Talk:Netherlands/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

netherlands rankings

Not a Wikipedia expert, so forgive me if my formatting is incorrect. I believe a ranking worth adding to this article would be the UNICEF Report Card 7, which ranks dimensions of child well-being. It was compiled in 2007 and ranks the Netherlands as first (1). http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf (Arufener (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC))

The Netherlands, surely?

I imagine this has been done many times before, but I really can't be bothered to trawl through the archives to see. Why on earth is this article at just Netherlands, when the name of the country has a "the" in it? This makes neither grammatical or logistical sense. U-Mos (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I’d say use your time and click on the archive links – it only takes a few minutes. Searching for your answer is easier and more efficient than waiting for somebody to argue with you about this subject again. This subject has been discussed more than once, as you noticed correctly.—Totie (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've had a brief look and quite frankly the answers I find are not sufficient. To quote the naming conventions: "When a proper name is almost always used with capitalized "The", especially if it is included by unofficial sources, we should include it." That's pretty @#!*% clear if you ask me, and "almost always used with capitalized "The"" is exactly how I'd describe The Netherlands. Beyond this, directly below this text The Hague, used and reffered to in exactly the same way as The Netherlands, is a specific example of when the definite article should be used. Someone has added Netherlands to the list of "other cases" where the definite article should not be used, but being an example (with no explanatory text) amongst such obvious cases such as a dog and the United States is clearly wrong, and I vote to remove it from this list no matter what the result of this discussion is. The arguments for "The Netherlands" at archive 2 of this talk page are solid, and based on numerous reputable sources, wheras the arguments against mainly fall under WP:OSE, linking to the "rule of thumb" in the naming conventions article rather than the blatantantly more applicable section I linked to above, and the rather mad view that this is directly comparable to United States and United Kingdom etc. Seems like a no-brainer to me. U-Mos (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The difference between the Netherlands and The Hague is, that The in The Hague is a part of the name. There is no such thing as Hague, it is meaningless. This is not the case however with the Netherlands. You can use it with the or without it. You also don't capitalize the in plain text. Wikipedia's guidelines seek to remove The from article names when it is not absolutely necessary, like in this case. You can find sources for that on official governmental websites, as they never use The Netherlands capitalized.—Totie (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Common usage, though, is The Netherlands with a capital The. I'd go so far to say I have never come across it mentioned as just "Netherlands" until seeing this page. U-Mos (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"Common usage"? Where? I hardly see The Netherlands with capital T. You'll need to come up with sources here.—Totie (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:Netherlands/Archive2 (Netherlands v. the Netherlands)#Keep. As I said above, I don't consider the arguments against these sources as particularly strong. U-Mos (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The capital letter is hardly conclusive. The actual question is whethter "Netherlands" is ever used without "the/The". I know of only one such case where this might be the case i.e. in the Royal Netherlands Army branches (although this uage is very uncommon, this is how the Dutch army branches label themselves).

The situation is not at all identical to UK or USA because (1) The Netherlands is not the local language in case (2) In the Netherlands itself another version; the singular "Nederland" is used. If the (archaic) plural form De (republiek de 7 verenigde) Nederlanden is used this is always with the article "de" (which translates to "the"). Arnoutf (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope the following is not based on a misunderstanding from my side, but the example of the Royal Netherlands Army is not valid because the word Netherlands has a different function in this construct. It is not a proper noun here. So obviously it cannot be the Royal The Netherlands Army, while in contrast a discussion analogous to the one treated here would be about (the/The/..) Royal Netherlands Army.

There are good examples where the Netherlands is used without the article. The CIA world factbook is one of them, while in contrast Britannica lists the country under The Netherlands. So my point of view is, unfortunately, that both forms (with and without the article) are common. This is an annoying matter of fact whenever you have to select the Netherlands from a drop down menu of websites etc. - you are never sure where it appears. And this experience, I had dozens of times. Tomeasy_{T C} 12:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

True, it is an adjective in the army name (which is Dutch for all other purpose, but that happens when you allow soldier to meddle in linguistics....)

The listing in CIA and Britannica can hardly be called "use". What I meant is a normal sentence without the article. I have no strong opinion here, but these cases are not as simple as they are sometimes positioned. Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Listings are not sentences, but why are they not use? I think these are good examples to show that both Netherlands and The Netherlands are in use - something that I experienced almost every week when I was in the Netherlands. Tomeasy_{T C} 17:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to the entry title of their articles on the Netherlands. But indeed, if they use Netherlands without the in listings that is of relevance.Arnoutf (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Both ways are common. That is at least my experience. Anyway, I think the initiator of this section should really back up their case if a change is to be made to the title of the article here. Tomeasy_{T C} 08:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What would you like me to add? I've said all I have to say. U-Mos (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that this is not enough to move the article. At least, I feel that both forms are in common use, and in this case MoS requests us to drop the article. If you present more arguments, I might change my mind. Tomeasy_{T C} 16:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Much as the Dutch version has changed throughout the years, the english version is changing. Indeed the official formal name is still considered to be "The Netherlands" by many, but as you can see by looking at some government websites (i.e. foreign affairs), this is not really the practice anymore. I don't think either is any more correct than the other at this point in time. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, there is no strong case that The Netherlands is uniquely used, and I follow Tomeasy that in this/that case WP:MoS should be followed and hence the article dropped. Arnoutf (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Netherlands is written with a small "t", just like the United States, or indeed almost any "the" in the world apart from the names of books, newspapers etc. Similarly, it is referred to in lists, graphs, addresses, nameplates etc. as "Netherlands" just as you would not address an envelope to "The United States". Dutch people very often break these two rules, but then (1) it is not their native language and (2) they naturally enough tend to be taught English by native Dutch people, so the errors perpetuate themselves. The dutch teend to be well educated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdls (talk • contribs) 14:34, 11 November 2009

As a Dutch national I frequently receive mail from native speakers in the US or the UK, my mail address always mentions "The Netherlands", so you are telling me something new. Arnoutf (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No wonder, because then the name is used as a separate small sentence on a new line. The former user Tdls is partially right: the normal spelling is the Netherlands. He also is partially wrong, as far as the obligatory article the is concerned. Ad43 (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, my comment was is not about the capitalisation of the letter "T"; but about the fact that I never receive mail without either "the" or "The" in front of Netherlands. Arnoutf (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the confusion arises from the fact that it's plural in English (Netherlands) yet singular in Dutch (Nederland). :) Personally I like "The Netherlands" better, but I'm fairly certain we're better off without the article. 195.241.69.171 (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OMG just say holland, it sounds even better:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.5.113 (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes Holland is easy, but it is wrong as it is not how the country is named; for the same reason we could rename United Kingdom article to England, and the US article to America. Sounds better, is wrong, so we don't. Arnoutf (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I know it is from the 17th century when The Netherlands was called: Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden, add that time the province of holland was the most important of the seven province and was also very important in the entire world (VOC-WIC).and to this day North and South Holland are still the most important provinces(amsterdam-rotterdam-the hague). and in many other countries they still say holland. sorry for my poor english :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.5.113 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, all current provinces are equally important nowadays! Don't forget the e.g. the natural gas fields of the provinces Friesland and Groningen, and e.g. the industrial areas of the provinces of Utrecht and North Brabant. North Holland and South Holland are just have the largest population size (and for North Holland only because it contains the city Amsterdam (Dutch capital), the rest is quite rural). South Holland contains The Hague (seat of Dutch government) and Rotterdam (largest sea port of Europe). However, all provinces have their own provincial government and the provinces of Holland have no influence into the other provinces of the Netherlands. And e.g. the 75 members of the Dutch Senate (in Dutch: Eerste Kamer) are elected by the members of the twelve States-Provincial (provincial councils). But you can say, by having more inhabitants they have a little bit more say into the outcome of national elections. Peter Maas\^talk 14:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The comparison England-UK holds for most these issues. Actually England conquered Wales, Scotland and Ireland (something Holland never managed for e.g. Guelders). To this day England (The city of London has more inhabitants then Scotland alone) is by far the most powerfull. In colloquial use many people (including most Dutch ;-) do indeed use England when referring to the UK.

