That isn't practical, and again takes away focus specifically on Dutch people and culture. The only reason Dutch Low Saxon is included is because the Dutch Low Saxons do not have their own article, and are nowhere near as distinctive as a group or identity as the Frisians, politically or culturally. Human Taxonomist (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
As per WP:BRD you should not have reverted that again until the discussion here arrives at a consensus. I will not revert your latest revert as that would be edit warring, but please would you read up on edit warring. We go by consensus here. Please be patient and await consensus. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
You have also twice edited my comments in this talk section. Please read WP:TPO. You should not edit another person's talk messages, and definitely not once the other person has objected. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I also need to bring your attention to the 3 revert rule. Please read: WP:3RR. This one is very important as it could lead to you being blocked from editing. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Now to the substance of your response. When you say were are focusing on a specific ethnic group, that is not correct. The lead of the page describes it thus: "the Dutch are a Germanic ethnic group and nation native to the Netherlands." So we are considering the ethnic group and the nation native to the Netherlands. That is the subject of the page. This includes those in Friesland unless there is some reason to say that these people are not Dutch. A bit of a can of worms, isn't it?
You mention Flanders, and (of course) the people of Flanders are the same ethnic and largely the same cultural group as the people of the Netherlands. But this page is not about them because it defines itself as referring to the people of the nation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It does not, therefore, exclude Friesland, a Dutch province of Dutch speaking Dutch nationals who, in addition to these, also have a Frisian ethnic identity and culture, including a desire to jump over ditches on long poles and to speak a related but distinct West Germanic language.
The question we seek consensus on (and some sources too) is whether those who identify as ethnically Frisian are therefore not to be considered Dutch people ((as you assert). If that is the consensus opinion, I am more than happy to bow to it - yet it is not an opinion I have heard expressed by Frisian friends who consider themselves both Dutch and Frisian. If the consensus is that one can indeed be Frisian and still a member of the Dutch people, then your deletions will need to be reinserted. As regards the 50 languages claim, it is easily dismissed: Frisian is an official minority language of the Netherlands. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh and as an interesting aside. When you say "the Scots have never been referred to as English," that is not correct. Scotland is a mix of several ethnic groups. You are probably aware that Scots is a sister language to modern English spoken by lowland Scots. This came about because the English kingdom of Northumbria extended deep into what is now modern Scotland, but by 1018 the Scottish kings had extended their territory south and divided Northumbria in half. The new Lowlands that now lay in Scotland were filled with English speaking Anglo-Saxons, who called their language Englisc (the c is pronounced "sh") and were called Sassenachs by the Gaelic speaking highlanders (Gaels coming from what we now call Ireland). As you also probably know, "Sassenach" means "Saxon" and is the Gaelic word for the English. So some Scots referred to other Scots as English (for the good reason that they were!) and as late as the 18th century and maybe beyond, lowland Scots spoke of the highlander's "Irish language". Yet an article about the Scottish People would now rightly focus on the people living now in the nation of Scotland. It could certainly mention all that history, and might mention the distinct ethnicity and culture of the highlands, their highland games, the Gaelic language, but the Scottish people would include them all. So, back to the Dutch People, if in this case you wish to assert that Frisians are not Dutch people, it is not enough to say they have language, a distinct ethnicity or anything else. What you must show, and the only thing that matters, is that neither they nor the rest of the Dutch people consider them to be part of the Dutch people. For this you need sources. You need to demonstrate in the literature that Frisians are not part of the Dutch People. If you cannot do that, Wikipedia is not the right place to be asserting your claim. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, for a brief period after the expansion of Scotland southwards, the Anglic population in the southeast of Scotland were called 'Englisc' or 'Inglis', but that has generally not been the case since at least the 16th century, as the people increasingly intermingled with Gaels and adopted much of Gaelic Scots culture. Northumbrian English in Lowland Scotland came to be identified as the Scots language, while the language previously called 'Scottish' for centuries (Scots Gaelic) came to be referred to as 'Gaelic', or pejoratively as 'Erse' (Irish). The Gaelic and Brythonic (Strathclyde) people of Scotland though never identified as 'English', and still do not today even after language shift to Scottish English.
In any case, none of this confirms that West Frisians have ever identified themselves as specifically 'Dutch', in terms of an ethnic or cultural sense. Frisians don't simply have a highly distinctive language, but also a unique culture, history and ancestry, with links to other Frisian groups. Identifying as a 'Netherlander' or part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is often not the same thing as 'Dutch'. This article IS primarily an article about the specific Dutch ethnic group - the native Low Franconian-speaking Germanic ethnic group originating in the Netherlands. Flemings certainly could be included here in this sense, which is why they do have a dedicated subsection, even if not being included overall. This is NOT an article about simply the 'people of the Netherlands'. For that information, there is the article Demographics of the Netherlands. "Nation" in this sense has an ambiguous usage here, and the term can be both synonymous with 'ethnicity' (see Ethnic nationalism), or it can be about an actual political entity like a state (polity). West Frisians already have their own article, as do Frisians in general, and so do Flemings. Where is the article for the Dutch as an ethnicity? THIS is supposed to be that article for the 'ethnic Dutch' or 'Low Franconian Dutch' specifically.
There are some Scots who also identify as 'British' in an ethnic sense, and a few Catalans who also identify as 'Spanish' in an ethnic sense. But no ethnic Scot today would identify as 'English', and no ethnic Catalan as 'Castilian'. I am not convinced this is any different in the case of the Frisians with 'Dutch', given that the term 'Dutch' has very specific connotations (sometimes negative) with Hollandic and Low Franconian language, culture and politics. For the sake of article stability though, and to act in good faith, I will leave West Frisian on the list. Human Taxonomist (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
If you want an idea about the primary scope of the article, refer to the header which has long been there:
This page is about the ethnic group known as the Dutch and their descendants worldwide. For information on the population of the Netherlands, see Demographics of the Netherlands. For the language, see Dutch language.
Human Taxonomist (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

