Netherlands
Netherlands
European Union member states European countries Benelux countries ka:კატეგორია:ნიდერლანდი la:Category:Nederlandia th:Category:ประเทศเนเธอร์แลนด์
Netherlands
Netherlands *Wikipedia:Netherlands maps *Wikipedia:Wikipedians/The Netherlands *Wikipedia:WikiProject Dutch municipalities
Netherlands
: ''See also Wikipedia:Netherlands for information on Wikipedia activities related to the Netherlands.'' == Older comments == ''(New comment moved to the bottom of the page...)'' Should this not perhaps be on :The Netherlands? Probably. Yes I think so. The term :The Netherlands describes the historically grown unity of the Low Lands Holland, Zeeland, Friesland, Utrecht and other provinces. In Dutch the name has a singular form "Nederland', but in Englisch and French (Les Pays- Bas) the plural form. I suppose this stems from the the term "The Republic of the United Netherlands; in the 17th and 18th century the country was officially called that way. ---- Is 'democratic monarchy' the usual term? I'm more familiar with 'constitutional monarchy' to imply an elected government under a monarch. --MichaelTinkler :'Constitutional monarchy' is also the common term in The Netherlands. I've changed it in the text. -- User:Tsja ---- What about the artists and football? ---- "The Dutch are known as a tolerant people." I know that "the Dutch like to see themselves as a tolerant people", but does the rest of the world really know the Dutch to be tolerant? I am not even sure that a native speaker of English would have even thought of the term 'tolerant'. Instead, they would probably be wondering 'tolerant to what?'.--branko :I find them tolerant except for my opinions and my housekeeping. They are polite about my housekeeping. :^) ::"the Dutch like to see themselves as a tolerant people" ... We do??? new to me ;) Maybe it's the Hollanders that think that way... lol -Kraftwerk- ---- I've tried to bring more structure in this article, making the loose prhases a little more coherent, adding a short facts table, and referring to the respective subpages. Mabye we could do this for the other pages for countries as well, so feel free to comment. user:jheijmans : I like the idea of the table with basic information and have tried to do something similar with a few of the articles on the United States. My vote is definitely to do that for the other countries as well. On the other hand, the inclusion of People and Geography on the main page, when there already are separate articles for them, can be confusing. I think it can be solved though, because the individual pages taken from the ''CIA Fact Book'' contain basic statistical information, which could also be incorporated into a chart, leavieng the rest of the articles to discuss the issue further in depth. user:Danny :Major improvement! I especially like the table of data. This is similar to what I have done for the Beryllium article and plan on doing for all the elements (as soon as I am satisfied with the organization of the table). Both reorganizations need a lot of thought due to the fact that so many articles will be changed over (more so for the countries than the elements). Perhaps Netherlands can be a prototype that we can work on? I will look this over later and give some more specific feedback. --user:maveric149 :: I think it's great, but one thing we should consider is possibly putting sq. miles alongside kilometers. user:Danny :::Since table width for those rows are not an issue I definitely agree. We should use some type of convention on what units are used first and second. In this and in most cases we should list kilometers first and have miles in parenthesis right after. For the States it should be the opposite though. Are there any countries other than the US that don?t use some version of the metric system officially? --user:maveric149 ---- My attempt was indeed also inspired by the work on the Beryllium article, but also by the fact that most country articles are still mostly based around the World Factbook and a collection of short phrases about the country. The subpages-idea can work pretty well, although some page are less likely to be worked on (military, transnational issues) for most countries. I would really appreciate commentary on the plans, which I'll outline below (so you have more than just the article): * Introduction - name of the country (also local name), location in the world, bordering countries, seas, etc. * Flag - national flag (maybe there should be some standard here for the size and source of the flag? Mabye http://www.fotw.ca Flags of the World? :: May I suggest that flags will always have a single pixel wide border, of a shade about 50% darker than the original pixel? This will help to distinguish especially flags with a white border from the page's background colour. The border would be laid over the original flag, rather than being drawn around it. See Aruba or Quebec for an example. :: Also, the size need not be very large, as people can always go to FOTW.--branko * Facts - table with some basic facts, to avoid short sentences with this information. Right now, I have ** Official name - in English, also in local language(s) if different ** Capital city - the capital city or cities (explain differences) ** Land area - area of the country in sq km and sq miles ** Inhabitants - number of inhabitants (this should also include the date of this estimation, if any) ** Population density - the number of inhabitants per sq km/sq mile ** Currency - local currency (no exchange rates), maybe subdivisions should be mentioned too (like dollar (=100 cents) ** Time zone - don't know the standard here, I've used GMT, but I think there's another one around as well - maybe daylight saving time should also be mentiond ** National anthem - link to article about it ** Maybe we can get some more data from the World Factbook entries * History - brief outline of the major events in the country's history, a paragraphy on the current events going on there, a link to the article with the detailed story * Politics - short overview, including current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Link to article. * Geography - quick description of the countries main features, climate, administrative divisions. Maybe there should be a separate page with a list of these divisions, like Provinces of the Netherlands, or States of the United States of America. Link to article. * People - Languages spoken, major religions, some well known properties of them. Link to article. * Culture - Not sure about this, this is right only a list of names, and therefore not really useful yet. Should be more storylike. * Other topics - a list of other related articles Wow! Sounds like you already have things well thought-out -- Believe it or not but I can't think of anything major to add at the moment. For the people section, though, I did happen upon some additional 2000 demographic data from the US Census you might want to take a look at. Here is the link: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbsum.html and here is an example of what information is presented: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=NL We could either simply link to these census data from the "People of" sub-articles, update the CIA data, and/or add the population pyramids to the sub-articles (which I think are a great way to graphically show the age distribution of a country). I should probably get to bed before the sun rises, so I've got to go now. --user:maveric149 Great work so far, it would indeed be a good idea to move away from the CIA factbook format and create something particular to Wikipedia. For the remaining CIA factbook sections, perhaps there could be another major section beside those you listed, namely one offering a brief description of the Economy and a link to a greater overview (maybe Communications and Transportation could be lumped in here as well). Military might be filed under the overview for Politics and Transnational Issues most often contains only uninteresting drug-related info, which might also go under Politics if necessary. As far as the table goes, maybe adding the two and three letter country codes would be a suggestion? I'm more than willing to aid in contributing to the geography and history sections, but I'm still new, so I'm not sure what to do when two people are simultaneously intending to edit articles. Should I perhaps let jheijmans finish his work first? -User:Scipius : Scipius, if you think you can contribute and you want to do it - don't hesitate! If two people are editing simultaneously, you'll see an edit conflict, and you can then act accordingly to accomodate all changes. If you have any additions to history/geography besides the basic information (I think the current text about says all, but that's my opinion), look at the respective articles. History of the Netherlands is already quite good, but also lacks a little structure, and many part are missing. Geography of the Netherlands isn't even a real article, so you can just play around there. : As for the abbreviations, that might be useful, though there are a lot of abbreviations you may want to mention (see http://home.t-online.de/home/flaggenarchiv/countr~1.htm). : The World Factbook data should be not be removed, but be presented in useful tables or text, I think user:jheijmans ::I certainly agree that the Factbook info should not be removed when the choice is between it and nothing ;) It's just a bit of a shame that Wikipedia often has to depend on this outside source completely, however good it is. -user:Scipius ---- I like the idea of having the flag in the table, however this does create a lot of white space. Perhaps we can also have the national seal and/or a world or regional locator map? The locator maps should be easy enough to make. --user:maveric149 ::Opps! Looks like