That is still no reason to change the correct; official name to the name sometimes used. So I would not support any such change. Arnoutf (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the EU website uses "Netherlands", while the Dutch Embassy websites of the UK and North America use "The Netherlands". So I won't known how it should be called in English. To me it is Kingdom of the Netherlands (In Dutch: Koninkrijk der Nederlanden) (which includes Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles) and for the European part of the kingdom just "Netherlands" (In Dutch: Nederland). As a Dutch person not living in the Holland area of the Netherlands, I can say Holland is wrong and is just the name for the region consisting of two of the twelve provinces of the Netherlands. In English texts at the Dutch Embassy websites and the EU website they use "the Netherlands" and not "The Netherlands" in the middle or at the end of sentences. Only in the beginning of a sentence they use "The Netherlands". But indeed, "The Netherlands" as well "Netherlands" are both used in the Netherlands and elsewhere. But I'm Dutch and not a native English speaker. What does English dictionaries / Grammar text books say? Peter Maas\^talk 13:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, for my part it's just "Netherland" and not The Netherlands, the Netherlands or Netherlands. The name in the own, Dutch language is "Nederland", and the English translation althus is just Netherland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.65.136 (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. France does not translate to Franks (or similar) but to Frankrijk in Dutch. Similarly Nederland does not translate to Netherland but to (The) Netherlands in English. Arnoutf (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be Netherland. Historically, "The Netherlands" is "Netherland" + "Flanders", or roughly the whole Netherlandish ('Dutch' is another bad english word, english translaters did a lot of errors in translating names of countries, languages and peoples)speaking area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.188.189 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not the case. Historically it was the "Republic of the Seven United Netherlands" (i.e. without the 10 Netherlands that were part of the 17 provinces but not members of the Republic). As 7 is clearly plural, so is the Netherlands. Secondly, Dutch is not a "translation" made by translaters but a colloquially evolved phrase. Actually, the Dutch are pretty lousy translaters too ;-) (e.g. how does France result in Frankrijk). Arnoutf (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was a joke, but it's 2:30 in the morning and I can't sleep, so I'll answer it anyway. France comes from Francia, which was the Kingdom/Realm of the Franks. "Frankrijk" is just a more literal translation (Frank + rijk, as I'm sure you can see). This is similar to other Germanic languages, e.g. Swedish: Frankrike, German: Frankreich. Hayden120 (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I know, but the etymology went different paths in France and the Germanic countries, leading to a "not perfect translation" of the modern word "France". In that way it is not so different from what happended to our language, which once was called Dietsch in what is now the Netherlands. The English picked that up, while we now call it after the region "Nederlands". Diverging etymology is no "bad translation" (this was all in comment to the anon editor above ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Dutch (or should I say 'Netherlandish'? :) ) is one of the few languages where the name of the country is in the singular. In English: the Netherlands. In German: die Niederlande. In French: les Pays-Bas. In Italian: i Paesi Bassi. And so on... SeverityOne (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Outlying territories?

Maybe I'll do it myself after final exams, but, until then... Shouldn't this article have something about the Netherlands' outlying territories in the Caribbean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.180.3 (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is covered in the article Kingdom of the Netherlands. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

However, due to changes in the structure of the Kingdom of the Netherlands the Caribbean islands of Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba are now officially part of the Netherlands itself, which does mean that their history should be mentioned on the page, but most importantly: that they should be added to the map in the top-left corner. 217.123.205.16 (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Which map do you mean? Tomeasy_{T C} 15:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Motto

Why is the French translation of the motto on the page? It makes sense to include the original Dutch version, but this is the English Wikipedia, so shouldn't English be the only translation listed on the page? --70.245.189.11 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The official version in use is the French version as seen in the coat of arms File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Netherlands.svg. The motto was taken from the house of Orange-Nassau. Jarkeld (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It is similar to the use of Latin mottos, which seems quite usual US and UK Arnoutf (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the motto being in French is quite simple, really: the House of Orange, the ruling dynasty of the Netherlands, originally ruled over a principality in the south of France. Only after the death of king Willem III in 1890 was the official language of the Dutch court changed from French to Dutch. 82.176.209.52 (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

BES Islands

Now that these Caribbean islands are part of the Netherlands, much needs revising. It can no longer be said simply that Netherlands is a country is northwestern Europe, its territorial waters border those of Venezuela and I don't know what other countries, the Euro is only the currency in part of the country, and official languages now presumably include Papiamento and English. Kevin McE (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Geography and climate sections would also need to be edited: as of today, Netherlands ≠ European Netherlands

Many of us are working on changing the status on several wikipedia articles. Feel free to contribute, wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit! L.tak (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Has the area of the three public bodies been added to the area of the Netherlands on the top right?Inkan1969 (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it has! [1] Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tall people

The dutch are tall; and the dutch "central bureau of statistics (CBS)" shows it here (1.81m for man=5ft11) for 2009; (based on what people said themselves). This is the stable value used in this encyclopedia. Other reports exist; and thus also 6ft1in (1.85m) for man is reported here: www.suite101.com/content/why-are-the-dutch-so-tall-a55753. Based on the latter link, 6ft2in (1.88m) was suggested in this article with this edit. Per WP:RS, I think that the CBS version is the most reliable source and suggest discussion of other sources here first before inclusion... L.tak (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Change Average height!

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Someone please change the average height, it's not 5 ft 11 in for males and 5 ft 6 in for females, you can even do your own research it's definitely NOT what it is right now. I have a reliable source that say the average height is 6 ft 2 in for males and 5 ft 8 females or 6 ft 1 in for males and 5 ft 7 in for females. Here is the source: www.suite101.com please look at it and change the height, because if you been there then you would know it's not 5 ft 11 in and 5 ft 6 in.

well, you're source says 6ft1 (not 6ft2) as a start here: www.suite101.com/content/why-are-the-dutch-so-tall-a55753. However, how can this be a more reliable than the central bureau for statistics? Another thing with your link: it is blacklisted by wikipedia (as I found out trying to add it here). So I think the source you have now is by far less reliable. (and as for my personal experience: I live in NL and unless I am among groups who are <30 years old, I feel 1.80 is pretty average) L.tak (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the CBS figures list the average of the population 18-65, while many of the other sources with taller averages list young people (18-25 or 18-20). If you, your friends and colleagues are in the age range 18-25 the 18-65 average may seem short to you but in that do not forget that your grandparents and their generation are also part of the Dutch. Arnoutf (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Common name

I have changed the common_name parameter in the infobox on this article from "the Netherlands" to just "Netherlands" because this was preventing the link to ISO 3166-2:NL, which was instead placed on Kingdom of the Netherlands. This is because the ISO 3166-2 entry is solely about the constituent country rather than the Kingdom as a whole.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

old version

Yesterday and today an old version of this wiki was placed back (which I reverted twice). That version is clearly old as it does not have the info on population on the BES islands and updated info on inhabitants of the provinces, as well as updated info on offical languages after 1-10-2010 in the notes below the infobox. If something might have been incorrectly removed int the past months (I have no idea, could be), anyone is welcome to place that back, but just turning back to a version of more than one month ago is not a good procedure! L.tak (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

