This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
|
In the sport of cricket, the Dutch team refers to itself as "Holland". Here is a picture of a Dutch player at the 2005 ICC Trophy competition, showing clearly the team name on his shirt. [1] I suppose this is similar to the fact that Welsh cricketers play for England. (Also mentioned on Talk:Netherlands.)
I'm removing this as it should be in the Netherlands article not the Holland article. Arthur Holland 08:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Whether Holland is the same as The Netherlands depends on who you ask. It's based on cultural and lingual differences. I'm Dutch and I live in the provice Overijssel. I've done some research about this and many old documents and maps from centuries ago are showing "Holland" as the entire country. I have also done some research on "Holland" being an official region of some sort, but I cannot find any. Official government resources don't mention Holland as a region anywhere. Therefor I'm questioning if Holland as a region is a fact, or an opinion. We have to either provide facts and sources to prove that Holland is officially recognized as a region within The Netherlands, or change the article to make it clear that some people consider Holland a region, while others don't. We have to be careful with some hardcore believers who are discrediting the neutrality of this article by adding or reverting edits without providing facts and sources. - Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasLobker ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am coming from Czechia (Czech Republic), in Dutch language it means Tsjechië or Tsjechische Republiek. Many Czechs call our country simply Čechy, however this name covers only the historical land Bohemia and not the whole Czechia. Nearly all Czechs call the Netherlands/Nederland simply Holandsko = Holland, but the correct name would be Nizozemsko or Nizozemí = Nederland.
I talked to a guy from Holland. He call it Holland not Netherlands. My self I'm from Denmark, and nothing is called Netherlands or something related to that. The name of the country in Danish is Holland the same with Norwegian and Swedish. I have always thought that its only in English its called Netherlands. -- Arigato1 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
A few centuries ago the current Netherlands formed a republic with Belgium and Luxembourg. After Belgium and the current Netherlands split up we started calling our country Netherland which means literally low land (the western part of the Netherlands lies below sealevel). For some strange reason other countries still call our country the Netherlands in stead of Netherland. The only correct name would be Netherland (since we are not a republic any more with Belgium and we are a single country) but since nobody uses it it doesn't exist. Strange. 193.190.253.148 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
-- 86.92.83.98 ( talk) 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
In Hebrew, for example, the only name for the country is Holland. But maybe it's a bad example since there are countries with completely unrelated names in Hebrew (France=Tzarfat, Spain=Sfarad) 87.68.71.10 ( talk) 13:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to add this remark only now, four years after this discussion took place, but there is one thing that people seemingly fail to understand. Not the entire Netherlands is Holland and as such, the terms "The Netherlands" and "Holland" are not interchangable, but that does not change the fact that there is a region called Holland. Therefore, I am from Holland or I live in Holland isn't necessarily wrong. I myself, for example, am from Holland (to be precise from South-Holland and to be more precise from Katwijk). So a Dutchman talking about Holland isn't necessarily using the wrong term. In Dutch, I would rather say I am from the Randstad, but as that term doesn't really have a proper English translation, I often use "Holland" instead. For my current place of residence, I use "the Netherlands", not Holland (I live in Limburg nowadays). PPP ( talk) 23:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
If this article is about Holland, then why is the exact same map of The Netherlands (from the article on The Netherlands) showing all of the other pronvinces/regions, without any highlight/focus on North Holland and South Holland? I suggest someone find or create map similar to those that are entirely gray save for the area discussed. The map used in the Bretagne article could make a good model. CJ Withers 13:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be very interesting to show maps of the county of Holland around the 16th century, before the construction of the polders and the struggle against water. Furthermore a map of the Netherlands from before the 12th century would also be very interesting, because it shows that before the major inundations by the North Sea resulting in the Zuiderzee, nowadays IJsselmeer, Holland and Friesland were seperated by a rather connection between Lake Flevo and North Sea. Unfortunately, I don't know how to obtain such maps.
The primary definition of the word holland is an abbreviated form of "holy land."
It has also been used by a country in northern Europe called Holland.
Additionally, the word is used as a name for a type of cloth.
From the article:
I don't think you can possibly ultimately stem from something ... you either utlimately stem, or possibly stem but not both. That's like saying some thing is "possibly absolutely" certain ...
Anyone know whether to take that seriously? It is also present in the Uncyclopedia, but nowhere else - I Googled it. Remove? -- Mirithing 12:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
It says "More recent territorial changes are the transfer of Oudewater, Woerden and Vianen from South Holland to the province of Utrecht, in 1600, 1989 and 2002 respectively." This is unfortunately not true, I think. These villages, Woerden and Vianen I'm certain about, were Utrecht villages all along, so no transfer in recent history. Please give factual information.
The article is stating that the region Holland is populated by 16,7 million inhabitants, while the population of The Netherlands is, at most, 16,6 million. I'm going to add up the population of the provinces North- and South-Holland to each other and take that as the population for the region.- 83.117.225.78 15:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope I won't be treading on any toes, but it is clear that this article desperately needs substantial editing (without necessarily changing the subject matter).
I am willing to spend the time to bring this article to a higher level. I hope it doesn't create conflict with the original author(s). I'm sure you'll be pleased with the result. Schildewaert ( talk) 07:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I don't agree with any of your comments of course. The style is fine for an article of this nature. This article (like the current article on "History of the Netherlands") was in a dreadful state. I don't agree with your comments on the number of chapters and the adjectival use of "Hollandic". My comment about this is perfectly correct. "Hollandic" is used in a few very limited situations and should not be adopted by anyone as a translation for "Hollands". I'm not prepared to hear my aunt talk about her "Hollandic vacation"! Also, this is not an article on the "history" of Holland per se. I think that the historical references should all be taken out, although I've done my best to try to give it some meaning in this context. Many thousands of Dutch people will visit this site to see how to translate "Hollands" into English. Schildewaert ( talk) 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback Arnoutf. I included the list because I noticed immediately that this aspect of "Holland" was simply not well covered on the English Wikipedia. Nothing on Bollenstreek, Noorderkwartier, Het Gooi, and so on. I don't mind if this info is split off, but what you call it? Regions of Holland?