align right was killed with the addition of the coat of arms. Please bring it back. --user:maveric149 :: I didn't remove it - user:ap changed it like this; don't like it either. user:jheijmans :::I've edited the table a bit to separate the images, it's not very elegant with all the  , but it works. Also added a dark line. Feel free to change it if it's not to anyone's liking, I wasn't too sure myself ;). This also goes for the new suggested title. I've added just the TLD country code as a new entry, I would think this is a bit of information one could generally associate with a country or might be wondering about, or is it not really that relevant? -user:Scipius How about using "Historical Overview" instead of "History" as a heading since there is a separete "History of" article? --user:maveric149 : Sounds OK, though the other subheadings should also be updated (there's a page on politics, and the other pages should become something too - eventually). user:jheijmans ::Looks like we will have to put some more thought into this. I will contemplate this myself ("Political Overview" doesn't work for me and neither does the somewhat forced "Geographical Overiew"). --user:maveric149 The table looks great at XGA+ but is way too wide for low res screens now. How about having a separate row for the official native language title and reduce the amount of text and the text size of the image info rows so that they are no longer than any other row. --user:maveric149 :I've narrowed it a bit (with even more   padding) and gave some of the data its own cell. I'm not sure if we should make this as table as small as possible, we will likely have to account for some room as other countries could need even more space. -user:Scipius Hi, like what you've done to the place! Table looks much better in this way. Only thing I'm not sure about is the Internet TLD entry; should it really be in there? And I think you can remove the (s) in the local name(s) and language(s), and make city cities. Oh yeah, and Frisian is an official language as well, I'll add it to the table. user:jheijmans I've updated the population count to those mentioned at http://www.cbs.nl/en/figures/popclock/popclocknl.asp (the counter has probably already increased...) user:jheijmans :I kinda like the TLD entry - its not particuraly useful but is an interesting fact for an online encyclopedia to note. Less useful perhaps, is mentioning the particular coinage, which is already a link or two away through the Euro article and is another thing making the table too wide (better than it was though). I will go ahead and take a stab at decreasing the width of the table (mostly by placing the "seat of government" note is a notes row). Change anything you don't like. --user:maveric149 :The link to the Dutch coinage article isn't easy to find from Euro so I just moved the note about the former currency to a notes row. The font size of the text descriptions for the images could also be reduced to -1 size. In addition to further reducing the width of the table I think this would look better. I will do this too if nobody objects. --user:maveric149 ::I've tried your suggestion, and I think this is probably as small as the table can be or perhaps should be. I've also implemented a better way to separate the images, a table in a table instead of all those  , which also means things look better in Cologne Blue, my theme, though it's still not perfect. -user:Scipius ::: I just switched from no theme to Cologne Blue (which is a very nice theme), but the page looks uglier. The font is bigger in the tables, and the text around the tables is not separated by any white space whatsoever. All in this in Netscape 6, btw. user:jheijmans ::::I know, I use CB / Mozilla1.0 myself, but the way CB treats tables is the one major disadvantage of that theme. It still looks better than it did with all the   though and since the majority of Wikipedians still use the normal theme and its "table-side manner" ;) (the "Print article" function itself does so to, even in CB), I thought it best to keep it optimised for them. Is there any way to alter this behaviour in CB? Is there a discussion on it somewhere? -user:Scipius OK, this looks more like a bug/mis-feature with the Cologne Blue theme than with this table. I just switched to this theme and checked some other tables ? they all had huge fonts in comparison to regular text. If anything, I would like to have it the other way around: smaller fonts in tables. I don?t know why this theme automatically forces such a font size scheme down browser throats ? the humans working on article should decide what is best for the article ? not some computer code. --user:maveric149 ---- Is the translation of the motto "Je maintiendrai" as "I will maintain" correct? "Maintain" in English is transitive, so it feels rather incomplete, like someone left a word out. For that matter, French "maintenir" is transitive as well... Trawling google results, some pages I find suggest translations along the lines of "I will persist", "I will last", "I will persevere" (which would fit well with "je me maintiendrai"), or nebulous "I will maintain", "I will uphold" sort of stuff. Is there an implied subject, like "I will maintain ''order''" or "I will uphold ''the law''" or something? --user:Brion VIBBER : The Dutch translation of "Je maintiendrai" is "Ik zal handhaven". If I'm correct, it is from a French verse in which William the Silent says he'll maintain virtue, his name, his belief, that kind of things. So yes, there is an implied subject here, but it is not "me". user:jheijmans :: A little more; per http://dutchrevolt.leidenuniv.nl/Nederlands/spreuken/je%20maintiendrai.htm (in Dutch), the explanation is a follows. William the Silent (actually William of Orange-Nassau) got the right to the lands of this cousin René of Chalons, whose device was "Je maintiendrai Chalons", which William changed to "Je maintiendrai Nassau". He also used in once in a letter (as I mention above), in combination with other subjects. The "Nassau" later disappeared; since 1813 it is the official motto of the Netherlands. Another page mentions it was also used by William III of England (originally Dutch), "I will maintain England and the Protestant religion". user:jheijmans :::Ahh, I see, thanks! Perhaps an explanatory note to this effect should appear in the text. --user:Brion VIBBER ---- I have edited the article to show some suggestions for the respective sections. The basic idea is to have six main topics, with the primary country page containing a short summary and vital statistics of those six and a prominent link to each main topic article, where the subject will be dealt with in depth. A further suggestion would be that those topic articles can be quite extensive, though still general in scope, with links to a third layer of articles dealing with the more important issues/events/aspects relating to that topic. I'd like to hear what others think about it at this stage. I have also slightly changed two topic titles, but I haven't moved the articles in question pending some feedback. -user:Scipius :I like the recent changes to the headings ? the previous ones where too large and the addition of simply saying ?Main article: X of the Netherlands? right below the heading makes it very clear that the text below is a summary without having to change the text of the heading. Very organic. --user:maveric149 Headings look fine, though they're no longer real Wiki-headings now. Some points though: * why two links under politics? * I think the English name should come first in the table (that seems to be the case with most local names in Wikipedia) * Current head of state is here a little vague (I'd at least mention the prime-minister here) and it's already in the text, too. * Frisian is really an official language, even though it is only spoken in Friesland * I don't think removing the current political situation from history is a good idea; history now ends in 1948, so that should be more up to date, though it is true that that paragraph was mostly political. * I like people of X better than Demography (not everybody knows what that is) user:jheijmans :Good points, I'll explain my motivations: :*The intention is to have just Politics of the Netherlands, for consistency with the other main "X of the Netherlands" articles, plus that the article on Dutch politics will likely include its international position. I left the old article for the time being to allow some debate about it; it can be moved, but I wasn't sure if a simple renaming wouldn't be simpler, if that's possible? :*I'm a little undecided about this one as well (funnily enough, it was your placing of the names in the Liechtenstein article that prompted me to make this change ;)). An English name is already used at the top and in the title, so that name would already be clear when entering this page. I thought that the proper local name could thus be given prominence in the context of the Facts table. :*Take it more as a suggestion. I added it because the head of state would seem to me to be one of those principal facts, even if their function is often mostly ceremonial, they're still the primary human representative of a country. The head of government and the difference between the two would be best left in the main article on Politics to keep the table smaller. I consider the table to present just the most significant data of the various topics (with head of state representing Politics), I don't think it's bad that there's some overlapping, but I could be wrong. :*I added the reference to Friesland to avoid the assumption that Frisian was an official language in all the Netherlands, which it isn't. AFAIK, the status of Frisian is territorial, i.e. confined to Friesland. :*Politics and history are closely related as it is, and some history will inevitable