References

I'm not one to edit wiki pages, but just wanted to point out that the references in the box section of the article seem to have gotten mixed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.240.225 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Noticed the same, tried editing, but couldn't get it to work. The reference on HDI messes up the numbering, as it takes up Ref5, making "Ref5" Ref6, and so forth. Also, Ref7 and Ref8, or actually shown as 8 and 9, don't even show up at all at the bottom of the box. 84.107.97.165 (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Dutch currency after 01-01-2011

It is says that The Netherlands will adopt the American Dollar after 01-01-2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands#ref_6

This is off course rediculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.96.68.128 (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

yea, the numbering of the notes is fully messed up. The Netherlands Antillean guilder will be replaced by the dollar... L.tak (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's partly fixed now, except that footnote 8 is not showing. There are two ways to fix that:

Add an {{editprotected}} request at {{Infobox country}} to have it support more than 7 footnotes
Move these footnotes out of the infobox into a new section of the article, just above the reference section. This version of my Sandbox demonstrates the idea, but the formatting of the new section could be better. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Change the infobox - this will solve the problem project wide should it arise elsewhere. Outback the koala (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I requested so at template talk:infobox country, let's see how that goes... L.tak (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

solved! tnx all for comments and input L.tak (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

rewrite

Hey everyone. I am reading the article and while it gives great information, I think it could be streamlined. For example:

"In December 1585, 7,600 soldiers were sent to the Netherlands from England under the command of Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester.[16] However, the English army was wasted away in fruitless military campaigns in the Netherlands and had no real effect of helping the Dutch rebellion.[16]

"Robert Dudley returned to the Netherlands in November 1586 with another army.[17] However, the result was no better than it had been in 1585. Philip II, the son of Charles V, was not prepared to let them go easily, and war continued until 1648, when Spain under King Philip IV finally recognised the independence of the seven northwestern provinces in the Peace of Münster."

Firstly, it looks cluttered, the twice repeated "however" looks sloppy, and it seems that these two events may be consolidated as they are taking up more space then they might warrant (especially if they were unsuccesful as the article claims). An example sentence could be: Elizabeth twice send troops to support the Dutch revolution, etc.

Another change I think could be made when explaining which provinces made up the united provinces. Do we really need this level of detail on the status of Drenthe in the main article?

"After independence, the provinces of Holland, Zeeland, Groningen, Friesland, Utrecht, Overijssel, and Gelre formed a confederation known as the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. All these provinces were autonomous and had their own government, the "States of the Province". The States-General, the confederal government, were seated in The Hague and consisted of representatives from each of the seven provinces. The sparsely populated region of Drenthe, mainly consisting of poor peatland, was part of the republic too, although Drenthe was not considered one of the provinces."

Drenthe had its own states, but the landdrost of Drenthe was appointed by the States-General. The Republic occupied a number of so-called Generality Lands (Generaliteitslanden in Dutch). These territories were governed directly by the States-General, so they did not have a government of their own and they did not have representatives in the States-General. Most of these territories were occupied during the Eighty Years' War. They were mainly Roman Catholic and were used as a buffer zone between the Republic and the Southern Netherlands."

thanks for looking into this! 38.124.250.218 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

which coat of arms?

I started discussion here. Let's not change without consensus... L.tak (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is Dutch Low Saxon still in the lead?

I deleted it sometime ago, after someone else added it in some months before. But it was added in again quite fast I guess. Is there a specific reason for that? I can understand the Frisian name for the Netherlands being in the lead, for it is a recognized official language in Friesland, but Low Saxon does not have such status, so I don't understand why Low Saxon should be there, while Limburgian and Papiamento (the latter is official on Bonaire) are left out. Can anyone please explain? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have deleted Low Saxon and Limburgian from the lead and added Yiddish and the Romani language under the section languages. Only Dutch, English, Frisian and Papiamento have real official recognition. Yiddish and Romani were recognized as non-territorial languages in 1996 and Limburgian and Low Saxon were partially recognized as a regional language. Regards --Blautosk (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hollanda

Hi, I see that the hatnote I added several days ago has been removed. Hollanda redirects to this article, though there's a bird called Hollanda. The note accompanying the reversion indicated "Hollanda" is a misspelling of a Dutch province.

Going on that, I'm going to redirect Hollanda to the bird by that name. If there's a problem with that, speak up. Thanks! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, it's already been done

Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I removed both the hatnote and fixed the redirect; to solve both problems in one go ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Noun vs. adjective

"The word Dutch is used to refer to the people, the language, and anything pertaining to the Netherlands. This lexical difference between the noun and the adjective is an attribute of the English language that does not exist in the Dutch language."

The second sentence here is either nonsensical or wrong or is saying something completely unclear. Dutch certainly has a distinction between nouns and adjectives, and English certainly has cases where nouns and adjectives have identical forms. I don't want to barge in and remove this because I haven't edited this article, but unless there's a clear statement of whatever this is trying to say, I think it should go. · rodii · 17:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Joepnl (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I was also surprised by the text and think it means this. In Dutch, the noun is "Nederland", and the adjective is Nederlands/Nederlandse and thus the adjective is clearly derived from the noun; which is not the case in English where a completely different word is used for the adjective... Now the next question is whether the text above indicates that distinction; I have no idea... L.tak (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Good job of parsing that! So maybe the question is: is that really worth saying? It seems more like a bit of linguistic trivia than anything that illuminates the subject of the article. · rodii · 00:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Mayb this can stay here, but more in a list or something like that. In the list we should show the Dutch word and the English word so people can compare them. Like this:

English	Dutch
Netherlands	Nederland
Dutch	Nederlandse
Dutch	Nederlands

Now, I don't have a clue how to get an extra row in front of the English words, to tell what is refered to with Dutch (first is the nationality and second is the language) so if anybody else can do so...be my guest. This is just an idea how to solve this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqfn13 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The information seems interesting, probably just a reword is needed. "Separate words for the noun and adjective are not present in dutch." Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are going about this the wrong way: the statement (or its apparent intention) is one about the English language. It is the English language that does not distinguish (in form) between the noun and the adjective even though it recognises the syntactical (and therefore semantical) difference between the two. The Dutch language distinguishes both.

So should this be in the article at all considering that [1] this is about a quirk in the English language and [2] it is perfectly obvious that any word (form) with multiple semantics in one language is likely to have different forms for the various semantics in most other languages? AlexFekken (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Alex. I removed it. If someone disagrees, feel free to revert and continue the discussion here. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Netherlands

Currently, the infobox displays this map. Isn't this the wrong article to show this map? These territory are constituents of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as is the Netherlands, but they are not part of the latter. Tomeasy_{T C} 17:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly the BES islands have become part of the Netherlands (i.e. overseas territories of the constituent country) while Aruba and Curacao have become countries in the Kingdom. Arnoutf (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you are right. I forgot about the changes last year, and was already wondering why not all the islands are shown.

So, now we have the Kingdom, which is made up of three countries in the Caribbean plus the Netherlands, and the Netherlands has some islands in the Caribbean, too. Well, it did not get simpler, but I'll try to remember ;-) Tomeasy_{T C} 19:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Foreign policy and other national info move to Kingdom of Neth. article?