I have noticed that there seems to be a lot of heavy-handedness on the part of some Wikipedians. Some just seem to go from article to article to slap on the warning boxes and take on the role of hall monitor/nanny. I suppose it's to be expected on a system with anonymity. In this case, I think the disparaging remarks about "tourist style" were directed mainly at the section on geography. I simply reworked the material that was already there and fleshed it out a bit so that people who know nothing about Holland at all (tourists even) would have something to read. Wikipedia is not just for historians. Schildewaert ( talk) 22:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've amended the article to reflect your concerns and to eliminate points in dispute. There were reasons for including those points but I don't disagree with your comments and the fact that they are in dispute is enough for me to edit them out. Perhaps somebody is willing to add a usage note on "Hollandic" and "Hollandish" but I can't bring myself to do it. I think the usage of "Hollandic" you describe is irregular, even in the context you describe. Only a few older English dictionaries even list the word. I haven't searched through the books carefully, but I don't think this construction is used by Price, Schama, and others. Perhaps I'm wrong though. I hesitate to add it here because of the popularity of google and the possibility that it will take hold the way that the adjectival use of "Netherlands" has taken hold. Schildewaert ( talk) 07:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just curious why there is no mention of Vrouw Holle here. She was a strongly admired goddess in this region, especially worshiped in hollow trees (or Holle trees, why not). It would be interesting to look into this connection a bit further. She was the godess of ALL, or better known as the goddess of birth, death and rebirt. Later only known as the goddess of the underworld and then often called Hell (really!) Besides, how much wood was there is these swamps of the 1st milenium anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.220.201 ( talk) 23:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
--- Well, of course scientists are great and all (meaning: I am one of them) but not perfect. And there is a long history of refusing to look to unwritten history or anything that is female or spiritual. Still, this question is out of historical interest, not religious or otherwise unscientific. What basis did they use to connect it to Holt and how certain are they? And my theory has little to do with Hel, as that is the northern name used for the same goddess, in Holland she was called Holle. (by the way, revered often in hollow trees (I call them Holle trees, which is proper dutch, without the capital) so there could be a link with the trees being called Holt as well) ---—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 3 comments:
1. I didn't know about the ~ thingies 2. There are published books about this, I am just not aware of any science on it. And I attributed hollow to holle, not the other way around 3. Holt and hout are just as different as hol and hout are. I am sure these scientist people used proper research, but I would like a reference to check that. That was the whole point of asking this question. Why holt and not something else? 4. dont take my jokes serious. 85.144.220.201 ( talk) 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
well, I think it is a good theory, she was worshipped as the main goddess in the area before the christians stopped it. You would pronounce Holleland as Holland. and it is not at all odd to name your country after what you believe in (like angel land, or england) I can't see the link with Holtland yet really, as you would probably sooner loose the l than the t, and havent seen many countries named after their vegetation. And besides, I don't trust scientific research, as I have seen too many scientists fumbling with data, so they got the result they could understand. And how many scientist would look at a Grimm story? Not many would know there is more than just a story. And it is not bad to know there are more theories and to think away of main stream. I would not suggest writing it down as a fact perhaps, but as a possible theory. This Holt theory to me just seems like people babbling after other people without thinking too much, just cause its common sense. 85.144.220.201 ( talk) 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
ok. it was still worth trying though :D
85.144.220.201 (
talk)
13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh? 'I speak Holland". Doesn't work. This statement is total nonsense. Holland is never used as the name of language in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.123.170 ( talk) 09:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm am L1 (native) speaker and a qualified English teacher. The sentence is as it stands total rubbish. The word Holland isn't the name of a language in English. You cannot say "He speaks Holland" any more than you can say "He speaks Germany". Holland is the name for a country not a language. THe English name for the language most commonly used is Dutch. P.S. It's best practice to get always ge a native speaker to check a text. 88.111.123.170
This whole article is full inaccuracy. You cannot say that the English word "Holland" is used incorrectly. Words in common usage are never "incorrect". They may betray their etymology.
The adjective for 'Holland' in English is 'Dutch'. You may not like that fact because you obviously have no serious understanding of linguistics. Much of what is written about English on this page is total fantasy at worst and POV at best. It reads like someone who has a bee in their bonnet that the word for their country in another language isn't to their liking, or that the writer fails to understand that English is not Dutch. 88.111.123.170
I've amended the text to try to make it clearer. Also, all of your points are dealt with in the article. Still, I'd like to comment further about this.
You said: "The word Holland isn't the name of a language in English. You cannot say "He speaks Holland" any more than you can say "He speaks Germany"."
You said: "Holland is the name for a country not a language."
You said: "The English name for the language most commonly used is Dutch."
You said: "You cannot say that the English word "Holland" is used incorrectly. Words in common usage are never "incorrect". They may betray their etymology."
You said: "The adjective for 'Holland' in English is 'Dutch'."
You said: "You may not like that fact...that English is not Dutch."
I don't want to get insulting, but you've pointed out that you are a qualified English teacher and master of linguistics. If you disagree with the explanation at the head of the article or the usage points, or anything, please feel free to make specific suggestions about what you think is incorrect. Perhaps you should support your view with references.
I must say that I would be in favour of folding this entire article down and redirecting people immediately to the Netherlands. Still, usage guidelines about the word "Holland" and a history of Holland as a county (hopefully better than what we have here so far) would still have to find a home somewhere.
Schildewaert ( talk) 23:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that many, many people are typing the word "Holland" into the search box and ending up at this page. The traffic and vandalism on the "Holland" page are indications of that. I'm sure that many of them think this is the "Netherlands" page.
The person who deleted the explanation at the top of the page has not addressed this issue. There is massive confusion about "Holland" and there should be a way to deal with it. This recent amendment will just add to the confusion.
At first I didn't like the extended explanation at the start of the page either, but after a while I realised that some more detailed explanation was necessary there. Indeed, I thought an explanation box with all the bells and whistles should be placed at the top of the page instead of what we had before. What we actually needed was a blinking red box that said "Stop. Go to the Netherlands". This one-liner surely does not do the job.
The problem with the one-line explanation is that it is surely going to lead to many people continuing to treat this page as the page for the Netherlands, thereby missing all the interesting information available on Wikipedia. Just read the comments above to see how completely confused English speakers (and perhaps others) can be about this issue.