:::: On Wikipedia we go with what the sources tell us. Please could you provide reference material that supports the argument that Frisians do not see themselves as Dutch. This is required to support your claim. If you do not have the sources, then this is not the place for the discussion. All of the above is unsourced (and in some cases definitely wrong. For instance, I can dig up a source (in John Prebble's book on Culloden) which contains material showing that 18th century Highlanders still referred to the People of Edinburgh as "English", but that is not important here (except to show the importance of sourcing claims). What is important is a source that shows that Frisians do not consider themselves to be part of the Dutch people. Good luck with that. I don't think it is so. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

:::::You, likewise, would need to provide a source that Frisians on the whole consider themselves as 'Dutch', in the sense here of being part of the Dutch ethnicity. Frisians clearly see themselves as a distinct people, hence why there is a Frisian nationalist movement, and have significant distinctions based on criteria of ancestry, genetics, culture, language and history (Frisians were not part of the same state entity as the Dutch until the 17th century). In any case, I've decided to compromise by keeping West Frisian on the list of languages, for the sake of article stability. Languages of the state (polity) though are not the same as the cultural or common languages of an ethnic group. This article - as evidenced clearly in the header - is about a specific Dutch ethnic group. If you want to know about the official or unofficial languages spoken in the territory of the Netherlands, then refer to that article or Demographics of the Netherlands. Human Taxonomist (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

:::::: There is nothing clear about being a distinct people. The Interfrisian council declaration talks all about the importance of language to Frisian identity. Nowhere does it say that Frisians do not feel Dutch. There is a Frisian National Party, as you say, and they have just 10% of the seats in the provincial government (and Dutch elections use proportional representation so this is indicative of overall support). It may be that Frisians now think of themselves as non Dutch but you are wasting your time arguing the point here. This is Wikipedia. To put this into the article you need a reliable source. If you have no source, it does not go in. Readers are not going to wade through all this discussion. Original research is banned. It is really very simple. You either source a claim or you leave it out. At the moment the only sourced claim is the 1970 study. Things can change a lot in 50 years, but if we don't have another study to cite, that is all we have left. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC) }}