creep in most articles, but info on the current administration really is best dealt with under Politics IMHO. Note also that the main article on History does not mention the current government. History should provide mostly background; it doesn't have to end in 1948 (it won't once I'm through with it ;)), but I think that the most recent political developments were best resectioned to Politics. :*That's why I haven't copied it, see point 1. Demography does seem to me the better, more general term, since the topic will include more than just info on the population itself. Linguistics and religion and such topics, though ultimately about people, are a bit more general in nature. Some people may not immediately know what it means, but I think it would be clear from the summary following it. -user:Scipius Just a couple minor comments: The English name really should come before the local one -- the table is not just another part of the article, it is also a thing onto itself and will be copied by many people who will not also copy the text. I also don't think listing the head of state will be particularly useful -- this term means different things in different countries and some countries don't use this terminology. In the United States, for example, the president is both head of state and head of government. And the term "head of state" means the person with executive powers needed to run and lead the country by forming policy and "head of government" means the person at the top of the bureaucracy. Before the current US Constitution was enacted, the president was the person who presided (hence ''president'') over Congress and who was the head of the government (in charge of the day to day operations of government bureaucracy). But he couldn't make any policy decisions on his own, had to rely on Congress to make these decisions (Congress was the head of state) and then had to do the bidding of Congress through his role as head of government. Other countries view the reigning monarch as "head of state" -- but this is just an honorary title and the monarch only has power of influence (if that) and not any power to form policy. So these two terms really aren't meaningful in the larger context of things. Oh and I like the word "demography" much better than simply "people" -- it is more inclusive, follows the pattern set by the other sub-articles and shouldn't be a recognition problem for anybody familiar with the word demographics. But then "people of.. " isn't terrible either. --user:maveric149 OK, let's see: * "of the" - you're right, "in the" suggests it'll be only internal * I'm with maveric on the order of the names in the table * As maveric points out, head of state is at least a vague heading - maybe the entire concept is. This needs more explanation and is therefore more in place at the politics section * OK, you're right about Frisian, it isn't an official language in the entire country. * If you can write some lines on Post-WWII for the summary section on history, that'd be great. * Demography does sound more 'encyclopedic', so let's take it :-) Some more: I think we can integrate all the miscelleanous topics with existing sections: Dutch football teams should be linked somewhere from sport, not from the main article (it's not that important), transnational issues belong either with history or politics. Military looks like a typical CIA entry. There could be an article Military of the Netherlands, linked from politics(?) user:jheijmans, Wednesday, June 26, 2002 :I was aware of the distinction between the head of state and government, my primary motivation in suggesting it lay in mentioning the top of the political hierarchy of the land. As I said, it was just a thought, I have removed it in the table. :I still disagree on the issue of which name should come first though. I do see the table as just a part of the article it's included in and in this context there's no chance of confusion. Rather, I would think that its prominent display can serve to familiarise readers a little bit with the language and culture of the country they have come to find out about. :About other topics, yes jheijmans, that's what I had in mind as well (see above), but we'll see what topics can be treated sufficiently in the main article and which need their own "third layer" article. Military should indeed go under Politics in my view as well. :I have further added a population pyramid in the form of a table. Based on the US Census data presented above and more or less an experiment in table-building ;), I'd like to hear what others think of it (is it perhaps too big?). It's not quite finished yet (e.g. there's this extraneous > that keeps popping up). -user:Scipius ::Cool HTML pyramid! Did that take long to make? If it did, we still might consider using US Census [http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=NL images] for this for countries - at least until someone gets around coding a table for each of the 140 or so countries in the world. I changed the first text line of the article to give the officially recognized English title. With that information there, I don't think it is ''that'' necessary to list the English title first in the table and may in fact be visually redundent for the article taken as a whole. --user:maveric149 :::The hardest part was figuring it out, but I estimate that future pyramids can use it as a template without too much trouble. After calculating the percentages, you can easily adjust the colspan="x" variables in each row. Western countries will look similar, third-world ones will need a broader base. You can do this by adding cells in the main block (at present 47 columns to a row) and adding their number to the colspan variables. Each cell represents 0.2% in this table, but others could use a different amount. I've looked for a copyright notice at the IDB for the images and came up empty, so I'm not sure if they could be copied. Even if they could, they are rather ugly IMHO ;). I also think percentages present a more manageable unit. ::::HTML elements should not be used as graphical elements in this way. HTML is a semantic markup language, not a drawing tool. This is hackish and extremely bad for keeping websites accessible. Is there a better alternative within Wikipedia? Automatically generated images perhaps? -- User:JeroenHoek 17:22, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) :::I'm also not sure about the new intro. Isn't this whole article just a summary for the main topic articles (or will be)? I agree with jheijmans that the first few lines should be short, and maybe simply serve to broadly position the country in a geograhical context. -user:Scipius Like the pyramid (some work that'll have been?)! Don't really like the new introduction though. The information on independence is already too lengthy; I think the first sentence should be brief but informative. Also, the fact above how much of the country lies below sea-level is certainly not a well-established fact. One source says 1/4, another 1/2. This may also have to do with the fact that the area can be including water and excluding water. As about 1/5 of the total area of the country is water, this may give some differences in the numbers. Maybe it would be a good idea to move year (or date) of independence to the table? Most countries will have a fixed date (all the former colonies/protectorates/etc.) for it, though we will have to differ between declared and recognised (not for all countries, but also for the USA, f.e.). It's information you may want to have quickly ("how long does this country exist?"), so the table is a good place IMO. Maybe we can also add two entries to the table for: head of state and head of government (or one if there's only one). In this case that would be the queen and the prime minister (until the new pm comes, of course). Any thoughts? user:jheijmans, Thursday, June 27, 2002 -------- I think the table should have separate head of state and head of government entries -- they are different for a large percentage of countries (certaintly the majority of Western countries, all though the world's tinpot presidental dictatorship probably tip the overall balance in favour of the presidental system.) And independence date information is useful for the majority of the world's countries as well. The distinction between the head of state and head of government can be made clearly in most cases if it exists. If the information isn't relevant for a particularly country, just add "N/A" or don't include that field in the table for that particular country... -- SJK : I'd go for not including the entry. user:jheijmans, Thursday, June 27, 2002 I was the one who added the extra info to the definition paragraph due to the fact that introduction paragraphs should always give a good definition of what an article is about before going into the article. Oftentimes this information is a bit redundant, but is designed to give a reader a good general idea of what the topic is before going into it (similar to the definition paragraph in United States of America). I try to incorporate into these paragraphs what I feel is the most essential facts a person should get out of the entire article (a short executive summary if you will). As a matter of fact, I lifted much of the text from an old dictionary. Just keep this in mind when you edit the definition paragraph -- this is not something I am going to revert you on. I think it would be nice to have dates of independence in the table -- but in many cases it will also be necessary to have this information in definition paragraphs (it really isn't needed in this case though -- too much to explain). If we do wish to list the leader(s) of nations in the table we should either use wording that has stable meanings across nations
But every Dutchman I know talks about "Nederland".
