Talk:Dutch people

Inter-Frisian Council

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 ?

@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)

Removal of cited material

@ToBeFree: With this edit, you reverted the restoration of cited material with this edit summary: I see links to two essays; here are policy links instead. What happened to WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN? Please gain a consensus before reinserting challenged material.

This is the citation that you removed:

• "Netherlands - International emigrant stock 2019". countryeconomy.com. 2019-12-01. Retrieved 2022-12-11.

Please explain how this presentation of data in a tabular format is an essay & why it should not be considered a reliable source. Peaceray (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peaceray, a main concern voiced in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1126209535 and Special:Diff/1126793399 is a lack of reliability of the source. This does appear to be an acceptable concern and reason for removal, as countryeconomy.com indeed doesn't make a reliable impression; the source even rejects responsibility for any errors (permalink) in the way Wikipedia's general disclaimer and other unreliable sources do. It's a tertiary source that claims to build upon the sources displayed at [2] (permalink), and I suspect this happens without editorial oversight. So why not cite the actual source or at least a known-reliable tertiary source instead?

Regarding the other part of the second edit summary, "Not a significant population", I'm afraid that may indicate that 45.8.146.215 has an illegitimate motivation for removal that goes beyond the reliability of the source. I don't judge this; all I saw is two experienced editors reinstating challenged material without providing a reliable source, and requesting "a better source before removing one", which is a clear misrepresentation of WP:BURDEN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the "essays", I was referring to WP:BRD and WP:VNT. I wish people stopped citing essays as if they were guidelines, let alone policies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your edit summary.

I usually add the verbiage As WP:BRD suggests, discuss it on the talk page before attempting again. The operative word here is suggests. WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is marked as an explanatory essay. As such, although it is neither a policy or guideline, it is a {{supplement}}. I think it is an excellent way to elucidate "yes, you may have been bold, but I have reverted you, & now you need to discuss it on the talk page". I will continue to direct editors to that essay, as it itself does cite policies & guidelines.

I feel similarly about WP:VNT, especially if there is WP:EDITCONSENSUS, although in this case, the citation had only been in place for a month.

I do a lot page patrol looking for vandalism. When I see an IP or newly registered editor removing cited material and the citation, I think it is justifiable to revert that until we know the reason why it is not reliable. Too often, such removal is arbitrary.

Indeed, I do similar removal of material, & I believe if you check my edit history in these cases, you will usually see a reference to a policy or guideline, such as WP:BLOG or an item on WP:RS/P. I think it is reasonable to ask editors, even newbies, for a fuller explanation of why they are removing material. Peaceray (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources for the countryeconomy.com citation

The countryeconomy.com site lists these sources. Perhaps someone would like to chase down the Ireland & Chile figures — I am a bit busy at the moment.

• "Sources". countryeconomy.com. Retrieved 2022-12-12.

Peaceray (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Germanic ethnic group ?

@Gandalfett: According to Germanic peoples, The Germanic peoples were historical groups of people that once occupied Central Europe and Scandinavia during antiquity and into the early Middle Ages. While nobody objects to calling Dutch a Germanic language or to claiming that Germanic groups are at the origin of the modern Dutch nation, the claim that 21st century Dutch people are a "Germanic ethnic group" doesn't make any sense to me. A recent discussion led to the deletion of the category "Germanic ethnic groups". Category:Germanic people by century only lists people up to the 12th century. The only source for the claim is Cole, who says (in the introduction, page ix) that he has a special ("inclusive") usage of the term "ethnic group" which doesn't "accord with the common usage of the term ethnic group as minority in a larger social system". On WP, we have to follow the common usage of terms.

References

Rsk6400 (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Also it is old dated statement as it ignores naturalised Dutch people. 07:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Shadow4dark (talk)