Languages of the Dutch People

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Editor Human Taxonomist has challenged my edits to the language section here: [3]. My edits, which were substantial, aimed to describe the official and larger unofficial languages of the Dutch People. My edits were fully sourced and brought the list in line with the list at Languages of the Netherlands which is consistent (although I used a couple of different sources). The removal of my edits is unexplained and no talk article was started, but I would suppose that it could be controversial to include the official languages of the Dutch Caribbean in the list. Nevertheless I included an efn note against BES Islands to explain that the Dutch Caribbean is administered as a Dutch municipality and the people of the islands are considered Dutch. So, is there consensus that such people should be excluded from a description of the Dutch people (as per Human Taxonomist wholesale reversion of the material) or should they be included in an article about the Dutch People? In which case my edit, or a version of it, is better. Are there any opinions from other editors on this please? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to compromise with you by returning more to an original stable version. This article is primarily about the Dutch ethnic group. It is the languages, especially native languages of that ethnicity that are included in the infobox. Simply labaeling languages, whether unofficial or official, which are spoken in a political entity of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is not the same thing, or relevant. Human Taxonomist (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The question is only what are the languages of the Dutch People. For that we must understand what we meanby the Dutch people. "ethnic group" is not adding any clarity. Consider: (1) The Dutch are the ethnic group native to the Netherlands (paragraph 1 of article) (2) The Dutch Caribbean is a municipality of the Netherlands, and its people are Dutch. Should an article about the Dutch People list all the official languages of the Dutch people in every part of the Netherlands? If not, why not?
Certainly we can argue that the Dutch Caribbean is a long way from the 12 provinces, but there was already an efn note in the material you deleted that explains why the Dutch Caribbean was being included. What is the rationale for excluding the Dutch people of the Dutch Caribbean from a treatment of the Dutch people? That is my question. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Ethnic group IS what the article is about. This is about the Dutch ethnicity, who share a common ancestry, genetics, physical features, heritage, culture, language, etc. It is not simply people living in the Netherlands, or in the Dutch Caribbean. It is about what Dutch people speak in the Netherlands and in the Dutch Caribbean (and in the diaspora), not other ethnic groups. Whether or not a language is official somewhere or not is irrelevant. We're talking a people, not a state. If there are ethnic Dutch people who natively speak Papiamento, then fine, but if they don't (but creoles or Portuguese people there do), then do not include it. Human Taxonomist (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Are we sure we want to list all languages plainly as if they are universally spoken by all Dutch people? Only Dutch is universally spoken by the entire group - Frisian, Low Saxon and Limburgish aren't (including Papiamento and English if they are to be included per the definition of the ethnic group). The infobox should say something along the lines of "Primarily Dutch and other regional languages: [languages]". As is, this gives an impression that all languages are universally spoken which clearly isn't the case per the article. ProKro (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good point - although even Dutch isn't spoken by all Dutch people once you include the Dutch Caribbean. However, I think your suggestion is good. "Primarily Dutch and other regional languages ..." makes clear that the regional languages are just that. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no need for listing "official" or "unofficial". We are talking about ethnic Dutch, not a state, not citizens or nationals. Furthermore, Dutch isn't spoken by all ethnic Dutch, especially in the diaspora. We are not talking about non-Dutch people in the Netherlands or Dutch Caribbean. Dutch Low Saxon is included because those people (who have their own ethnic identity) do not have their own article. What is important is to list the natively spoken and cultural languages that define the ethnic groups - this is why Dutch, Dutch Low Saxon and Limburgish take primacy, and then West Frisian for the Frisians (some who do not identify ethnically as 'Dutch'). Human Taxonomist (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Overseas Populations

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

The 7,000,000 figure for Dutch population in South Africa looks dubious to me, partly because it is such a round figure. Still, a lot of the population there have Dutch heritage, so it is not completely implausible if we are taking a loose view of what an overseas population is. I followed up the quoted source and found that the source does not even come close to supporting the claim. The source has:

"Volgens de Nederlandse ambassade wonen er op dit moment in Zuid-Afrika naar schatting 40 à 45.000 mensen met de Nederlandse nationaliteit." This translates as "According to the Dutch embassy, an estimated 40 to 45,000 people with Dutch nationality currently live in South Africa."

I have not simply corrected the figure though, because I don't think we are just counting people with Dutch nationality. The figures for America are clearly based on those claiming Dutch ancestry, and not just those of Dutch nationality (which would be much lower). What we would need is a source that says how many people in South Africa claim primary Dutch heritage (or else all the figures need changing based on nationality and then they will all be much lower). -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

ETA: I clicked on the sources for some other countries in the list and was directed here:[4]. This gives a much lower figure for South Africa of 15,000 and has Canada with the second highest population after the Netherlands with 296,000. These figures appear to be based on those able to speak Dutch. Maybe still not what we are after, but it is clear the figures in this table are not consistent at all with each other. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