----
The indepence given in the table is that of the HRE. Why is that independence chosen, and not that of French (Napoleonic) or German (Nazi) occupant? Admittedly, that first indepedence was more heroic than the latter two, as those two were given to us rather than that we fought for them, but that should not be a consideration for an encyclopedia.--branko
:This is a good point, but the case could be made that in both the 1795-1815 period and the 1940-1945 period, while a foreign power did for a time succeed in occupying the Netherlands, it was during wartime, and by the time the dust had settled, they were no longer occupying the Netherlands. This does require looking at the French Revolution as a protracted period of civil and then international war in which the dust never really had a chance to settle, but that certainly is one way of looking at it. User:Shimmin 19:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
----
Shouldnt the country box be moved to Kingdom of the Netherlands, and lots of links changed? User:Morwen 20:41, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
== dependencies? ==
Following statement is a bit puzzling: ''A number of islands in the Caribbean Sea are dependencies of the Netherlands: the Netherlands Antilles (Nederlandse Antillen), a group of five islands, and Aruba, formerly part of the Antilles.'' The article of the Kingdom of the Netherlands says that this Kingdom consists of three countries with equal rights. If this is correct, I think it is a bit misleading to talk of dependencies. User:Gugganij 09:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:Actually, I think it is more a matter of an ambiguity in the english language; ''dependency'' can mean something 'submissive' (if that's the right word), like a colony, but it can also mean 'province', which places it at an equal level, and I think the word is used in that sense here. If you can come up with a better word, that might help, but I can't think of one.
== The Netherlands don't have two capitals ==
In the article it says that The Netherlands have two capitals: Amsterdam and The Hague. Technically, the city with the government seat by definition is the capital of a country. However, we Dutch always ignore this definition. Amsterdam is called the capital and The Hague is never called the capital, even though the government resides there. I am born and raised in The Hague, and I would love to call it the capital, but in this country everybody will think I am crazy. For foreigners seeking information on The Netherlands, it will be more helpful to follow (100%!) general Dutch practice instead of the formal defintion given above.
Note to support this, in the Dutch wikipedia only Amsterdam is given as capital of The Netherlands. I think indeed we should follow the definition of the country itself. I will change it, and if somebody has objections, state them here, so we can discus wether it should be changed back
== History ==
I have corrected an inaccuracy in the historical overview, as it wasn't Philip II who finally acceeded in the independence of the Netherlands, but Philip IV. I then extended the first part of the overview a bit, adding some more basic information.
--User:Martin Wisse 09:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
== Names subsection? ==
The link to the 'Names' subsection in the first paragraphs leads nowhere. Was this section deleted? User:Mlessard 03:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: Fixed. -- User:Naive cynic 09:20, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
----
What does this introduction mean when it says that Netherlands "is the European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands?" Is there a NON-European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands? Does this refer to Greenland, the Dutch Antilles, etc? Even if this is the case, I think the choice of words is a little confusing and should maybe be reconsidered. User:Schmeitgeist 22:29, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
:Greenland is a colony/dependancy/part of Denmark. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is a "federation" of three equal (in theory)partners: the Netherlands, Aruba, and the Netherlands Antilles. I think it is explained adequately in the article Kingdom of the Netherlands, but if you can come up with a clear formulation here, that would be nice. User:Eugene van der Pijll 23:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Economy==
"Prices keep rising, and incomes are dropping. The Netherlands' prosperous times are over for now." I think this needs rewriting. "Prices keep rising" - just like *everywhere*. Every country has inflation, and inflation in the Netherlands is not high (2.1% according to the [http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nl.html#Econ CIA factbook]. As for incomes falling, where is the source for this? I can't find any information on it, I doubt it's true though. As for the Netherlands no longer being prosperous, that's just silly. User:Joolz 16:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
: Ah, I've just changed this section without having read this comment, but I agree entirely. The previous text seemed a bit politically motivated. The rate of inflation has decreased since 2001 (5%), indeed. Employment growth did come to a standstill, though, and incomes, notably those in the public sector, have not gone up. It is ridiculous, however, to state that the introduction of the euro has led to this economic decline of the past couple of years, so I've removed that suggestion. User:Sixtus 12:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Exaggeration on regional issues (POV?)==
The text says: "People from the southern provinces Limburg and Noord Brabant (Northern Brabant), which are mainly Roman Catholic, retain some bad sentiments against Holland. During the time of the United Provinces these areas did not have any political liberties and were exploited as colonies. A culture of this exploitation and the feeling of being exploited remained until the second world war; only after this war, with the true modernisation of the Dutch society did they become more free and did their relative power increase. The anti-Holland sentiment remained however, and is still relatively alive in these parts of the country." This really seems rather exaggerated to me. It's true that the power in the United Provinces lied mainly with Holland (and somewhat with Zeeland and Utrecht), however to say that the other provinces "did not have any political liberties and were exploited as colonies" is simply not true and POV. Also, the catholic emancipation of the south started well before WW II, in education, politics (a catholic party was in every cabinet in the period of 1922-1940). And to say that 'anti-Holland sentiment remained' might be true, but not as strong as it is implied here. I think most people wouldn't really care (maybe make jokes about it, sure), or have a minor grudge, but regional tensions are certainly nothing like they are in ''all'' the neighbouring countries (Belgium (Flemish vs. Wallonia), Germany (Bavaria) and the UK (England vs. Wales, Scotland, N-Ireland). So, I'll change that if no-one objects. User:Junes 17:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
: I agree. I had the same feeling when I read the text for the first time. However, I don't think we can completely erase the whole issue, if only because someone from Brabant or Limburg will start protesting soon. I suggest someone write a more balanced, neutral and above all shorter text. The length of this paragraph compared to the size of the entire page suggests we are on the brink of civil war. If no one opposses, I'll start working on it in a few days. User:Dengo 17.20, 18 Mar 2005 (CET)