I'm sorry, but I am going to put the explanation back.
I would like to propose another solution. Why not direct people who type "Holland" immediately to a disambiguation page? If that were the case, there would be no need for lengthy explanations on the Holland page itself. Notice that the links to other-language Wikipedias are directing people to the "Holland" disambiguation site. The first contact people have with "Holland" should be the disambiguation page, not a page dealing with the historical county of Holland.
And this page is a little contradictory. For example, the information at the end about "perceptions of Holland" belies the other information indicating that "there is no Holland any more". The "geography" and "regions" information reproduces the info found on the other pages for Netherlands, South Holland, North Holland, etc. The heading of this page could be changed to something like "County of Holland" so that it is clear that it is a history page.
On the Dutch site they deal with this with a separate page on "Hollandse identiteit". Perhaps that's needed here too.
Proposal:
1. "Holland (disambiguation)" --> "Holland" (This will direct everyone immediately to the disambig page.)
2. "Holland" --> "County of Holland" or the "Pre-1830 county of Holland" (On the Dutch wikipedia they have "Graafschap Holland".)
3. "County of Holland" (ie this page) be stripped of all non-historical information (including geography).
4. The regions of Holland part be split up and integrated into the pages on "South Holland" and "North Holland"
5. Create a separate page for "Origins and usage of the word Holland"
6. Create a separate page for "Holland's identity"
7. Amend the disambiguation page to record the above
Changing the names of the articles will create problems along the line with the links on other pages, but what other choice do we have? Mistakes were made in how these pages were named and organised. There is too much confusion about "Holland" for this to be the main point of entry.
Another issue: is there a "Holland" or is there not? Obviously there is still a ghost Holland out there. And this is not simply an erroneous reference to the Netherlands. People both inside and outside Holland still refer to "Holland" as a regional entity of some kind. This is not that unusual and exists in other countries as well. For example, "Normandy" no longer exists per se as an official entity, and yet it has an identity and people still refer to "Normandy". This is another issue that should be dealt with somehow, but I'm not sure how. Maybe under "Holland's identity"?
Schildewaert ( talk) 08:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
A recent edit by an unregistered user has reversed the sentence in the article about some Dutch people not appreciating the term Hollanders. This was done without comment. It used to say this:
"Indeed, many Dutch people would resent being referred to as "Hollanders" in the same way that many people from Scotland would resent being referred to as "English"."
Now it says this:
"However, not many Dutch people would resent being referred to as "Hollanders" in the way many people from Scotland would resent being referred to as "English", because informally all Dutchmen refer to themselves as "Hollanders", though it is not correct."
The author of this last edit feels that Dutch people have no problem referring to themselves as Hollanders. I realise that this is not a clear-cut issue, but it's too categorical to say that no one minds it. There are some who do. Many even. Perhaps even most in provinces like Limburg. See here for example:
http://www.nujij.nl/hollanders-zijn-botkoppen.1605137.lynkx
http://blog.zog.org/2007/05/hollanders.html
I propose dealing with this by taking out the entire sentence on the grounds that it is under dispute.
(What is it about this particular page???? Everything here seems to get vandalised or disputed at one point or another.)
Schildewaert ( talk) 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Three of us have expressly agreed that a change here is necessary. Ideally more discussion would have been preferred about changing this page, but there seems to be some consensus. And yet the problem is ongoing. The irregular traffic and constant vandalism and misunderstanding about the word "Holland" are still occurring. This seems to be generated mostly by the fact that this page is simply entitled "Holland". The word "Holland" attracts a good deal of misunderstanding and attention. The point of first contact should be a disambiguation page.
I propose making the changes identified above slowly and step by step, starting first with points 3 and 4. The idea here will be first of all to remove from this article anything that should properly go into the articles for the Netherlands, South Holland or North Holland.
Schildewaert ( talk) 07:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
So far no objections, so I assume the consensus is to proceed with the proposal described above. I've transferred the lists of regions to "North Holland" and "South Holland". The next step will be to integrate the sections on "Geography" and "Language" into the appropriate pages for the (Geography of the Netherlands, South Holland, North Holland, Hollandic, etc), if necessary simply deleting them (in whole or in part) if they are a complete duplication of information already found there. Schildewaert ( talk) 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again, this is the proposal:
1. turn this page into a redirect page, so that everyone who goes to "Holland" ends up at "Holland (disambiguation)" as the first point of contract
2. beef up "Holland (disambiguation" a touch
3. put the historical information found here on a new page called "County of Holland (before 1830)" or something to that effect
4. strip away that information (including language, geography and territory) that essentially
5. create a new page called "Holland (region)" for the remaining odds and ends relating to the concept of "Holland" as a modern region (including identity and pars pro toto issues)
Schildewaert ( talk) 22:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
difficult facts.-- MWAK ( talk) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else think the article reads more like a novel or something than an encyclopedia article?
"Each of the provinces in the Netherlands has a history that deserves full attention on its own. However, to a certain extent at least, the history of Holland is the history of the Netherlands, and vice versa. See the article on "History of the Netherlands" for a more detailed history. The article here focuses on those points that are specific to Holland itself or that highlight the nature of the role played by Holland in the Netherlands as a whole.
[Reclamation of the land
The land that is now Holland had never been stable. Historical maps of Holland bear little resemblance to the maps of today. Over the millennia the geography of the region had been dynamic. The western coastline shifted up to thirty kilometres to the east and storm surges regularly wreaked havoc with the coastline."