Shouldn't all foreign policy, currency, constituional monarchy, and national history etc. be moved to the Kingdom article? Mistakefinder (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not that simple. Aruba for example has a partially own foreing policy (is e.g. not part of the EU), its own currency, and its own history, just like the european Netherlands. Some moving of materials to the kingdom article may be ok, but wholepiece moving everything does no justice to the complex situation. Arnoutf (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Arnoutf that full moving generally is not justified. Things are complicated because the careful way in which the officials of the Netherlands also in certain cercumnstances are officials of the Kingdom; but also the fact that Aruba et al often are treated as dependent territories in the statistics of international organizations (e.g. the international labour organization); which means rankings and evaluations are not coverign the caribbean or the caribbean countries unless explicitly stated so... I have made therefore some (partial; but admittably quite substantial) reverts... L.tak (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Papiamento?

What is the reason for the Papiamento name of The Netherlands being mentioned in the first line of the article? This article is about the European Netherlands, where, if I'm not mistaken, Papiamento is not an official language. TRBlom (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, this article is about the country of the Netherlands, which both includes the European territory and the BES islands in the Caribbean where Papiamento is an official language. Styath (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Currency

Wouldn't the US dollar also be an official currency since they use it on the BES islands which is a part of the Netherlands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.76.172 (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as it is stated for just the BES island, yes. Dqfn13 (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Motto

The motto of the country (Je Maintiendrai) is French for "I will maintain". This motto was used by the Stadhouders even before the country was formed as a souverain country. So the motto is not about the country, but about either the family or the head of the family. I'm not certain about the specifics, I am sure it's not about the country tough. This can be read at nl:Je maintiendrai. Dqfn13 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the motto of the House of Orange as part of the Coat of arms of the Netherlands. Jarkeld (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

There have been some recent changes +reverts on etnicity. I would like to discuss here what would be best. At present, we use this CIA factbook entry as source. Do we have other sources that are relevant? And do those sources state anything specific on the presence/absence of Frisians and Caribbean Dutch/Antillean as ethnic groups? I am open to any other source, but would like to have consistency with a source on the page, and that why I have -until we have a new consensus- reverted to the version which is conformation witht he source... L.tak (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Frisians are not a seperate ethnic group within the Netherlands. People from the Antilles are, but since three islands have joined the country the Nehterlands that's mearly a historical thing. The Dutch CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek) only counts people from other countries as other ethnic groups. The Dutch wikipage about the inhabitants doesn't count Frisians either. So it is my question: why would the English wikipedia consider Frisians (not talking about those from Germany or Denmark) as a seperate ethnic group while they are not considerd as a seperate ethnic group within their own country?
Antilleans are a seperate group because they have a different cultural history, different cultural habbits and a completely different language. Frisian and Dutch are somewhat alike. Dqfn13 (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just had a check at the factbook... only Frisian as a language is mentioned, not as an ethnic group. Dqfn13 (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Frisians are seen as an ethnic group and are internationally recognized as such. They have their own language, culture cuisine, history and so on. There are also major differences between the Dutch and Frisian language, as it has been argued that the (much older) Frisian language is closer to English then it is to Dutch. Polozooza (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is a source with Frisian, it's pointless to even start discussing its inclusion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, plenty of sources to be found. The Frisians as an ethnic group have been known since Roman times some two thousend years ago (Frisii), and all this time they have spoken the same ancient language. Related to Dutch? Probably. But much, much older and with a richer history to it. Frisian history is long, interesting and well-sourced. Frisian noblemen (not: Dutch nobleman from Frisia) took place in the Crusades in Medieval times. Polozooza (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is one of "lumpers and splitters". In a place where some people see only 5 ethnicities, another one might see 50. If we add Frisian, we need at the very least a source stating that Frisian (and maybe Brabantian? or Achterhook) are separate ethnicities and what their percentages are in the Netherlands. And it should be discussed if such a source is better than the sources that don't (CBS, CIA). Just stating that sources exist doesn't help. I agree with Chipmunkdavis, that this discussion can only start when someone gives the link to a source! L.tak (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Frisian language is the only other language besides Dutch that has the status of an official, proper, language (not a dialect or merely a regional language). There are even Frisian nationalists who where elected into the provincial government. The same way the Scottish people are an ethnic group within Great Brittain, who speak English as either a first or a second language, you have many Frisian people (mainly the older generations) who speak Frisian (mostly West-Frisian) as a first language. In court, Frisian people have the right to have a language interpretor to translate for them when they are questioned, the same way a Turkish or a Maroccan born Dutch citizen would have. These are some sources to start with. They're in Dutch, and the first ones that popped up when I searched google. There is plenty of more where that came from, trust me. Polozooza (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What's needed is a source that lists ethnic groups in the Netherlands that includes Frisian and whatever other ethnicities there are. As L.tak said, lumpers and splitters. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you two, because as a Dutch native I've never heard of Frisians being seen as a seperate ethnic group. And why would Wikipedia treat Frisians different from Utrechters (people from Utrecht) or Achterhoekers (Achterhook, as it was spelled earlier at this page), those regions are about as old as Fryslân (Friesland, province) is.
Historrical Friesland used to range up untill Rotterdam, so that's correct, it is older then the Netherlands is. But, there's allways a but, Frisians have mingled with the current Dutch so that supposed ethnic group is not possible to determine. I know a young woman from Friesland, she speaks Frisian but she isn't ethnic Frisian... she's ethnic Indian. I've also never heard of a Frisian cuisine and Frisian culture, except for Fierljeppen but that's mearly the name, as it's historically also practiced in Groningen, Drenthe and parts of Germany. Dqfn13 (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You may be a Dutch native, but I doubt you live in Friesland or are of Frisian ancestry. Your argument that "Utrechters" or "Achterhoekers" are actually ethnic groups is a ridiculous one; Frisians is an excisting article on many wikipedia's, and the ethnic group is well known throughout history. There are many historical figures with Frisian roots, as early as Radbod, King of the Frisians (8th century) or Mata Hari, (born Zelle, in Leeuwarden) or Doutzen Kroes, today, who has campaigned for Frisian culture and language in recent years. Frisians can be recognized by their distinctive names, names that often end with a "stra", "ga", "ma" or something similar. In medieval times, Frisians fought for centuries to maintain their lost independence, the last Frisian freedom fighter dying as late as 1523.

Indeed the Frisians have mingled with the Dutch, but that does not mean the ethnic group is no dead, no of course not! Jewish people, for example, have mixed with other races and cultures but they still have their distinctive names, language, culture and customs. Frisians can still be recognized by their last names such as Joustra, Schieringa, or traditional first names such Tjalling, Albe, Auke, Ate. You, as a non-Frisian living in Alkmaar can easily argue that a Frisian culture or language does not excist, but fact of the matter is: Frisian language is taught at school in Friesland. And West-Frisian is hardly a dialect, it's a proper language recognized officially as such by the European Union. It even has individual dialects; Frisian spoken in Leeuwarden greatly differs from that spoken in Dokkum, to name one example.