::There appears to be a slight historical mix-up, here. The Seven United Netherlands of the Republic were theoretically equal. But with the Treaty of Munster the Republic also acquired some lands south of the borders of the Seven Provinces. These States' Territories did indeed not have the same rights as the members of the Republic. I can't comment on the current feelings about this though, except for the impression that in The Netherlands, views on the relations between Holland and the other parts of the country appear to differ quite a bit between Holland and the other parts of the country. User:Aliter 23:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::It is correct to state that these territories did not have the same rights as the other members, but that doesn't constitute 'exploitation' per se. In addition, when talking about such issues, it is important to realize that the question of which entity had what rights in the Republic is a very complex issue: some states had more rights and influence than others, while there were also cities with their own rights and stakes. Amsterdam was in Holland, but like other cities, it had its own representatives etc etc. I'm getting carried away here, but you'll get where I'm going: the Republic was way too diverse to simply say the catholic territories were exploited. The only thing is: they were governed directly from The Hague. Apart from all that, I just noticed another mix-up: a clear distinction should be made between the political rights of the territories and the rights of Catholics throughout the Dutch Republic, who lived mainly but in no way exclusively in these territories. But this is all part of the history section. This paragraph is just for clearing up something about the name Holland. I'm rewriting it now. User:Dengo 18.14, 19 Mar 2005 (CET)
== Name of article: Netherlands or The Netherlands? ==
Is anyone opposed to moving this article to the proper location (including the)? Compare other countries with articles in the name, as The Gambia and Republic of the Congo/Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire) and all the "… of the Netherlands" articles. 11:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I won't oppose it, in fact I'd definitely support it! --User:VampWillow:User_talk:VampWillow 12:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Since I cannot move it myself I'm requesting it on WP:RM: please Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Netherlands_.26rarr.3B_The_Netherlands for it. 12:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
From [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&action=edit&oldid=10493874]:
----
Netherlands → The Netherlands
The name of the country in English includes the article, as it is a plural form and direct translation of the Dutch 'De Nederlanden'. The singular form would be *Netherland, which does not exist. Compare also other countries with articles in the name, as The Gambia and Republic of the Congo/Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire) and all the "… of the Netherlands" articles. 12:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*Support. For consistency do you propose to move any/all other articles and categories to include "The Netherlands" as well? User:Timrollpickering 12:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
**Many if not most already have ''the Netherlands'' in the name, and as I plan to go over most of these articles anyway I will make sure that "the" is included everywhere. 12:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
----
:I moved it.--User:Patrick 12:58, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
:I am stronly against it. Are we going to move United States to The United States, United Kingdom to The United Kingdom, Scottish Highlands to The Scottish Highlands. I was surprised that the move took place during the discussion art Wikipedia:Requested moves. There is now there a general discussion, which tends not to include The in the title of the page of country names. User:Wilfried Derksen 21:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I have moved the page back to the Netherlands. This page was moved without going properly through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process, as the requested move was prematurely deleted (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequested_moves&diff=10494316&oldid=10493874]). If someone wants to move the article to The Netherlands, it should be relisted on Wikipedia:Requested moves and go through the process properly. —User:Lowellian (User talk:Lowellian) 03:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
== Move back to Netherlands ?==
User:Lowellian moved this article to the wrong location. Fortunately I could move it back. For any future over-eager editor: the name of the nation is The Netherlands, a direct translation of De Nederlanden (the Low Lands). It should not be moved to Netherlands: if there was a form without the article this would be Netherland, which is not used in English. 08:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Whatever the correct name is, this must go properly through Wikipedia:Requested moves. It didn't last time, when it was removed from Wikipedia:Requested moves almost as soon as it was put up, before there could be any debate (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequested_moves&diff=10494316&oldid=10493874]). —User:Lowellian (User talk:Lowellian) 18:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Although I moved it earlier to The Netherlands, comparing with United States, "The" may not be needed.--User:Patrick 13:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_beginning_of_name%29#Rule_of_thumb. Usually one does not capitalize the "the" in "the Netherlands" inside a sentence, which would mean that the article name should be without "The".--User:Patrick 14:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:The Netherlands cannot be compared with United States. The short form of Kingdom of the Netherlands is normally The Netherlands, and while a form Netherlands does occur this is always prefixed by "the" in a sentence. From [http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nl.html CIA factbook]: "The Netherlands remained neutral in World War I, but suffered invasion and occupation by Germany in World War II. A modern, industrialized nation, the Netherlands is also a large exporter of agricultural products." "The Netherlands has a prosperous and open economy, which depends heavily on foreign trade." "The Netherlands, along with 11 of its EU partners, began circulating the euro currency on 1 January 2002.", etc. The form 'Netherlands' (without the article) is nowhere used in the article itself except when listing the short name (where it is acceptable). Any and all references to the country must include 'the'. 14:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Your argument doesn't work because the same could be applied to the US: I could use almost the exact same wording. The short form of The United States of America is normally The United States, and while a form United States does occur this is always prefixed by "the" in a sentence. From [http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html CIA factbook]: "were recognized as the new nation of the United States of America following the Treaty of Paris..." "The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy..." "undocumented nationals from Mexico and Central America continue to enter the United States illegally", etc. The form 'United States' (without the article) is nowhere used in the article itself except when listing the short name (where it is acceptable). Any and all references to the country must include 'the'...''and yet Wikipedia still places the article at United States'', showing that your argument that the usage in the CIA Factbook does not mean that Netherlands must be preceded by an article in Wikipedia. —User:Lowellian (User talk:Lowellian) 18:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
:However, people talk about "United States foreign policy", "the" is optional, it isn't for "The Netherlands". The principal difference as I see it is that (The) United States is an English name, The Netherlands is an English translation of a Dutch name. Translations, and so it won't necessarily follow standard rule of English (in as much as there are any). Compare The Hague. User:Thryduulf 19:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This must go properly through Wikipedia:Requested moves. It didn't last time, when it was removed from Wikipedia:Requested moves almost as soon as it was put up, before there could be any debate (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequested_moves&diff=10494316&oldid=10493874]). —User:Lowellian (User talk:Lowellian) 18:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
:Place it there then. Do not move it back to the wrong location without discussion. 20:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::The onus is upon ''you'' to place the request there, since you moved it from the original location. And which location is the "wrong" location is open to debate. —User:Lowellian (User talk:Lowellian) 09:42, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
:::Not quite. You want to move it: then place it on WP:RM. I don't see you adding make move unilaterally and remove entries from WP:RM before a proper period of discussion (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequested_moves&diff=10494316&oldid=10493874])?