Holland should redirect to the Netherlands. Everyone I know, including Dutchmen themselves, call The Netherlands Holland and infact I did not even know Holland was a region before seeing this on Wikipedia. Holland should be a redirect with a notice put on the Netherlands page for a disambiguation. I guarantee 99.99% of people who search for 'Holland' on wikipedia are searching for the country and not the region!! -- The High Commander ( talk) 01:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The so-called stereotypes of the Holandic people does really not include the people of the provinces of Holland and Utrecht. Wooden shoes for example are very popular in the north(Groningen, Drenthe & Friesland) And many people there wear Clogs but in Holland its almost a kind of joke if someone would wear them when there isn't a football game/match. The stereotypes of Holland are true for the most parts of the Netherlands but not in Holland or Utrecht. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.154.25 ( talk) 18:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The article states a couple of times that the use of "Holland" to mean the whole Netherlands is informal in English. While I'm all for updating the English terminology, it's news to me that this use of "Holland" is "informal". Further, no citation is given for this claim. -- MQDuck ( talk) 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
It seems to me that a lot of this article (and a lot of this discussion page) talks about the confusion between the Netherlands and Holland. So why isn't there a separate page dealing exclusively with that? A link at the top of this page could then replace all this... rather hostile criticism of outsiders' confusions and Hollanders' smug acceptance of their position as the figureheads of the Netherlands with actual information about Holland, which is surely what this page should provide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.135.127 ( talk) 12:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It'll save a bunch of headaches on vandalism reverts, pretty much irrespective of who wins. JohannVII ( talk) 19:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I dispute this line in the intro: "This usage is generally accepted but nevertheless unofficial." The reference says this:
This does not say that the use of "Holland" is generally accepted. It says only that it is generally accepted that Holland is used in many different languages. Of course, that point is true. I generally accept that too! It does not make it right. Nor does it include Dutch, which is the primary language at issue here. The current sentence does not reflect what the reference actually says. But beyond that the primary point is that there are some Dutch people who do not like the use of Holland in this sense, so of course it should not appear in the first line of this article. My amendment was deleted by someone with the comment that it did not reflect the reference and shows POV. I admit it is grating to see, in the very first line of this article, that the use of Holland is "generally accepted". I do have that point of view. I also think it is poor style to include, in the opening line of an encyclopedia article, a contentious comment that is grating on some people. However, I'm willing to rely on the content of the reference, which says that is is not generally accepeted. Schildewaert ( talk) 20:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
When I lived in Holland (Den Haag) in the 1980s, I was told that Holland consists of what are now the three provinces of North Holland, South Holland and Utrecht. However, wikipedia only refers to two provinces. Can anybody throw light on why I may have been informed that Holland included Utrecht? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf ( talk) 08:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be added that English is in fact spoken in Amsterdam by some 100.000 inhabitants? I know English is only official in the municipalities of Saba and St. Eustatius and they are both not part of Holland, but English is (besides Dutch) part of everyday life in Amsterdam (much more than in the rest of NL) and Amsterdam *is* part of Holland. Pee-Tor ( talk) 22:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
As in a while now, the site 'minbuza.nl' has been moved to the Dutch site 'rijksoverheid.nl' and the English site 'government.nl'. This leads to that reference 5 is no longer a reference with any depth. I suggest to use the site reference 1 for the same part of reference 5 since it covers the same information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.213.0.223 ( talk) 19:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that "in principle anything in the lead section should be explained in the main text", and it does. However, it does not mean, that every single thing in the main text should be mentioned in the lead section. The idea in which a term for a part of something can sometimes refer to the whole of something can be understood by anyone without a "clever" Latin phrases. That is why I find "pars pro toto" unnecessary in the lead section. 85.193.202.107 ( talk) 14:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Though still popular with (pseudo!)scientists from Oxford, Cambridge, Leiden and other important universities all over the world, it is rather obvious as well as undeniable that the geographical name Holland is cognate to the geographical name Halland, a former Danish territory, nowadays part of Sweden. This Halland is neighboring on the main Danish island Sjælland or Zealand, with the Danish capital Copenhagen, whereas the Netherlandish province of Holland (nowadays North and South) is bordering on the province of Zeeland: the occurrence of the pairs Halland/Zealand and Holland/Zeeland is just too much of a coincidence. Therefore the names Holland and Zeeland must have been given by Danish Vikings. Amand Keultjes ( talk) 13:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure other Dutch people would agree that whenever we hear English-speaking people's confusion on this topic, we really want to try to clarify it as much as we can. And so I try. One thing I'd actually consider to be lacking is a better explanation of what it means to hear the word nowadays. We've made it clear that the word being used as the country's name is considered informal and somewhat inaccurate, and may be found undesirable by some (the oft-seen corrections online prove this), but what isn't made clear is that this is currently its only usage. Non-Dutch readers of this article may be misled into believing that the correct current definition of this term would be the region comprising South Holland and North Holland, but that definition has been obsolete for 177 years. In modern usage (and when not discussing history), virtually no one who says "Holland" will mean "South-Holland and North-Holland". Calling something "typisch Hollands" ("typically Hollandic") means something is typically Dutch and not typically North-South-Hollandic. Culturally, very few people in North and South Holland would consider the two to hold some kind of special connection. The only usage of "Hollands" I can think of where it almost unambiguously refers to the two provinces is linguistically, where the Hollandic dialect is often distinguished from regional ones. The crux here is that we stress how rare the meaning "North and South Holland" actually is and that the region has not been an official one for nearing 200 years. MWAK, you've been active. Thoughts?
Something else I've always noticed is that Flemish people tend to use "Holland" instead of "Nederland" in most cases; the Flemish article mentions this:
Strikt genoomn verwyst Holland allêne noa de westelikke provincies Nôord-Holland en Zuud-Holland, moa de benoamienge Olland wordt olhier gebruukt vo hêel 't land, dat eigentlik Nederland nomt (een zogenoamde pars pro toto). In sommigte gedêeltn van Holland keunn ze der nie mee lachn da je ze Hollanders nomt, lik in Nôord-Broabant, Limburg, Friesland en Groniengn byvôorbeeld.
Strictly speaking, Holland refers to just the western provinces of North Holland and South Holland, but the name Holland is used here for the entire country, which is actually called the Netherlands (a so-called pars pro toto). People in some parts of Holland, like in North Brabant, Limburg, Friesland and Groningen for example, won't be amused if you call them Hollanders.
This actually encapsulates our message excellently. While it's frowned upon by some, others do it without second thought. And there are many cases (e.g. football, folk songs, proverbs, chants) where its usage is unambiguous. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 22:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Since yesterday an anon editor has been adding the following statement repeatedly.
This statement is seriously problematic in my view because (1)
WP:V it is unsourced (2) it violates
WP:NPOV most clearly in the word "oppressing" (3) It is off topic
WP:TOPIC as this article is not about all Dutch provinces, nor it is on the Dutch revolt.