There are plenty of sources to be found, once again. Don't tell me Frisian culture or language does not excist, or that the Frisian ethnic group does not excist. That's just a silly lie. How about this lill' piece of historical evidence of their excistence? It's ridiculous of you to call to question the excistence of a known and documented ethnic group. And that's a whole different discussion. ;) Polozooza (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Noone is denying Frisian its special place in history. And indeed the frisian language (the only language with an official status in the European Netherlands) is an important cultural feature. However, still, some institutes of fame (CBS, CIA) choose to group the Dutch as a single ethnicity (no doubt while recognizing several subgroups might exist). Just as your arguments are valid enough, so are theirs. For our discussion it's important to evaluate the source. Currently we use CIA (backed up by CBS for group number) and I would be interested in seeing your sources about the ethnic groups in NL. Only then we can discuss which source is most suitable for the infobox in the page (but remember: whatever the outcmome: we are not denying Frisian its place in history)! L.tak (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

@Polozooza, I will never, ever deny any of those claims... except for seeing the Frisians as a separate ethnic group within the country. Why would you call a group of people a separate ethnic group when they themselves don't see themselves as a separate group, are not treated as such and are not seen as such within the entire nation? Maybe that ethnic group mingled soo much, that they stopped excisting as a ethnic group, they mingled in too much with other cultures. If they would still excist, why have I never heard of them in Germany and Denmark?
And don't say I claimed Frisian language or culture do not exist entirly... I even told you I can understand both spoken and written Frisian, I'm just not able to answer in Frisian. I also never claimed Frisian to be a dialect. Dqfn13 (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Finding a source for Frisians as ethnic group in The Netherlands could be difficult when: Belgium and the Netherlands define ethnic minority groups on the basis of their migrant background. source. They have recognized them as a national minority under the "Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities", but that doesn't imply being an ethnic group. DS Belgium (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That does make them a national (ethnic) minority then, thus defined by law. Polozooza (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This document only states the Frisians in Northern Europe. The word Frisian(s) only occurs once... so I couldn't find anything claiming the Netherlands sees Frisians as a minority or seperate enthnic group. So this source is still not for any help about Frisians. This source is about Roma and Sinti women. Dqfn13 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even know the Frisians were mentioned, the sole purpose was to show that the Netherlands only recognize ethnic groups among immigrants so looking for an official dutch source on the Frisians would be futile. And the "Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities" doesn't help either because etnicity is not the only reason for minority status, language, culture, religion and some others are equally valid. They didn't mention the basis for their decision in the document I saw but language would be the obvious one. DS Belgium (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And now I find there's no exact definition of ethnicity, some sources taking language as a sufficient criterium. I will refrain from commenting further. DS Belgium (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Agriculture

The section on agriculture is radically wrong, per the very report it links to as evidence! For instance, the section claims that the Netherlands accounts for 1/3 of the world's cucumber exports, while the report lists the figure as 8%! That's off by a factor of four. GeneCallahan (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right. The Netherlands produces and than exports about 8% of the cucumbers. But it also resells another (about) 25% (which is also in the report albeit in rather obscure text) probably shipped through Rotterdam port from Spain into Germany making up for the 1/3. I tried to clarify the text. Arnoutf (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

= Military

Deleted the Picture of the Dutch leopard 2 tank due to budget cuz holland doesn't have MBT's anymore so its not relevant

INDEPENDENCE

It is wrong saying "Independence from the Habsburg Empire" because the "Habsburg Empire" was the Empire of the Emperor Charles V. Philip II and Pilip IV were NOT Emperors but Kings of SPAIN. So, more accurate would be saying "Independence from SPAIN".--83.53.166.189 (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Netherlands were never part of the Spanish crown territories. Therefore they did not become independent of Spain itself (although Philip II was primarily a king of Spain). Arnoutf (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much the whole European continent is coloured

Why is that? Instead of being coloured only the Netherlands.

e.g

190.51.153.195 (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because the Netherlands is quite small when compared to the whole of Europe. Jarkeld (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If you read the legend you will see that the Netherlands is the only dark green bit on the map, but that the EU is coloured light green. The EU as a political/monetary union holds a lot of context for its members that is why it is indicated on these maps. Arnoutf (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

Something is wrong with the numbers in the following sentence:

"According to Eurostat, in 2010 there were 4.8 million foreign-born residents in the Netherlands, corresponding to 11.1% of the total population. Of these, 1.4 million (8.5%) were born outside the EU and 0.428 million (2.6%) were born in another EU Member State.[68]"

Since the Netherlands only has about 16 mio inhabitants, 4.8 mio foreign-born can't make up 11.1 %. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to get better numbers but this should be noted.

91.115.86.125 (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed typo 4.8 -> 1.8 per source, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Treaty of Rome.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Treaty of Rome.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Treaty of Rome.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No more cannabis tourism

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Netherlands cannabis is no longer a haven for tourists from around the world. After 40 years break the tradition of selling cannabis tourists in the cafeteria. The controversial law has been applied from 1. May 2012. year. 78.2.96.70 (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but only in the three most southern provinces: Limburg, North Brabant and Zeeland. All other provinces are not affected, yet. Dqfn13 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

ISO code

page is missing the ISO 3166 code (NL) in the template

ISO_3166 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPCA (talk • contribs) 11:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Happiness OECD Citation

(August 6th, 2012) Citation 13, which supports the claim that the Netherlands is the happiest country in the world according to the OECD, or something along those lines, is broken. The citation leads to a page that has an internal 404. Onixz100 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

To THE or not to THE

I was wondering is the proper name for the country in English Netherlands or THE Netherlands? The whole internet seems confused, even this article. Thanks 2winjustonce (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's "Netherlands", but you say "the Netherlands" just like you do with "the United Kingdom" or "the United States". Nowhere in the article I come across "The Netherlands" (with capital T) in the middle of a sentence. thayts t 18:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks 2winjustonce (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I will hold firm

Although as the literal translation of Je maintiendrai (from the French) to English might be considered "I will maintain", this does not reflect the stronger meaning of the translation reflected in Dutch: Ik zal handhaven. To convey this stronger meaning the English translations I will hold firm or I will uphold are more to the point. --VanBurenen (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree and disagree. "I will uphold" seems like a good contextual fit and would be my choice, but the original "I will maintain" is so much more accurate than "I will hold firm", which is a textbook case of Dunglish. 84.86.240.102 (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Netherlands

The county "Netherlands" is also called Kingdom of the Netherlands (A.D. Belinfante,J.L. De Reede Beginselen van het Nederlandse staatsrecht (Principles of Dutch constitutional law) p.355 : “…het Nederlandse rijksdeel dat zich overigens ook tooit met tooit met de titel Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (the Netherlands part of the Realm that also calls itself Kingdom of the Netherlands)). The Netherlands has to refer to itself in that manner because it also represents the Kingdom to the outside alone (without the other countries) when dealing with Kingdom affairs that do not concern the other three countries. I adjusted the infobox because it is custom that the full length and official name of the subject is depicted there. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