—User:Lowellian (User talk:Lowellian) 10:22, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Please don't spread any lies. I removed the request from WP:RM, where I had originally placed it [following discussion on this talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&diff=prev&oldid=10493304], only ''after the page was moved'' — and not by me. Besides, your apparent disagreement with a previous page move does not warrant a page move to the previous location without discussion. If you'd care to look up the Netherlands in other source material, you'd find that the name of the country is THE Netherlands, not ''Netherlands''. 10:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::The ''current'' location is ''The Netherlands'', so placing it at ''Netherlands'' would be a controversial move, which may not be dealt with without prior discussion on WP:RM. 10:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::And the page was originally at Netherlands, and the page was moved w/o proper discussion on WP:RM. —User:Lowellian (User talk:Lowellian) 11:19, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
::::But after long discussions on this article's talk page. It has been on The Netherlands for some time now without complaints, so the issue cannot be ''that'' controversial. 11:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Where have I lied? I said the article was originally at Netherlands. I said that that you removed the entry from WP:RM. That also is true. —User:Lowellian (User talk:Lowellian) 10:36, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
:::"Should users be allowed to make move unilaterally". You claim I moved the article to the current location "unilaterally", which is an obvious lie. I raised the issue on this talk page, waited for replies, and only then placed it on WP:RM. This request got support votes, and was then moved by another user. I then deleted the move request, as it was a fait accompli. 10:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::I am sorry the phrase was interpreted that way. I meant that one user moved it almost as soon as the entry went up on WP:RM, and a second user (you) removed the entry almost immediately, thus cutting off discussion from other parties, which is what I meant by the word "unilateral". I have now stricken out the offending phrase. Hope that clarifies what I said above. —User:Lowellian (User talk:Lowellian) 11:13, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
::Nevertheless, you violated WP:RM policy. You removed an entry after 22 minutes. 22 minutes! How can there be proper discussion in such a short period? Most people never even saw the WP:RM. —User:Lowellian (User talk:Lowellian) 11:13, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
:::Quite honestly, I never assumed anyone would actually be FOR placing the article on Netherlands: the country is called ''the Netherlands'' after all (not ''Netherlands''), and there was nobody on this article's talk page who objected to a move. The only reason I placed it on WP:RM in the first case was that I was unable to move it myself. Since it got quick support votes and was moved by another user almost instantly, I took that to mean that others agreed it was not really necessary to place the article on WP:RM, as the issue was a technical one, not controversiality. Since you apparently now disagree with the past move, in retrospect the procedure perhaps was not exactly followed, but that does not mean you can just unilaterally decide to now move the article to ''Netherlands''.
:::For a moment ignore the history and just look at it anew: you apparently believe ''the Netherlands'' should be ''Netherlands''. I happen to disagree. Since you want to ''move'' an article (as it is currently at the location you believe is incorrect), you should place it on WP:RM. Add the template to the article etc., so normal voting can occur. I can guarantee you I won't remove it from WP:RM. 11:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
: An RFC isn't the right place. Moves are decided on talk page in a discussion listed on WP:RM (qv below). --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 11:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==Requested move==
The Netherlands → Netherlands
* Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_beginning_of_name%29#Rule_of_thumb
===Discussion===
====Move====
# The definite article is superfluous. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 11:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
# The definite article is left out in other-language wikipedias as well. German: , French: , Spanish: , Italian: , etc. --User:Fedor 12:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
# "The" is not capitalized within a sentence (see e.g. [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/2000/chap03.pdf U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual]); combine this with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_beginning_of_name)#Rule_of_thumb.--User:Patrick 15:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
# I'd go with what the CIA factbook says is the conventional short form in English. User:Jonathunder 15:29, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
#Gut instinct and my Hutchinson's encyclopaedia agree that it's 'the Netherlands', however atlases from three different publishers and a geographical reference book say that it's 'Netherlands' (as does the map in use on the article). Having lived there for over a year, I thought I'd have known the correct form. User:Noisy | User talk:Noisy 19:17, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
#"the" is not part of the State's name. Use "in the Netherlands", etc. in articles. User:Zoney ♣ User talk:Zoney 11:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
#Netherlands if only to get it place alphabetically correctly in categories. It may usually be the Netherlands when written, but so is the United Kingdom, the Basque Country and others. If it was convention to write about The Netherlands, then things might be different.--User:Henrygb 23:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
# This have been moved back and forth from many times, by the way, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=10809209#The_.5BName_of_Country.5D_.26rarr.3B_.5BName_of_Country.5D this] may be useful. — User:InstantnoodUser_talk:Instantnood 00:35, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
#:Not many times. To the best of my knowledge, just once before, and that time, debate was stifled after a mere 22 minutes. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequested_moves&diff=10494316&oldid=10493874]. —User:Lowellian (User talk:Lowellian) 21:57, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
# Compare to the United States and the United Kingdom. —User:Lowellian (User talk:Lowellian) 22:26, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
#:But: compare to The Gambia. (no vote; I don't really care either way) User:Eugene van der Pijll 22:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
#Agree with Henrygb to MOVE (to Netherlands. User:Wilfried Derksen 17:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
#Move it. I thought this had been settled. — User:Trilobite User_talk:Trilobite 07:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
#User:Violetriga User_talk:violetriga 21:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
#Move. I was born in the Netherlands and now live in the United States. In neither case the article is part of the short name. I suggest deleting it both for Netherlands and Gambia... gidonb">User:Gidonb 03:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
====Keep====
# The name of the country is The Netherlands (captialisation of "the" varies). User:Thryduulf 12:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
#Oppose. The definite article is a part of the name (as in The Gambia &c.). Compare also related articles like History of the Netherlands: not History of Netherlands. If there were a form without "the", the country would be called Netherland. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_beginning_of_name%29 even state "Except for titles of works, proper names, or official names, avoid the definite ("the") and indefinite ("a"/"an") articles at the beginning of a page name." The Netherlands clearly falls under this exception. 12:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
#:''I agree with the naming of History of the Netherlands instead of History of Netherlands, I oppose The Netherlands as article name for the general article on this low country I live in. User:Wilfried Derksen 13:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
#Keep at The Netherlands. Several sources agree: [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572410/Netherlands.html Encarta], [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=214479 Britannica], [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3204.htm US State Dept.] ?User:Cantus…User talk:Cantus 03:54, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