In addition, the traditional view that the Dutch revolt was solely a religious conflict (as implied in the edit summary) is no longer mainstream as economic (tax, trade limitations) and other issues are nowadays considered essential to the conflict. In spite of my request to do so, the anon editor has not given any additional information nor come here to talk. Arnoutf ( talk) 07:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
It is also factually incorrect: at the time the southern provinces were more protestant :o).-- MWAK ( talk) 10:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The heading of the page says that "Holland is a region and former province on the western coast of the Netherlands. The name Holland is also frequently used informally to refer to the whole of the country of the Netherlands". This implies that Holland formally means "North Holland and South Holland" (or the area of the former County of Holland), and informally means "the Netherlands". However, I can't find any reliable source that confirms this. It rather seems that Holland is an informal region in the western Netherlands, thus both uses of the name "Holland" are informal. If so, the text should be edited so that it doesn't seem to suggest that one meaning is more formal than the other. Z28G ( talk) 18:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
|
In the sport of cricket, the Dutch team refers to itself as "Holland". Here is a picture of a Dutch player at the 2005 ICC Trophy competition, showing clearly the team name on his shirt. [1] I suppose this is similar to the fact that Welsh cricketers play for England. (Also mentioned on Talk:Netherlands.)
I'm removing this as it should be in the Netherlands article not the Holland article. Arthur Holland 08:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Whether Holland is the same as The Netherlands depends on who you ask. It's based on cultural and lingual differences. I'm Dutch and I live in the provice Overijssel. I've done some research about this and many old documents and maps from centuries ago are showing "Holland" as the entire country. I have also done some research on "Holland" being an official region of some sort, but I cannot find any. Official government resources don't mention Holland as a region anywhere. Therefor I'm questioning if Holland as a region is a fact, or an opinion. We have to either provide facts and sources to prove that Holland is officially recognized as a region within The Netherlands, or change the article to make it clear that some people consider Holland a region, while others don't. We have to be careful with some hardcore believers who are discrediting the neutrality of this article by adding or reverting edits without providing facts and sources. - Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasLobker ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am coming from Czechia (Czech Republic), in Dutch language it means Tsjechië or Tsjechische Republiek. Many Czechs call our country simply Čechy, however this name covers only the historical land Bohemia and not the whole Czechia. Nearly all Czechs call the Netherlands/Nederland simply Holandsko = Holland, but the correct name would be Nizozemsko or Nizozemí = Nederland.
I talked to a guy from Holland. He call it Holland not Netherlands. My self I'm from Denmark, and nothing is called Netherlands or something related to that. The name of the country in Danish is Holland the same with Norwegian and Swedish. I have always thought that its only in English its called Netherlands. -- Arigato1 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
A few centuries ago the current Netherlands formed a republic with Belgium and Luxembourg. After Belgium and the current Netherlands split up we started calling our country Netherland which means literally low land (the western part of the Netherlands lies below sealevel). For some strange reason other countries still call our country the Netherlands in stead of Netherland. The only correct name would be Netherland (since we are not a republic any more with Belgium and we are a single country) but since nobody uses it it doesn't exist. Strange. 193.190.253.148 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
-- 86.92.83.98 ( talk) 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
In Hebrew, for example, the only name for the country is Holland. But maybe it's a bad example since there are countries with completely unrelated names in Hebrew (France=Tzarfat, Spain=Sfarad) 87.68.71.10 ( talk) 13:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to add this remark only now, four years after this discussion took place, but there is one thing that people seemingly fail to understand. Not the entire Netherlands is Holland and as such, the terms "The Netherlands" and "Holland" are not interchangable, but that does not change the fact that there is a region called Holland. Therefore, I am from Holland or I live in Holland isn't necessarily wrong. I myself, for example, am from Holland (to be precise from South-Holland and to be more precise from Katwijk). So a Dutchman talking about Holland isn't necessarily using the wrong term. In Dutch, I would rather say I am from the Randstad, but as that term doesn't really have a proper English translation, I often use "Holland" instead. For my current place of residence, I use "the Netherlands", not Holland (I live in Limburg nowadays). PPP ( talk) 23:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
If this article is about Holland, then why is the exact same map of The Netherlands (from the article on The Netherlands) showing all of the other pronvinces/regions, without any highlight/focus on North Holland and South Holland? I suggest someone find or create map similar to those that are entirely gray save for the area discussed. The map used in the Bretagne article could make a good model. CJ Withers 13:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be very interesting to show maps of the county of Holland around the 16th century, before the construction of the polders and the struggle against water. Furthermore a map of the Netherlands from before the 12th century would also be very interesting, because it shows that before the major inundations by the North Sea resulting in the Zuiderzee, nowadays IJsselmeer, Holland and Friesland were seperated by a rather connection between Lake Flevo and North Sea. Unfortunately, I don't know how to obtain such maps.
The primary definition of the word holland is an abbreviated form of "holy land."
It has also been used by a country in northern Europe called Holland.
Additionally, the word is used as a name for a type of cloth.
From the article:
I don't think you can possibly ultimately stem from something ... you either utlimately stem, or possibly stem but not both. That's like saying some thing is "possibly absolutely" certain ...
Anyone know whether to take that seriously? It is also present in the Uncyclopedia, but nowhere else - I Googled it. Remove? -- Mirithing 12:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
It says "More recent territorial changes are the transfer of Oudewater, Woerden and Vianen from South Holland to the province of Utrecht, in 1600, 1989 and 2002 respectively." This is unfortunately not true, I think. These villages, Woerden and Vianen I'm certain about, were Utrecht villages all along, so no transfer in recent history. Please give factual information.
The article is stating that the region Holland is populated by 16,7 million inhabitants, while the population of The Netherlands is, at most, 16,6 million. I'm going to add up the population of the provinces North- and South-Holland to each other and take that as the population for the region.- 83.117.225.78 15:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope I won't be treading on any toes, but it is clear that this article desperately needs substantial editing (without necessarily changing the subject matter).