But..... is this used colloquially, I would say no. And is this the formal legal name in e.g. EU treaties (which only concern the European part of the Kingdom), as far as I know, this is not the case either. That the Netherlands uses the full name from time to time does not necessarily mean this is the formally correct use (USA sometimes uses American, even when not speaking on behalf of Canada or Argentina). In other words, that it happens as your source states, does not necessarily mean this is formally correct. Arnoutf (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Netherlands always participates in treaties as "Kingdom of the Netherlands" never as Netherlands. It is the formal name in EU and indeed in all treaties. All treaties are closed by the "Kingdom of the Netherlands". The fact that it is not used in daily speech does not alter the official name. And doesn't matter for the purposses of the infobox where the full official name is always mentioned on wikipedia. The formal name of the USA remains just that even if they describe themselves as America in some contexts.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. The official name of the Kingdom is "Kingdom of the Netherlands", which exists of 4 countries (see article 1 of the Charter: Het Koninkrijk omvat de landen Nederland, Aruba, Curaçao en Sint Maarten). The Kingdom is sometimes shortened to "Netherlands", and the Netherlands government often represents/acts (or: "tooit zich met") as the Kingdom government, but that does not mean that the formal name of the Netherlands is the Kingdom. L.tak (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The language of article 1 of the Charter uses colloquial descriptions when mentioning the countries. Their full official names are not used. Not in the case of the Netherlands but also not in the case of Curacao (full ofiicial name Land Curacao or Pais Korsou). The official names are determined by the Constitution or Staatsregelingen (Basic Laws) of the countries. The ruling document of the Netherlands is called "Grondwet voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden / Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands". This is done so in my opinion for very practical reasons as I described above, but also for historical reasons. Therefore the Netherlands uses the name "Kingdom of the Netherlands" in its official capacity to the inside and outside world. The fact that the Netherlands government is also the Kingdom government (to all intents and purposes anyway) is another matter altogether. I also feel that the source I quoted is an authoritative handbook used in academics. I'm not suggesting altering the name of the article but it seems that all country infoboxes use the full name. (Sorry for all the editing of this message). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I also don't agree. We have a separate page for the Kingdom of the Netherlands which is a sovereign state, whereas this page focuses on the country that is simply the Netherlands. I agree fully with L.tak's comment. Outback the koala (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that the country isn't "simply" the Netherlands. Nothing about this matter is very simple or straightforward I'm afraid. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I only meant the title of the country of the Netherlands has only one form, "the Netherlands", with no long form; which is the case with the KoN. In English the Kingdom of the Netherlands is often shortened to the Netherlands whilst the Netherlands (the country) has no long form. It is indeed not simple, I'm sorry to have minced my words so haphazardly. Outback the koala (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's probably good to keep in mind that although we have this very definitieve and technically correct setup, real life isn't so technically correct and well defined, and the country of the Netherlands is often seen (and often is) equivalent to the state of the Netherlands (and I hope we all accept the terms country and state loosely without debating them too!). Readers will come to this page expecting it to be about the state. CMD (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That is probably the case. Most of this is probably the consequence of the Netherlands (country) having about 95% of all inhabitants of the state (with the other 3 countries sharing the other 5%). So the part-pro-toto confusion on the side of the reader is not that strange, I agree with CMD that we should keep the reader interest in mind over technical specificity. Arnoutf (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Arnoutf, we must keep the reader in mind, but at the cost of accuracy? We can inform the reader, as we do in the intro, about the situation. One country dominates the Kingdom, but is legally equal to the rest - in the cabinet of the Kingdom, for example; each country has one minister representing them, but only the Netherlands adds more ministers. I see no easy/short way to explain this setup beyond allowing the reader to click the link to the KoN page to read about it. Outback the koala (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

How did the name "Netherlands" come about?

The history says that it was the Kingdom of Holland and then it became the Kingdom of the Netherlands. No explanation is given in this or the history article as to why this name change came about or whether it has an intrinsic meaning. (i.e., is it too Anglo-centric to wonder if these are the lands nether to (archaic, 'near to) England? ). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Kingdom Holland is only a glitch on Dutch History which lasted from 1806-1810. It was set up by Napoleon as a succesor to the Batavian Republic (1795), which in turn was a succesor to the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (1581-1795) (aka the Dutch republic in the UK, but under the full name in the Dutch area). So in fact, te question is not why THIS name change came about, but why the names changes to Batavian Republic and Kingdom Holland came about. Going to a name "The Netherlands" was actually reverting to a name that had been in more or less continuous use for about 400 years, prior to French conquest (which lasted only 15 yrs).

The Republic was a continuation of the Habsburg Netherlands (1482-1556) and Spanish Netherlands (1556-1581 in the North). The Habsburg Netherlands were in turn a continuation of the Burgundian Netherlands (1384-1482).

So the question is where does the l;ate 14th century Netherlands come from.

The answer is easily found when looking at other language - Pays Bas (French) Niederlande (German). It comes from low-lying lands (and indeed the term Low Countries is sometimes historically used).

The Dutch word "neder" means something like low, and is probably etymologically related to the English usage in Nether region (although in the English usage, I would say the involved region is significantly lower positioned than the Netherlands ;-). Arnoutf (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Independence

Hi, I was wondering why in the infobox the independence from the Spanish Empire in 1581 is shown and not the independence from the First French Empire in 1813. It is true that the provinces were united in 1581 into an independent republic for the first time, but a couple of centuries later the Dutch Republic was annexed again by the French Empire. I don't know if you can say that the republic (later kingdom) had considerable autonomy within the French Empire, however it was still under French rule. Shouldn't the infobox at least mention independence from the First French Empire in 1813? 146.50.144.229 (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The 1810-1813 period is considered an occupation as at no stage the Netherlands were under a stable and lasting French rule (in spite of the French calling it annexation). Arnoutf (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

But perhaps setting 1813 in addition as the establishment of the modern Dutch monarchy maybe an idea (see a lot of other countries where the next republic or so is listed at this place.) Arnoutf (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Renaming and adjusting articles

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

– I think the current titles "Kingdom of the Netherlands" and "Netherlands" doesn't match to English speakers' prevalent usage and the distribution of the contents should be adjusted. For more detailed explanation of my suggestion, see the discussion. Wikipean (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest this:

Current		My proposal
Titles of articles	Contents	Titles of articles	Contents
"Kingdom of the Netherlands"	Overview of the entire Kingdom Simple history of the Kingdom	"Netherlands"	Overview of the entire Kingdom More detailed Dutch history (including the entire Kingdom, the Netherlands (as constituent country) and the European Netherlands)
"Netherlands"	Overview of the constituent country Slightly detailed Dutch history (including the Netherlands (as constituent country) and the European Netherlands)	"Netherlands (constituent country)"	Overview of the constituent country Simpler history of the constituent country

The reasons are below:

Reasons of renaming
1. In many writings and usual conversation in English, "Netherlands" means a sovereign state. This usage is used in many situations such as international sport events. In 2013 World Baseball Classic, many players from Dutch Caribbean countries/regions (such as Curaçaoan Andruw Jones) played for the team of the Netherlands. I think "Netherlands" should be the name of article for the sovereign state, thus Kingdom of the Netherlands.
2. The recent trend of naming in Wikipedia: Formerly, "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" were separate articles because the meaning of the former contain both the practical territory and the territorial claiming but the latter is only limited in the island of Taiwan. However, it causes confusion to the readers, so they were moved to "Taiwan" and "Geography of Taiwan", respectively. I believe the Netherlands-related articles have to be modified like the Taiwan case.
- Note: "Netherlands (country)" is not a suitable title for the Netherlands as constituent country because the entire Kingdom is also can be called "country." Hence, "Netherlands (constituent country)" is good name for it although it is slightly long.
Reasons of adjusting contents
1. Unlike constituent countries (Home Nations) of the United Kingdom, the ones of the Kingdom of the Netherlands were not independent countries. The British home nations were individual countries (except for Northern Ireland, rump of former Ireland under the UK) but the Netherlands (as constituent country) is similar to a simple administrative region divided other parts of the Kingdom because of administration. However, the current article "Netherlands" describes detailed history. I think it is improper. I think the article for the Netherlands as constituent country should rewritten like "England and Wales" (which focuses the legal jurisdiction) or "Dutch Caribbean" (which focuses the terminology).