ETA: Canada and France have figures that are also nothing like what is in the quoted source. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"I don't think we are just counting people with Dutch nationality." We are not really counting Dutch nationality at all, but Dutch ethnicity (ancestry, genetics, physical appearance, culture, heritage, language, religion, etc). This article is about the ethnic group, not citizens or demographics of Holland (read the header at the top of the article). There are sources for Dutch ancestry at Afrikaners article we can look into. Human Taxonomist (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
There are more accurate figures for Dutch ancestry or ethnic origin from the Canadian census. The latest are from the 2016 Census. It should be retrievable from Ethnic groups of Canada. Human Taxonomist (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I just added the census citation for the Canadian figures. The figures for South Africa are also from the census there. It is not OR or SYNTHESIS. The infobox already states Dutch Afrikaners and Coloureds have Dutch descent (and language). I merely added the sources and numbers from the census for Afrikaners and Coloureds. This article includes, and mentions, these groups as part of the Dutch diaspora (overseas population). They have full or partial Dutch ancestry, have Dutch cultural heritage and speak Dutch (Afrikaans Dutch). Human Taxonomist (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I started to write something to thank you for working on these figures. It will be an iterative process to reach figures we can be confident of, but you already improved them. I also started to write whether Afrikaners is really the most reliable figure for Dutch ancestry - but it is probably a very good proxy for it. However, then the figure jumped up by 5 million, and Mutt Lunker (talk · contribs) is correct, this is an example of WP:SYNTHESIS, which you will be aware we have discussed before. We cannot simply provide three refs and impose a conclusion on the numbers that is not found in the source itself. We have to source the claims from someone who has already studied the issue and arrived at a number. I have reverted the Synthesis as per WP:BRD. Your bold edit has been challenged and reverted and so now we need to arrive at a consensus in talk. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Should there be a range there then of say '3 million - 8 million' (with respective citations), or a separate figure for the admixed Coloureds people? They are of multi-ethnic heritage, but based on the information I've read about them, most have significant Dutch ancestry. The Afrikaners just have more Dutch heritage, usually fully, or with some other northern European Protestant (German, English or French Huguenot) admixture. Human Taxonomist (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we should try harder to find a single source that estimates the number who have primary Dutch ancestry or self identify as being of Dutch ancestry. There is WP:NOHURRY. Let's find someone who has estimated the numbers (preferably in a consistent manner with the other numbers we give). -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
HT is CU blocked so I've removed unreplied to posts. The rest can be struck through. Doug Weller talk 20:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is a vexed question in these infoboxes. Who goes in and who stays out of related ethnic groups. We have Germanic Peoples in there now and in brackets, Frisians, Afrikaners and Flemings. I have reverted addition of English, and at the same time the addition of Germans. Germans are not that controversial, but already covered by Germanic peoples. English are a bit more controversial although you can see where the editor is coming from. Do we have any thoughts as to how we define related ethnic groups, and thus know what should be in and should be out? Personally I would as soon see that whole category just disappear :) -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: I would argue that the related ethnic groups section should be left as it is since it shows that the Dutch are merely more closely related to stated groups rather than other subgroups within the broader Germanic family (the English, Germans, North Germanic peoples, etc). Flemings, Afrikaners and Frisians are sometimes even included under the "Dutch" umbrella term. ProKro (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep, that is fine with me too then. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Source for Brazil is not realiable

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The source used to claim that Brazil has 1 million Dutch is not reliable. It comes from some kind of blog of Brazilian immigrants living in the Netherlands ("Brasileiros na Holanda"). The woman who wrote the text claims to be a Brazilian psycologist immigrant living in the Netherlands. That source is not reliable at all. The other source does not even mention Dutch people in Brazil. Xuxo (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Inter-Frisian Council

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The addition of the Inter-Frisian council is sufficiently WP:DUE for this article, thanks. I have made some edits as follows:

  1. I have deleted the German press release reference. This ref appears to be copied from the Interfrisian Council page, but the press release itself merely announces Helmut Collmann as the new (at that time, 2015) president of the Interfrisian council. It does not support any statement here (except to prove that the council exists, which is not controversial).
  2. The Interfrisian council has three branches. You cited the German branch. I have replaced that ref with a ref to the Dutch West Frisian arm.
  3. I have quoted from the declaration in that source which makes clear that Frisians see their language as definitional for the group, and that the council is there to promote and develop the language.
  4. I have moved the paragraph upwards to unite it with what we already had about the importance of the Frisian language to Frisians. -- Sirfurboy (talk)
  • I have edited the wording to match more closely what it says in that citation from the council (I included the statement that they identify as one common group). You deliberately ignored the large sections describing how Frisians identify with each other across current political borders. The council also seeks to strengthen bonds between East, North, West and Saterland Frisians, in terms of language, culture, politics and other common interests. Human Taxonomist (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The purpose of a citation is to support a claim. The quotation I had specifically supported the first claim. The quotation you added supported the third. I separated out the citations so that your quotation is by the third claim. It is messy to unite them in one citation as it is confusing, the text was actually out of order, and it was jumping Frisian - English - Frisian English, so this is better. I also adjusted the translation. My Frisian is not perfect, but Google Translate had got itself in a knot on that sentence and missed a few words, so I have fixed it.
The part about disambiguation of the stats really doesn't fit in the middle of that paragraph so I moved it to the end. Where you moved it to had made it look as if the previous ref applied to that too. More importantly though, the flow of the sentences looks better this way.
The text specifically talks about language and culture, not so much about politics. The Interfrisian Council is not a political pressure group. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I removed text referencing the Inter-Frisian council as the wording suggested it to be a kind of political organisation representing Frisian speakers in the Netherlands, which it is not. It's a cultural organisation, which has no private membership; only provincial and municipal representatives; and it isn't a major everyday presence in Friesland. Vlaemink (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Common ancestry and culture ?