I am willing to spend the time to bring this article to a higher level. I hope it doesn't create conflict with the original author(s). I'm sure you'll be pleased with the result. Schildewaert ( talk) 07:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I don't agree with any of your comments of course. The style is fine for an article of this nature. This article (like the current article on "History of the Netherlands") was in a dreadful state. I don't agree with your comments on the number of chapters and the adjectival use of "Hollandic". My comment about this is perfectly correct. "Hollandic" is used in a few very limited situations and should not be adopted by anyone as a translation for "Hollands". I'm not prepared to hear my aunt talk about her "Hollandic vacation"! Also, this is not an article on the "history" of Holland per se. I think that the historical references should all be taken out, although I've done my best to try to give it some meaning in this context. Many thousands of Dutch people will visit this site to see how to translate "Hollands" into English. Schildewaert ( talk) 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback Arnoutf. I included the list because I noticed immediately that this aspect of "Holland" was simply not well covered on the English Wikipedia. Nothing on Bollenstreek, Noorderkwartier, Het Gooi, and so on. I don't mind if this info is split off, but what you call it? Regions of Holland?
I have noticed that there seems to be a lot of heavy-handedness on the part of some Wikipedians. Some just seem to go from article to article to slap on the warning boxes and take on the role of hall monitor/nanny. I suppose it's to be expected on a system with anonymity. In this case, I think the disparaging remarks about "tourist style" were directed mainly at the section on geography. I simply reworked the material that was already there and fleshed it out a bit so that people who know nothing about Holland at all (tourists even) would have something to read. Wikipedia is not just for historians. Schildewaert ( talk) 22:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've amended the article to reflect your concerns and to eliminate points in dispute. There were reasons for including those points but I don't disagree with your comments and the fact that they are in dispute is enough for me to edit them out. Perhaps somebody is willing to add a usage note on "Hollandic" and "Hollandish" but I can't bring myself to do it. I think the usage of "Hollandic" you describe is irregular, even in the context you describe. Only a few older English dictionaries even list the word. I haven't searched through the books carefully, but I don't think this construction is used by Price, Schama, and others. Perhaps I'm wrong though. I hesitate to add it here because of the popularity of google and the possibility that it will take hold the way that the adjectival use of "Netherlands" has taken hold. Schildewaert ( talk) 07:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just curious why there is no mention of Vrouw Holle here. She was a strongly admired goddess in this region, especially worshiped in hollow trees (or Holle trees, why not). It would be interesting to look into this connection a bit further. She was the godess of ALL, or better known as the goddess of birth, death and rebirt. Later only known as the goddess of the underworld and then often called Hell (really!) Besides, how much wood was there is these swamps of the 1st milenium anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.220.201 ( talk) 23:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
--- Well, of course scientists are great and all (meaning: I am one of them) but not perfect. And there is a long history of refusing to look to unwritten history or anything that is female or spiritual. Still, this question is out of historical interest, not religious or otherwise unscientific. What basis did they use to connect it to Holt and how certain are they? And my theory has little to do with Hel, as that is the northern name used for the same goddess, in Holland she was called Holle. (by the way, revered often in hollow trees (I call them Holle trees, which is proper dutch, without the capital) so there could be a link with the trees being called Holt as well) ---—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 3 comments:
1. I didn't know about the ~ thingies 2. There are published books about this, I am just not aware of any science on it. And I attributed hollow to holle, not the other way around 3. Holt and hout are just as different as hol and hout are. I am sure these scientist people used proper research, but I would like a reference to check that. That was the whole point of asking this question. Why holt and not something else? 4. dont take my jokes serious. 85.144.220.201 ( talk) 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
well, I think it is a good theory, she was worshipped as the main goddess in the area before the christians stopped it. You would pronounce Holleland as Holland. and it is not at all odd to name your country after what you believe in (like angel land, or england) I can't see the link with Holtland yet really, as you would probably sooner loose the l than the t, and havent seen many countries named after their vegetation. And besides, I don't trust scientific research, as I have seen too many scientists fumbling with data, so they got the result they could understand. And how many scientist would look at a Grimm story? Not many would know there is more than just a story. And it is not bad to know there are more theories and to think away of main stream. I would not suggest writing it down as a fact perhaps, but as a possible theory. This Holt theory to me just seems like people babbling after other people without thinking too much, just cause its common sense. 85.144.220.201 ( talk) 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
ok. it was still worth trying though :D
85.144.220.201 (
talk)
13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh? 'I speak Holland". Doesn't work. This statement is total nonsense. Holland is never used as the name of language in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.123.170 ( talk) 09:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm am L1 (native) speaker and a qualified English teacher. The sentence is as it stands total rubbish. The word Holland isn't the name of a language in English. You cannot say "He speaks Holland" any more than you can say "He speaks Germany". Holland is the name for a country not a language. THe English name for the language most commonly used is Dutch. P.S. It's best practice to get always ge a native speaker to check a text. 88.111.123.170
This whole article is full inaccuracy. You cannot say that the English word "Holland" is used incorrectly. Words in common usage are never "incorrect". They may betray their etymology.
The adjective for 'Holland' in English is 'Dutch'. You may not like that fact because you obviously have no serious understanding of linguistics. Much of what is written about English on this page is total fantasy at worst and POV at best. It reads like someone who has a bee in their bonnet that the word for their country in another language isn't to their liking, or that the writer fails to understand that English is not Dutch. 88.111.123.170
I've amended the text to try to make it clearer. Also, all of your points are dealt with in the article. Still, I'd like to comment further about this.
You said: "The word Holland isn't the name of a language in English. You cannot say "He speaks Holland" any more than you can say "He speaks Germany"."
You said: "Holland is the name for a country not a language."
You said: "The English name for the language most commonly used is Dutch."
You said: "You cannot say that the English word "Holland" is used incorrectly. Words in common usage are never "incorrect". They may betray their etymology."
You said: "The adjective for 'Holland' in English is 'Dutch'."
You said: "You may not like that fact...that English is not Dutch."
I don't want to get insulting, but you've pointed out that you are a qualified English teacher and master of linguistics. If you disagree with the explanation at the head of the article or the usage points, or anything, please feel free to make specific suggestions about what you think is incorrect. Perhaps you should support your view with references.
I must say that I would be in favour of folding this entire article down and redirecting people immediately to the Netherlands. Still, usage guidelines about the word "Holland" and a history of Holland as a county (hopefully better than what we have here so far) would still have to find a home somewhere.