How do you think about my opinion? --Wikipean (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I think that English-speaking people that actually need to talk about it generally do refer to the "Kingdom of the Netherlands" when we need to talk about it. I lived on Bonaire for years, and we certainly talked about the Kingdom (and "Kingdom law") when we needed to talk about it, and just "Holland" or "The Netherlands" when we needed to talk about the country. The distinction usually came about when talking about our relations with Aruba, and now comes up when talking about Curacao and Sint Maarten. The current titles match common usage.—Kww(talk) 06:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I am not a native English speaker, but it is my clearly impression that when Anglophones talk about "the Netherlands" they actually mean what's informally called "Holland", thus the constituent country, and NOT including the overseas territories. Fedor (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. The WP:COMMONNAME for the constituent country is Netherlands. I appreciate the effort you've gone to to put your case together but do not agree with your reasoning. Zarcadia (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Indeed WP:COMMONNAME. Also I think you overstate the importance or indeed realisation with English speakers about the difference between the Netherlands (constit country: Pop 16,750,000) and the Netherlands (Kingdom: Pop 17,050,000). Arnoutf (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I concur with the others. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 01:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose although I agree that people refer to the souverain nation when they talk of Netherlands, I also believe people only mean the European territory when they talk of Netherlands. Taketa (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose- technically this is correct but when English speakers say "Netherlands" they generally mean the European part. When they want to refer to the Caribbean part, it is still very common to use "Netherlands Antilles" and "Aruba", despite the recent constitutional changes. Very well presented case though, full marks on effort. Green Giant (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose The "Netherlands" as a country refers as a European country. While "Kingdom of the Netherlands" includes the Netherlands itself and its colonies in the Caribbean. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I have to go against the flow here and support this. While people generally mean the European part while talking about the Netherlands, using the constituent country as the primary topic for the name seems very wrong. The constituent country is not the same as the European part of the country; it includes a few Carribean islands as well, and that is certainly not what people usually mean when they talk about the country. As a parallel, people generally mean the European part when they talk about Denmark, but that article is quite rightly about the entire sovereign state including Greenland. Jafeluv (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Independence recognition

This dissertation tells that the first state that recognize Netherlands' independence is Aceh Sultanate. How do you think? -- Si Gam (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Tricky issue. Only in the 20th century did recognition of states ever become an internationally regulated thing (united nations). Before that it could be questionned whether recognition was worth anything at all (e.g. was there ever official recognition of Charlemagne's empire, the United Kingdom, Sweden, or indeed the Aceh Sultanate). In many of these cases, nobody (internationally) cared. The Netherlands is somewhat different, as the Dutch revolt freed the Netherlands from the Spanish king (de facto independence) which became formalised only in 1648 when Spain (the former owner of the country) agreed to its independence (and only then many other European nations dared to follow). Similarly for the US the recognition of its independence by the United Kingdom was the most relevant, although moraly support was broader before.

So in general, interesting trivia, but in the context of the 16th-17th century (and the absence of something like the UN) not much more. Arnoutf (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Languages

If this article is about the territory in Europe, shouldn't the listed languages be only Dutch and Frisian? VEO^onefive 03:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the country of the Netherlands, which includes the special municipalities of Bonaire, Saba, and Sint Eustatius. All of the other Caribbean territories belong to different countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, but those three are actual territory of the Netherlands. I used to live on Bonaire and still own a company there, and I still find it confusing.—Kww(talk) 05:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

incomplete history

The post-WWII history section is woefully incomplete and unbalanced. In particular, there is no mention of the North Sea flood of 1953.211.225.34.166 (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 211.225.34.166 (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering the fact that this is a top level article, the available amount of space for this era is little. For that reason alone this section will always and necessarily be very incomplete.

That notwithstanding, the 1953 flood is indeed that important that it may warrant a few lines in this article; even if these are already mentioned in the floods section.

What about something like:

In 1953 Zeeland and parts of South Holland were struck by major floods resulting in major loss of life. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Place name, the Netherlands or Place name, Netherlands

What should be used for place names and addresses in the text of an article, "Place name, the Netherlands" or "Place name, Netherlands"? I think the first, but is there a convention? Wikipedia:THE is about article titles. --Egel _Reaction? 18:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In addresses "The Netherlands" is used. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, also in addresses "Netherlands" is used. It's the official Royal TNT Post and PostNL convention: see here or here. People from the Netherlands (or the Philippines) often argue that THE should be written before their country name, but it's not the English-language convention, as also agreed by the official institutions of the Netherlands. The Wikipedia convention is the Netherlands, the Philippines, and the United States. The Hague, Netherlands is also how PostNL wants their mail addressed. It's just like Los Angeles, California, United States. No "The"s or "the"s inserted unless they are part of the name (The Hague). gidonb (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Royal Mail wants The Netherlands --Egel _Reaction? 13:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The English-language Wikipedia prefers no article if an an article may be added to a name. Hence Netherlands. Not "The Netherlands". But let's take this a step back. This started with you reverting me under the pretense: The name of the country includes the article. Then you dropped on my talk page: I have checked the facts, to summarize: the article is called Netherlands and the country "The Netherlands". Why all these gut reactions and arguments about the Netherlands in the English language? You are not taking back anything, just trying again and again. Does adding THE to the Netherlands make you prouder to be Dutch? From time to time people drop in to start this conversation. One of the last ones had as title The Netherlands, surely? Not maybe. Surely. He started with telling that he did not check previous discussions as he was very sure of the case. gidonb (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess most of this all because at high school English in the Netherlands we learn that it is "the Netherlands" (including the article). High school English (and most other foreign languages) tends to lag behind on colloquial use and in addition only teaches one variant (which for most students is already tough enough). Subtle variants such as here are therefore probably better handled by native speakers of the English language than native inhabitants of the Netherlands (over to you native English guys ;-). Arnoutf (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

But let's take this a step back. There is a convention about article titles, I am not challenging that. Am I right in that there is a consensus that you include the article in sentences like "California is part of the United States"? So the line "This article is about a town in Netherlands. For the republic-type country, see Philippines." should be "This article is about a town in the Netherlands. For the republic-type country, see Philippines."? You agree? --Egel _Reaction? 12:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No discussion there. I think your opening statement was misread, as most of the subsequent discussion was about postal convention (ie whether you can write on an envelope Amsterdam, Netherlands like Brussels, Belgium), and not about regular sentences. It is clear it should be Amsterdam in the Netherlands as it is with all countries that are plural (New York in the United States - not New York in United States) and even with London in the United Kingdom (and not London in United Kingdom). Arnoutf (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't find an official list from the U.S. Postal Service, but Canada Post wants Netherlands. Can we conclude that the UK postal convention is "the Netherlands" and the American postal convention is "Netherlands"? --Egel _Reaction? 12:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Although you keep trying, neither of your conclusions is correct. "Amsterdam, Netherlands" is the official Dutch convention. The Dutch-language equivalent is "Amsterdam (Nederland)". Amsterdam, Netherlands is great English, the most common usage in English-speaking countries, and the Wikipedia convention. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, and Wikipedia respect the Dutch convention. Who doesn't? As is often the case with nearby countries, the English-speaking countries of Northern Europe have local, deviating traditions. For the Republic of Ireland this is Amsterdam, Holland, and for the United Kingdom this is Amsterdam, The Netherlands. While exceptional conventions, they still use correct English. Using "the Netherlands" is incorrect and shouldn't be blamed on one's teacher or on the UK. Since Netherlands is an English-language word, there are only two options for the article. If it is an essential part of the name, the article should be included after a place name and capitalized. If it is not an essential part of the name, it should not be used outside the main sentence structure. To reiterate, it is "Holland" in Ireland, "The Netherlands" in the UK, and the "Netherlands" in the Netherlands and the English-language speaking countries of Northern America and Oceania. Oh yes, and the "Netherlands" is not plural. It is singular as the Netherlands is a country in Europe... gidonb (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nederland is singular, Netherlands is plural. Both are derived from the Republic of the 7 united Netherlands. The plural stuck in English not in Dutch. This all of course does not imply that in English the article "the" is necessary; which I agree it is not. Arnoutf (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't follow you, Gidonb, too many things that look to me like contradictions. The official Dutch goverment convention is Amsterdam, The Netherlands see [2]. I think PostNL is just following the American Postal convention.