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion

@Vlaemink: You restored the claim "They [the Dutch] share a common ancestry and culture". This claim means that people may be excluded from being Dutch because of their ancestry (e.g. recent immigrants, their children and grandchildren, or maybe also Jews whose ancestors fled from Spain or Portugal in the early modern period) or because they don't share some (which ?) elements of Dutch culture (e.g. because they are Muslims). That's a strong claim, so it needs to be well sourced somewhere in the article. I didn't find the source, so please can you help me ? Rsk6400 (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I indeed restored the sentence in the introduction on the Dutch sharing a common ancestry and culture, which you had previously removed. Judging from your edit and comments above, I think it is important to differentiate between Dutch as an ethnicity (the subject of this article) and Dutch as a nationality, which is discussed here. I have since changed ancestry into history, which is of far greater importance than post-immediate ancestry. Dutch culture and history is discussed at length in this article, hence no references were added to this particular sentence in the introduction, which is also in line with the Wikipedia style-guide. Vlaemink (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Verifiability is a core content policy. From WP:V: Sources must support the material clearly and directly. You conclude from the fact the article has sections on history and culture that there is a common history and culture shared by the (normal understanding: all) Dutch. I ask you again: Where is the source supporting this ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Let's keep this a discussion, not a debate: I did not conclude that there such a thing as a common Dutch history and culture because this article has sections on history and culture,.
Rather, I mentioned that per WP:STYLE the introductions of articles of this size shouldn't contain references and implied that the history and culture sections of this article were well-sourced, which they certainly are.
I'm all for critical thought, but I'm I afraid don't understand your point. Any ethnic group, by definition, consists of a group of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Whether real or imagined, those can include common traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation or religion, among others. This article describes various of these aspects applicable to the Dutch at length, in detail, within their historical and contemporary context and with proper reference material; especially in regards to history and culture.
With all due respect, but it seems to me your main issue with this article is political: you seem to personally take issue with the statement that being ethnically Dutch involves having a shared history and culture because this, in your view, would exclude recent immigrants, Sephardi Jews or Muslims. Now while I would personally dispute that statement as a whole, this isn't really that relevant. The bottom line, as I've mentioned before, is that you are conflating ethnic identity with nationality. The latter concept is clearly defined by law, the first is more obscure as it doesn't deal in absolutes and depends both on the perception of ones self and the perception of others. Vlaemink (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
As to my motivations, I already answered on your German user's talk page. Of course, we don't need references in the lead section, since the lead is expected to be a summary of the article's body (see MOS:LEAD). But the phrase we are talking about doesn't summarize the history or culture sections. It contains new information, i.e. that among the many elements of identity which you correctly mentioned above history and culture are the decisive ones for Dutch people. And that information is simply not verifiable. My problem has nothing to do with the difference between ethnic identity and nationality, which I'm pretty aware of. My problem is simply a problem of verifiability, that's why I reverted you again in part according to WP:NOCONSENSUS: If material lacks a reliable source supporting it, it is excluded. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, I'm happy to accommodate your uneasiness with the English language (your command of which seems to be perfectly fine to me) by answering you on both the German-language Wikipedia and here, but this discussion should be open, comprehensible and followable to all editors of the English-language Wikipedia. Therefore I would like to ask you to take part in full here and list your concerns precisely and concisely. Simply put: this article has well referenced sections on both the development of Dutch identity, culture and history using reputable sources; what issue do you take with these? Vlaemink (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dutch_people/Archive_12&oldid=1182737251"