Schildewaert ( talk) 23:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that many, many people are typing the word "Holland" into the search box and ending up at this page. The traffic and vandalism on the "Holland" page are indications of that. I'm sure that many of them think this is the "Netherlands" page.
The person who deleted the explanation at the top of the page has not addressed this issue. There is massive confusion about "Holland" and there should be a way to deal with it. This recent amendment will just add to the confusion.
At first I didn't like the extended explanation at the start of the page either, but after a while I realised that some more detailed explanation was necessary there. Indeed, I thought an explanation box with all the bells and whistles should be placed at the top of the page instead of what we had before. What we actually needed was a blinking red box that said "Stop. Go to the Netherlands". This one-liner surely does not do the job.
The problem with the one-line explanation is that it is surely going to lead to many people continuing to treat this page as the page for the Netherlands, thereby missing all the interesting information available on Wikipedia. Just read the comments above to see how completely confused English speakers (and perhaps others) can be about this issue.
I'm sorry, but I am going to put the explanation back.
I would like to propose another solution. Why not direct people who type "Holland" immediately to a disambiguation page? If that were the case, there would be no need for lengthy explanations on the Holland page itself. Notice that the links to other-language Wikipedias are directing people to the "Holland" disambiguation site. The first contact people have with "Holland" should be the disambiguation page, not a page dealing with the historical county of Holland.
And this page is a little contradictory. For example, the information at the end about "perceptions of Holland" belies the other information indicating that "there is no Holland any more". The "geography" and "regions" information reproduces the info found on the other pages for Netherlands, South Holland, North Holland, etc. The heading of this page could be changed to something like "County of Holland" so that it is clear that it is a history page.
On the Dutch site they deal with this with a separate page on "Hollandse identiteit". Perhaps that's needed here too.
Proposal:
1. "Holland (disambiguation)" --> "Holland" (This will direct everyone immediately to the disambig page.)
2. "Holland" --> "County of Holland" or the "Pre-1830 county of Holland" (On the Dutch wikipedia they have "Graafschap Holland".)
3. "County of Holland" (ie this page) be stripped of all non-historical information (including geography).
4. The regions of Holland part be split up and integrated into the pages on "South Holland" and "North Holland"
5. Create a separate page for "Origins and usage of the word Holland"
6. Create a separate page for "Holland's identity"
7. Amend the disambiguation page to record the above
Changing the names of the articles will create problems along the line with the links on other pages, but what other choice do we have? Mistakes were made in how these pages were named and organised. There is too much confusion about "Holland" for this to be the main point of entry.
Another issue: is there a "Holland" or is there not? Obviously there is still a ghost Holland out there. And this is not simply an erroneous reference to the Netherlands. People both inside and outside Holland still refer to "Holland" as a regional entity of some kind. This is not that unusual and exists in other countries as well. For example, "Normandy" no longer exists per se as an official entity, and yet it has an identity and people still refer to "Normandy". This is another issue that should be dealt with somehow, but I'm not sure how. Maybe under "Holland's identity"?
Schildewaert ( talk) 08:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
A recent edit by an unregistered user has reversed the sentence in the article about some Dutch people not appreciating the term Hollanders. This was done without comment. It used to say this:
"Indeed, many Dutch people would resent being referred to as "Hollanders" in the same way that many people from Scotland would resent being referred to as "English"."
Now it says this:
"However, not many Dutch people would resent being referred to as "Hollanders" in the way many people from Scotland would resent being referred to as "English", because informally all Dutchmen refer to themselves as "Hollanders", though it is not correct."
The author of this last edit feels that Dutch people have no problem referring to themselves as Hollanders. I realise that this is not a clear-cut issue, but it's too categorical to say that no one minds it. There are some who do. Many even. Perhaps even most in provinces like Limburg. See here for example:
http://www.nujij.nl/hollanders-zijn-botkoppen.1605137.lynkx
http://blog.zog.org/2007/05/hollanders.html
I propose dealing with this by taking out the entire sentence on the grounds that it is under dispute.
(What is it about this particular page???? Everything here seems to get vandalised or disputed at one point or another.)
Schildewaert ( talk) 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Three of us have expressly agreed that a change here is necessary. Ideally more discussion would have been preferred about changing this page, but there seems to be some consensus. And yet the problem is ongoing. The irregular traffic and constant vandalism and misunderstanding about the word "Holland" are still occurring. This seems to be generated mostly by the fact that this page is simply entitled "Holland". The word "Holland" attracts a good deal of misunderstanding and attention. The point of first contact should be a disambiguation page.
I propose making the changes identified above slowly and step by step, starting first with points 3 and 4. The idea here will be first of all to remove from this article anything that should properly go into the articles for the Netherlands, South Holland or North Holland.
Schildewaert ( talk) 07:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
So far no objections, so I assume the consensus is to proceed with the proposal described above. I've transferred the lists of regions to "North Holland" and "South Holland". The next step will be to integrate the sections on "Geography" and "Language" into the appropriate pages for the (Geography of the Netherlands, South Holland, North Holland, Hollandic, etc), if necessary simply deleting them (in whole or in part) if they are a complete duplication of information already found there. Schildewaert ( talk) 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again, this is the proposal:
1. turn this page into a redirect page, so that everyone who goes to "Holland" ends up at "Holland (disambiguation)" as the first point of contract
2. beef up "Holland (disambiguation" a touch
3. put the historical information found here on a new page called "County of Holland (before 1830)" or something to that effect
4. strip away that information (including language, geography and territory) that essentially
5. create a new page called "Holland (region)" for the remaining odds and ends relating to the concept of "Holland" as a modern region (including identity and pars pro toto issues)
Schildewaert ( talk) 22:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
difficult facts.-- MWAK ( talk) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else think the article reads more like a novel or something than an encyclopedia article?
"Each of the provinces in the Netherlands has a history that deserves full attention on its own. However, to a certain extent at least, the history of Holland is the history of the Netherlands, and vice versa. See the article on "History of the Netherlands" for a more detailed history. The article here focuses on those points that are specific to Holland itself or that highlight the nature of the role played by Holland in the Netherlands as a whole.