@Gandalfett: Since only two people took part in this discussion, there currently is consensus for the removal of the term "ethnic group" from the first sentence. If you disagree, you are of course free to explain your views here. Your restoration of the term is unsourced since the quote from the source uses the word "people" instead of "ethnic group". I don't see any sources supporting your point (from your edit summary) that this article should treat Dutch people exclusively as an ethnic group. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Rsk6400, this article is specifically about the ethnic group, just like other articles about Swedes, Turkish people, etc. It's not about citizens. I am sure Turkish or any other Middle Eastern naturalised citizens in the Netherlands are still considered part of the ethnic group they were born into, which are indicated in other wikipedia articles. As far as this discussion is concerned, it's about whether defining Dutch people as a Germanic ethnic group or simply an ethnic group is more appropriate. I believe that I have made my point sufficiently clear. Gandalfett (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Since I started this discussion, I think I may comment on what this discussion is about: I mentioned both "Germanic" and "ethnic group" in my first comment. You didn't reply to the problem I mentioned that the source doesn't support the claim it is attached to, nor to the problem that Cole sees an ethnic group as "minority in a larger social system." You didn't provide RS for your claim about naturalised citizens. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gandalfett: Since you didn't answer to my question about the sourcing problem, I'll assume your WP:Silent consensus. If you don't consent, please let me know your reasons soon so that we can seek dispute resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Do European nationalities speaking Germanic languages have something exceptional about them in having transcended the category of "ethnic group"?

Or should we also erase the term "ethnic group" from articles about Ukrainians, Greeks, Somalis and Vietnamese? Knoterification (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

In many cases, there have been extensive discussions among the members of a nation on the subject of "How do we understand ourselves?" I sincerely doubt that those discussions among the Dutch people led to the result, "We are an ethnic group". At least I don't have a source for that and the only source I know of (and referenced above) explicitly says that the majority is normally not called an "ethnic group." Other articles are not considered RS. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if a group of people no longer percieve themselves as an ethnic group (and in the case of the Dutch reserve that lable for recent immigrants) one could still argue that they still constitute one according to their characteristics. When sources about ethnicitiy in the Netherlands mention "ethnic minorities" they are poiting to the fact that there is also an "ethnic majority".

Ethnicity is a porous concept, and may expand and retract throughout history. Knoterification (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello all,

I would advise removing the word "Germanic" from the lead and instead simply state that the Dutch are an ethnic group. The concept of "Germanic peoples" is very much tied to antiquity and while it might be possible to use "Germanic" in a linguistic sense here, it isn't really that common. I don't think many Dutch people (or English, or Germans, or Danes, etc. for that matter) would readily identify themselves as being "Germanic".

I would also oppose this edit by Rsk6400, in which he removed a source from the article and changed the wording from "the Dutch are an ethnic group native to the Netherlands" to "the Dutch are the people of the Netherlands." Not only because it has no source, but mainly because it would require the entire scope of the article to change from one focused on ethnicity to one based essentially exclusively on nationality or even residence; which is already covered under Dutch nationality law and (I would imagine) Culture of the Netherlands. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The Germans page is much better written which include the citizenship law in lede but this is is ignored on this page. Acr Statistics Netherlands [[3]] people with dutch nationality are count as dutch which should be included on lede. If you dont want put this edits on lede you should do self revert as your edits has no consensus. Shadow4dark (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind this article having a section on the Dutch nation at all, but as you already remarked yourself: it doesn't have one at the moment and the lede should not contain any information which isn't further referenced in the article. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

it is included on paragraph 3 Shadow4dark (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shadow4dark, could you be more specific? Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

infobox, Ethnic identity, and statics. Only not yet in lede. Shadow4dark (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shadow4dark, I would consider that to be wholly insufficient for a prominent mention in the lede. A separate paragraph specifically focused on the Dutch as a national entity is needed. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, that change contradicted the body of the article, specially this sentence:

"Today, despite other ethnicities making up 19.6% of the Netherlands' population, this obscurity continues in colloquial use, in which Nederlander sometimes refers to the ethnic Dutch, sometimes to anyone possessing Dutch citizenship." Knoterification (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That phrase is unsourced. There is a ref claiming "Figures based on a publication by the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment" and then a working link to the website of that institute. But the 19.6 % are the only figure given there, the linked page of the website has no such figure nor anything else about ethnicity. Also, I don't see a reason why that institute should specialize in ethnicity. Furthermore talking about "obscurity" and "colloquial use" is WP:EDITORIALIZING. So, I deleted that paragraph. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I just removed the reference that was given to "ethnic group native to the Netherlands", because the ref (Cole) said "Germanic people". People (in Dutch: volk) is not the same as "ethnic group" (the Dutch article has "etniciteit"), and there seems to be consensus that "Germanic" is not correct. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, you removed a little more than that and it is clear that a consensus has not been reached yet. It's a potentially vague subject matter, for example "volk" can certainly mean ethnic group in Dutch in many contexts and if an author (like perhaps Cole) uses "Germanic" in a linguistical sense, then this material might still prove useful as Dutch is, quite undeniably a Germanic language. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Vlaemink, I made two comments in a short time, and it seems you didn't read the one of 08:49. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vlaemink: I removed the reference to "ethnic group" that should support the claim that Dutch people are an "ethnic group", but in reality supports the claim that Dutch people are "Germanic". That ref was originally there to support "Germanic ethnic group", not to support that Dutch people speak Dutch. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources

According to Merriam-Webster, a "Dutchman" is a "native or inhabitant of the Netherlands" or "a person of Dutch descent"[4]. My ODE (3rd edition 2010) has nearly the same, only restricting the use to men. They also have a similar definition for "Dutchwoman". nl:Nederlanders (not a RS, of course, but at least we can assume that they know what they are talking about) has "Nederlanders ... zijn de inwoners van Nederland. Zij zijn een Europees volk ..." (Dutch people are the inhabitants of the Netherlands. They are a European people). It then goes on to distinguish between various meanings of the word, i.e. nationality, ethnicity and others.

Vlaemink, if the dictionaries tell us that Dutch people are the "natives or inhabitants", we cannot give a different definition in this article. On the other hand, I don't see why the change I am proposing would require the entire scope of the article to change from one focused on ethnicity to one based essentially exclusively on nationality or even residence as you fear. History, culture, genetics, diaspora and all the other topics covered by the article are normally called "Dutch history, Dutch culture, ..." in RS, so why should we change anything ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, this (The ideologies associated with (Romantic) Nationalism of the 19th and 20th centuries never really caught on in the Netherlands) seems a rather bizarre and brazen claim, which should only be added to the article with very good and reliable sourcing. Since the source which had been added (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, anyway I suppose this institute is meant), apparently doesn't seem to fit, which other supporting source(s) could be provided instead? Otherwise I agree with others here that this should be left out. De Wikischim (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Colloquial use ?

In addition to what I said above (08:49, 22 June 2023), the phrase "this obscurity continues in colloquial use" seems to criticize the explanation of the term "Dutch" given by the dictionaries (see above, subsection "Sources") - criticizing the sources (w/o other sources) is even worse than WP:OR. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Common Ancestry

Dutch people do not share a common ancestry. Many of them may falsely believe they share a common ancestry, many of them may claim common ancestry is a prerequisite for Dutchness. However any genetic analysis will show you they absolutely do not share common ancestry on either the paternal or maternal lines. However this is a problem for many of the ethnic group articles on Wikipedia. I suggest altering all ethnic group articles to mirror the Norwegian one, which simply states Norwegians share a common culture and identity. That’s basically every ethnic group, none of them have “common ancestry” anymore than they have with every other human on Earth. 2A00:23EE:1750:4254:C44A:3213:506A:8761 (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. What would be the common ancestry of the Dutch? Given the federal state it was until the late 18th century, given the many migration waves making that ancestry already very much confused (e.g. Spinoza, the most important Dutch philosopher was a Portuguese jew whose family migrated through France to the Netherlands; let alone the Dutch royal family which originated from Germany and hardly ever married a Dutch national (I think once or twice since 1580(!)). Also in the federal era the ethnicity of individuals in today's European Netherlands area, would be much more Lower Saxon (which also covers wester German regions), Limburgian (also German and Belgium), Brabantic (also Belgium). So talking about ancestry prior to a unified Netherlands rapidly becomes nonsensical. If we adopt ethnicity in a united Netherlands as yardstick we immediately create new problems as by the time modern Netherlands as a unified state consolidated (post Belgium revolt), Indonesia, Surinam, the Netherlands Antilles and parts of (now) Ghana were part of the Netherlands. So that would make all those people automatically Dutch. If we adopt (the rather arbitrary but also neutral) definition of the Dutch Census Agency (CBS) "Anyone born from two parents who were both born themselves in the Netherlands" ancestry is still there but of extremely short duration (and the definition has some oddities, e.g. if a person is born during a holiday of their parents in e.g. France that person is ethnically Dutch, but their children would not be (one parent born in France)). Arnoutf (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That is simply not true. There are ethnic groups that do absolutely share common ancestries according to genetic studies. Ex. Ashkenazi Jews, Romani, and many traditional indigenous societies

Also, even though it is incorrect to claim the Dutch specifically share a common ancestry not shared with other neighbouring groups. It is quite obviou the ethnic Dutch are closer genetically among themselves than individual is to an Australian Aboriginal, a Nuer, an Ainu etc.

Knoterification (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)