I can summarize as: both "Amsterdam, Netherlands" as "Amsterdam, The Netherlands" are correct English, "Amsterdam, the Netherlands" is not proper English. Among other because the first version is most commonly used, WP gives preference to the first version, see Wikipedia: Manual of Style. --Egel _Reaction? 15:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Dutch convention is to (almost) never capitalize articles and prepositions even in names. For example the most common surname in the Netherlands is "de Vries" with the article "de" uncapitalized and the brothers Alex and Eddie were born "van Halen".--Egel _Reaction? 13:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

PKN overlink

One PKN Wiki link is sufficient. Please review WP:OVERLINK.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Euro - Dollar

What is the currency of the Netherlands.

It is clear that the Euro is a currency of the Netherlands. There are Euros that are issued with the Dutch king on them, and Euros are the only accepted currency in the European Netherlands.

However, Bonaire, Saba and St Eustatus adopted the US dollar as their currency and the Euro is not necessarily accepted on these islands.

For the infobox his results in somewhat of a problem. On the one hand it can be argued that the Euro is THE currency of the Netherlands since it is used by 99.9% of the population (the Caribbean only represent about 0.1% of the population). The Euro is the currency of the Netherlands as the Netherlands is one of the countries issuing them and is represented in the Euro group this having a say in the policies governing the Euro. None of this is the case for the US dollar, so it could be argued that the US dollar is not a currency of the Netherlands. Following this argument in order to acknowledge its status in the Caribbean a footnote(as provided) would suffice.

On the other hand, it could be argued that the Dollar is also a currency in the Netherlands as there are areas (Bonaire, Saba St Eustatius) where the Dollar is the only legal currency under Dutch law (note that this is different from the regional languages where in all cases Dutch is at least also a legal language). Thus it should be mentioned as one of the legal currencies in the Netherlands; at an equal footing with the Euro in spite of its limited use and lack of Dutch control over the currency.

I have no strong preference for either approach and would prefer to find a reliable source on this, but cannot find one quickly. In any case, edit warring is no solution. Arnoutf (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the page of the European part of the Netherlands. Therefore I find it strange that the page notes the Netherlands Antilles's currency. Anyway, in the Netherlands we pay with Euro's. For the entirety of the Kindom of the Netherlands you should go to the page of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Have a nice day. MmPMSFmM (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no Country of the Netherlands within the Kingdom that is fully within Europe; hence this article cannot be only about the European part of the Netherlands. The Kingdom consists of 4 countries: Aruba, Curacao, StMaarten and the Netherlands (incl. Bonaire, Saba, St Eustatius). After the Antilles were dissolved as a country within the Kingdom these three islands became "special municipalities" of the Netherlands in 2010 and thus part of the country of the Netherlands. This also means this article can no longer be only about the European part of the Netherlands as since 2010 that is only part of the larger country (it is similar to French overseas territories, perhaps best compared to the status of e.g. Texel). Arnoutf (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Netherlander???

An editor has added "Netherlander" to the demonym in the infobox with the addition (uncommon).

First of all, why should we add uncommon words that are hardly used in practice. That serves no goal.

Secondly a google search [3] gives an indication the usage is not only uncommon but probably outright obscure. On the first page we find some web dictionaries, a Dutch run forum (why they use Netherlander is not clear, but maybe due to literal translation of the Dutch form: Nederlander), and a German Youtube clip with the uncomprehensible English line "Dashcam Germany :Netherlander can no driving" (probably another literal translation from Niederlander) there is nothing on the first page.

Is there actually any evidence that this phrase is used by (native) English speaker at all? And even if this is the case, is it sufficiently frequent to warrant inclusion? To be honest. I don't think so. Arnoutf (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add the term, however I believe it is used occasionally in English, and it's use is correct. I don't think it's inclusion does any harm, since it clarifies the term does exist; but I'm not bothered either way. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen it used in English, except for cases where the English speaker heard the local use (Nederlander) and transliterated it to English, either out of ignorance, or to emphasise the difference in how the Dutch name themselves compared to the English term (I can imagine the book title Netherlanders in America: Dutch Immigration to the United States and Canada [4] is an example of such a case especially as the subtitle does not read Netherlandic immigration. But without reading the actual book the title alone is too little information to make any claim upon).

When I did my Google search I noticed it is used in the context of New Netherland, but that should not be confused with the Netherlands.

I disagree that inclusion does no harm if it is indeed very very rare. As Wikipedia is used by many as a first reference our emphasizing it in this way gives the term undue status.

In any case, there is not reliable source that the term is actually in use and how broadly used it is. Verifiability of actual use is in my view essential, to prevent us creating new realities. (If good references are provided I don't care that much either, but if not it just has to go). Arnoutf (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The term is accurate, it's present in most English dictionaries, such as the Oxford English Dictionary. It's inclusion doesn't provide the reader with inaccurate information, however I do agree that we should be selective. In this case though, where only two terms are present, I don't think it necessarily does any harm; however I'm also not sure it's of any use to the reader either. Rob (talk | contribs) 19:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Arnoutf that it seems not to be used… But will check the Oxford Dictionary, as I'd consider that a reliable source… L.tak (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

ouch, they are not online… Can anyone verify what's in the lemma (common, uncommon, historical use etc) and provide a proper ref (with edition number and page number)? so we can continue the discussion with these facts?L.tak (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's the entry. Rob (talk | contribs) 19:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, but that doesn't make clear why it is in… At the entry "Dutch" it's made clear that that word originally included Germanic and Netherlandic people, but gradually converged into meaning "from the Netherlands". So the addictive in the dictionary could be added only for historical use… for me the mere mention of the term, rather than a definition that indicates present-day use is not enough; but I am wondering how other think about that… L.tak (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm indeed, when browsing the web I also noticed that Hollander is sometimes mentioned as Dutch synonym. To be honest probably used more frequently than Netherlander. My view is that we should probably stick with the single formal term. Perhaps we can add a short section in Dutch people where we provide an overview of other terms used for the Dutch, but leave it at that article? Arnoutf (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a discussion to be had at Dutch people, but it seems reasonable, so I wouldn't think there would be a problem. I've removed the term here, since no one appears to support it's inclusion.

Done

Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 22:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank. I may have a look at what to do with it at Dutch people one of these days. Arnoutf (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record, it was AbelM7 who added the demonym and since I hadn't seen/heard it being used before (though acknowledged that it exists) I added the "(uncommon)" tag. @Rob984: I don't see why such a tag should not be included. Isn't an encyclopedia meant to be informative? As has been discussed here, it is uncommon and there is no reason not to inform the uninformed reader about that. But I agree it is best to have only "Dutch". thayts t 19:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Purpose of an infobox. An encyclopedia should be informative, but an infobox shouldn't be cluttered. Personally, I think too much information is provided in infoboxes, however, everyone has there own opinion on this, and generally, most editors support expanding on information provided in certain instances. I think it's simply preference, and if you strongly wanted to keep the tag, I wouldn't have contended it. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 00:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we agree adding Netherlanders is clutter and should be removed for that reason ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is currently a RFC on Coat of arms of the Netherlands, a sub-article of this one. All are welcome to comment. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)