#:''The proof is in the pudding. The Encarta article is named http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572410/Netherlands.html, so under Netherlands, Brittanica wants you to cite the page as ''"Netherlands, The." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service'', 'the US State Dept. List of Independent states in the world lists Netherlands and the contentlist of Background notes ([http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/|] uses also Netherlands and the CIA World Fact Book lists it under Netherlands. My old fashioned encyclopedias (books) list the country always under the N. User:Wilfried Derksen 13:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)''
#Keep at The Netherlands. As Cantus's Anti-Wikipedia:Google test has clearly shown, it is the name that is most often used by reputable reference sources including other encyclopedias. User:BlankVerse User talk:BlankVerse 11:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
#:''But do these sources give the page the name The Netherlands or Netherlands. I am quite sure that most sources would list the country under Netherlands and name the country the Netherlands. User:Wilfried Derksen 13:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)''
====Other comments====
=====CIA World Factbook=====
* CIA World Factbook lists the following official names:
** conventional long form: Kingdom of the Netherlands
** conventional short form: Netherlands
** local long form: Koninkrijk der Nederlanden
** local short form: Nederland
::I checked the CIA World Factbook on other countries and, as expected, it states for the US: 'conventional long form: United States of America; conventional short form: United States'. In other words, there is no difference between the United States and the Netherlands in that sense, as is sometimes suggested. User:Dengo
* Netherlands government websites also seem to consistently use the lower case "the" in writing about the country. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 12:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:The point is, "the" is ALWAYS included. 12:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::No - that's not a valid point. One can't use "Republic of Ireland" for example without "the" either - as in "I live in the Republic of Ireland". So it's always present. A lowercase the shows it's not part of the State's name. User:Zoney ♣ User talk:Zoney 12:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::If you ask an Irishman the name of his country, does he say ''Republic of Ireland'', or ''The Republic of Ireland''? If you ask a Dutchman where he lives, he'll say ''The Netherlands'', not ''Netherlands''. 12:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::That argument doesn't work. If you ask an American where he lives, he'll say "the United States," but the Wikipedia article is still nevertheless located at United States. —User:Lowellian (User talk:Lowellian) 22:01, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
::::Usually they'll say Ireland, but otherwise yes, "the Republic of Ireland". Some countries have to take the definite article as a prefix, but it does not follow that it is a part of their official name. (I'm not certain on the exact Netherlands situation, so I haven't voted, but I do discount the point being presented above).
::::User:Zoney ♣ User talk:Zoney 13:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::I'm not trying to be funny here, but when someone asks me where I'm from, I always say I'm from Holland. (technically thats another discussion, but it is comparable to an Irish saying I'm from Ireland instead of Republic of ...) User:Dengo
:::: In a sentence, sure, you would use the definate article in front of many country names. I would never say, "I'm from United States." But "United States", without any article, is where I would expect to find it in an encylopedia. User:Jonathunder 15:36, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
=====Wikipedia in other languages=====
The definite article is left out in other-language wikipedias as well. German: , French: , Spanish: , Italian: , etc. --User:Fedor 12:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:That is because in other languages the proper name does not include the article. In English, it does (see the CIA factbook for example). This is not a discussion about the form of the official name in other languages, but about the location of the English language article for a country called ''The Netherlands'' in English. 12:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Wrong. In Spanish '' los Países Bajos'' is used within a phrase. ?User:Cantus…User talk:Cantus 03:29, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
::On the other hand, the country briefings article from The Economist is called 'Netherlands' User:Dengo
::In other languages the proper name also includes the article. Why don't you check yourself? User:Fedor 13:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Anarion, the CIA World Factbook actually ''omits'' the definite article from the short form as I have shown. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 14:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::In other languages the proper name also includes the definite article. German: die Niederlande, French: les Pays-Bas, Spanish: los Países Bajos, Italian: i Paesi Bassi. Yet in all these wikipedias, the definite article is not included in the title. User:Fedor 07:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
: I don't really find the whole "definite article is missed out in German Wikipedia" argument and whatnot that convincing. Those are after all different languages--if we adopt conventions because they're used by other languages, we might as well the verb at the end of our sentences put. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 08:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=====Rule of thumb=====
I think we'd need a good reason to ignore the rule of thumb for use of the definite article in naming articles:
* Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_beginning_of_name%29#Rule_of_thumb
** ''A simple rule of thumb is, would you capitalize the definite article in running text (see [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/2000/chap03.pdf rules], [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/2000/chap04.pdf examples])? For example, you would write:''
**:''The person read ''The Old Man and the Sea''.''
**''but''
**:''Two of the nations where English-speaking people live are the United Kingdom and the United States.''
**''If the definite article would be capitalized in running text, then include the definite article at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include the definite article at the beginning of the page name.''
Official Netherlands government literature pretty consistently uses the lower case "the", so the rule of thumb firmly favors omitting it from the title of the article. It's just a rule of thumb, sure, but it's pretty unambiguous. We write about the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands, and those articles should probably all be named without the definite article. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 14:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I agree. BTW: the last discussion on possible differences between the Netherlands and the United States did not convince me there is a difference. The argument of 'US foreign policy' as a correct term does not fly since 'US' is in this case an adjective and not a noun.User:Dengo
Mess up this article all you want, move it to Fluffy kitten for all I care. It's off my watchlist. 14:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:The CIA Factbook convinced me, alright, as well as the rule of thumb. Anarion, can't you at least admit when you are wrong? For a person with your political persuasion, you sure are authoritarian. User:Fedor 17:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
====CIA World Fact Book====
The CIA World Fact Book - as do most sources - lists the country under Netherlands, and mentions at that page as official name Kingdom of the Netherlands. So please re-move the page back to its orginal location. User:Wilfried Derksen 15:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Since Anarion has bailed out of the discussion now, in the face of unrebuttable arguments. I suggest we do the move back as soon as possible. Why not right away? User:Fedor 17:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I proposed this on WP:RM so we should really follow the etiquette for that page. The sysops who do move duty will work through the list of pending moves, examining each discussion to see if there's a consensus, and performing the move if there is. Five days is normal and a discussion can be extended for longer if there is thought to be a chance of a consensus forming given more time. The Netherlands page has a history so only a sysop can do the move. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Found this on RfC... I understand the guidelines mentioned above, but from a language point of view it feels wrong. Maybe because it's one of the few countries with a plural name. For instance, when sending a letter there, one would write 'the Netherlands' in the address (and, 'United Kingdom' if not abbreviated to something else).
:It's a matter of clarifying the noun... there are several kingdoms in the world, but only one ''United'' Kingdom, so that specifies it conclusively. The same goes for States. However, there is only one (set of) Netherlands in the world, hence known as ''The Netherlands''.
:I realize this may not sound very logically convincing, but for the record I do live there and would prefer including 'the'. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 12:47, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
::I also live there, and I would prefer the title of the article to be Netherlands User:Wilfried Derksen 20:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
: By Radiant's argument above, we should have "The United States", "The Falkland Islands", etc. Or maybe I just don't follow his argument at all. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 14:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
===Decision===
User:Violetriga User_talk:violetriga 21:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== One big river delta ==
Recently I added a line about the North Western half of the Netherlands being one big delta of the rivers Rhine, Waal and Meuse. Someone then changed 'the North Western half' to 'the South Western part'. If you look at the Rhine per se (and possibly add the Scheldt) that indeed seems to make more sense. But from the Rhine first the Nederrijn splits off and then the IJssel splits off from that and ending in the IJsselmeer.
This is typical delta-behaviour: rivers not merging but splitting, other sections merging and then splitting off again. This is caused by the flatness of the land, that causes rivers to slow down, which causes them to deposit the sediments they carry with them, thus blocking their own path and splitting up. And thus creating even more flat land. See the River delta section.
And in the North East, at the german border, the Eems also flows into roughly that area. So the entire coastal area (ie the North and West) is like one big river delta, which is why I said 'the North Western half'.
And what's unique is that this North Western half of the Netherlands is actually a delta for more than one river, namely the Rhine and Meuse. The idea of this being one big delta is supported by the fact that on a map of soil types, half of the Netherlands is made of river sediments. The Schelde and Eems just add to it, or can they be said to be part of it?
Another question is if the 'Wadden' can be said to be part of this delta. And why isn't there anything on the Wadden? It's a rather unique geological phenomenon, I believe. There is an article on the Wadden (a stub, though it's not marked as such), but there's no link from the Netherlands article to there (of course, because they're not mentioned). Finally, I believe the Wadden are formed not only by the IJssel and the Eems, but also the Weser River and Elbe. And all this plus the rest of the Rhine and the Meuse and Schelde (in other words a big congregation of rivers) (plus some british rivers) probably causes the shallowness of the North Sea (I don't know this, but it makes sense). Maybe this should all be presented as one big story, so in a separate article? But what should that then be called? Or should it go in the North Sea article? Oh, and there the flow of the ocean also comes into play, probably causing the 'polished' coastline of the Netherlands and the Wadden-islands. Oh dear, I'm out of my depth now!
Also, I put my original remark in the wrong place; it really should be at the beginning of the Geography section because it is the most essential thing to know to understand the geography of the greater part of the Netherlands. But maybe someone with a better understanding of this should write this bit. If no-one does in the next week or two, I will (if I remember).
DirkvdM, 09:57, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
==Dutch tolerance (NPOV query)==
Im wondering about this entry;
The Dutch are known as a tolerant people. Their image abroad is mainly based on trade, tulips, windmills, wooden shoes, cheese and Delftware pottery. More recently the liberal Dutch policies on recreational drugs, prostitution, same-sex marriage and euthanasia have received international attention; Amsterdam is widely perceived abroad as a city where 'anything goes'. See also Drug policy of the Netherlands, Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands.
To me this is slightly absurd and doesn't present a NPOV. Is there any country in the world (particularly in europe) that would class itself as not being tolerant? There has also been a rise in the dutch right-wing and anti-immigration feeling. I don't think that an article that is meant to give an overview of the country should get involved in how 'tolerant' or 'untolerant' a nation is. The example of Amsterdam to describe the dutch as liberal hedonists is as silly as using London to say Britain is univerally cosmopolitain. Im not deleting it as it'll probably just lead to its immediate return, it was briefly addressed above but i think it needs closer attention. If there is no objection ill delete it in a week or so.
:I think you missed the point. The paragraph reads: The Dutch are ''known'' as a tolerant people. Further it explains how this ''image'' evolved and that the Netherlands is ''perceived'' as liberal. This is correct and NPOV. Whether the Netherlands is indeed tolerant is POV. You may argue either way. gidonb">User:Gidonb 06:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
:: I dispute that, the use of the word 'known' unless supported by objective reasoning is inherently supporting a POV. If the dutch came top of some international league table for tolerance then i would support an inclusion of that type of statement. But it is as nonsensical to support the present reasoning as it would be to support a statement along the lines;
::'The germans are known as an intolerant people. Their image abroad is mainly based on their Nazi past, effeciency, order and discipline'
::'The americans are known for their consumerist imperialism. Their image abroad is based mainly on the assorted crap their multinational companies try to sell me'
::'The British are known as an uptight people, they are known for prefering tea to sex, drinking warm ale and disliking any outward signs of emotion'
::As a non dutch person i can honestly say that my 'image' of the dutch is not some sort of liberal-anything-goes-chilled-out-space. Just as my image of the germans, americans and my fellow brits isn't based on stereotypes. I stand by my call for its deletion.
I've carried out the changes, references to tolerance have been deleted, the topics covering clogs, windmills and even dutch policies towards drug use etc have been moved to culture, a heading that is for more relevant for them than demographics. Drug policy and same sex marriage links specifically to the dutch are listed below (additional links etc) so i saw no point in linking to them in the article as well.
== Headline text ==the netherlands
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
N
NA | NB | NC | ND | NE | NF | NG | NH | NI | NJ | NK | NL | NM | NO | NP | NR | NS | NT | NU | NW | NX | NY | NZ |Words begining with Netherlands:
Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands
Netherlands'_War_of_Independence
Netherlands,_(Dut/Hol)
Netherlands-geo-stub
Netherlands-South_African_Railway_Company
Netherlands/2000
Netherlands/2001
Netherlands/Cities
Netherlands/Communications
Netherlands/Culture
Netherlands/Drugs_policy
Netherlands/Drugs_policy
Netherlands/DrugTalk
Netherlands/Economy
Netherlands/Geography
Netherlands/Government
Netherlands/History
Netherlands/history
Netherlands/HistoryTalk
Netherlands/Military
Netherlands/People
Netherlands/Politics
Netherlands/Transnational_issues
Netherlands/Transportation
Netherlands_(disambiguation)
Netherlands_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Netherlands_Antilles
Netherlands_Antilles
Netherlands_Antilles
Netherlands_Antilles
Netherlands_Antilles/Communications
Netherlands_Antilles/Economy
Netherlands_Antilles/Geography
Netherlands_Antilles/Government
Netherlands_Antilles/History
Netherlands_Antilles/Military
Netherlands_Antilles/People
Netherlands_Antilles/Transnational_issues
Netherlands_Antilles/Transportation
Netherlands_Antilles_at_the_2000_Summer_Olympics