[Reclamation of the land
The land that is now Holland had never been stable. Historical maps of Holland bear little resemblance to the maps of today. Over the millennia the geography of the region had been dynamic. The western coastline shifted up to thirty kilometres to the east and storm surges regularly wreaked havoc with the coastline."
Holland should redirect to the Netherlands. Everyone I know, including Dutchmen themselves, call The Netherlands Holland and infact I did not even know Holland was a region before seeing this on Wikipedia. Holland should be a redirect with a notice put on the Netherlands page for a disambiguation. I guarantee 99.99% of people who search for 'Holland' on wikipedia are searching for the country and not the region!! -- The High Commander ( talk) 01:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The so-called stereotypes of the Holandic people does really not include the people of the provinces of Holland and Utrecht. Wooden shoes for example are very popular in the north(Groningen, Drenthe & Friesland) And many people there wear Clogs but in Holland its almost a kind of joke if someone would wear them when there isn't a football game/match. The stereotypes of Holland are true for the most parts of the Netherlands but not in Holland or Utrecht. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.154.25 ( talk) 18:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The article states a couple of times that the use of "Holland" to mean the whole Netherlands is informal in English. While I'm all for updating the English terminology, it's news to me that this use of "Holland" is "informal". Further, no citation is given for this claim. -- MQDuck ( talk) 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
It seems to me that a lot of this article (and a lot of this discussion page) talks about the confusion between the Netherlands and Holland. So why isn't there a separate page dealing exclusively with that? A link at the top of this page could then replace all this... rather hostile criticism of outsiders' confusions and Hollanders' smug acceptance of their position as the figureheads of the Netherlands with actual information about Holland, which is surely what this page should provide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.135.127 ( talk) 12:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It'll save a bunch of headaches on vandalism reverts, pretty much irrespective of who wins. JohannVII ( talk) 19:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I dispute this line in the intro: "This usage is generally accepted but nevertheless unofficial." The reference says this:
This does not say that the use of "Holland" is generally accepted. It says only that it is generally accepted that Holland is used in many different languages. Of course, that point is true. I generally accept that too! It does not make it right. Nor does it include Dutch, which is the primary language at issue here. The current sentence does not reflect what the reference actually says. But beyond that the primary point is that there are some Dutch people who do not like the use of Holland in this sense, so of course it should not appear in the first line of this article. My amendment was deleted by someone with the comment that it did not reflect the reference and shows POV. I admit it is grating to see, in the very first line of this article, that the use of Holland is "generally accepted". I do have that point of view. I also think it is poor style to include, in the opening line of an encyclopedia article, a contentious comment that is grating on some people. However, I'm willing to rely on the content of the reference, which says that is is not generally accepeted. Schildewaert ( talk) 20:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
When I lived in Holland (Den Haag) in the 1980s, I was told that Holland consists of what are now the three provinces of North Holland, South Holland and Utrecht. However, wikipedia only refers to two provinces. Can anybody throw light on why I may have been informed that Holland included Utrecht? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf ( talk) 08:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be added that English is in fact spoken in Amsterdam by some 100.000 inhabitants? I know English is only official in the municipalities of Saba and St. Eustatius and they are both not part of Holland, but English is (besides Dutch) part of everyday life in Amsterdam (much more than in the rest of NL) and Amsterdam *is* part of Holland. Pee-Tor ( talk) 22:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
As in a while now, the site 'minbuza.nl' has been moved to the Dutch site 'rijksoverheid.nl' and the English site 'government.nl'. This leads to that reference 5 is no longer a reference with any depth. I suggest to use the site reference 1 for the same part of reference 5 since it covers the same information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.213.0.223 ( talk) 19:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that "in principle anything in the lead section should be explained in the main text", and it does. However, it does not mean, that every single thing in the main text should be mentioned in the lead section. The idea in which a term for a part of something can sometimes refer to the whole of something can be understood by anyone without a "clever" Latin phrases. That is why I find "pars pro toto" unnecessary in the lead section. 85.193.202.107 ( talk) 14:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Though still popular with (pseudo!)scientists from Oxford, Cambridge, Leiden and other important universities all over the world, it is rather obvious as well as undeniable that the geographical name Holland is cognate to the geographical name Halland, a former Danish territory, nowadays part of Sweden. This Halland is neighboring on the main Danish island Sjælland or Zealand, with the Danish capital Copenhagen, whereas the Netherlandish province of Holland (nowadays North and South) is bordering on the province of Zeeland: the occurrence of the pairs Halland/Zealand and Holland/Zeeland is just too much of a coincidence. Therefore the names Holland and Zeeland must have been given by Danish Vikings. Amand Keultjes ( talk) 13:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure other Dutch people would agree that whenever we hear English-speaking people's confusion on this topic, we really want to try to clarify it as much as we can. And so I try. One thing I'd actually consider to be lacking is a better explanation of what it means to hear the word nowadays. We've made it clear that the word being used as the country's name is considered informal and somewhat inaccurate, and may be found undesirable by some (the oft-seen corrections online prove this), but what isn't made clear is that this is currently its only usage. Non-Dutch readers of this article may be misled into believing that the correct current definition of this term would be the region comprising South Holland and North Holland, but that definition has been obsolete for 177 years. In modern usage (and when not discussing history), virtually no one who says "Holland" will mean "South-Holland and North-Holland". Calling something "typisch Hollands" ("typically Hollandic") means something is typically Dutch and not typically North-South-Hollandic. Culturally, very few people in North and South Holland would consider the two to hold some kind of special connection. The only usage of "Hollands" I can think of where it almost unambiguously refers to the two provinces is linguistically, where the Hollandic dialect is often distinguished from regional ones. The crux here is that we stress how rare the meaning "North and South Holland" actually is and that the region has not been an official one for nearing 200 years. MWAK, you've been active. Thoughts?
Something else I've always noticed is that Flemish people tend to use "Holland" instead of "Nederland" in most cases; the Flemish article mentions this:
Strikt genoomn verwyst Holland allêne noa de westelikke provincies Nôord-Holland en Zuud-Holland, moa de benoamienge Olland wordt olhier gebruukt vo hêel 't land, dat eigentlik Nederland nomt (een zogenoamde pars pro toto). In sommigte gedêeltn van Holland keunn ze der nie mee lachn da je ze Hollanders nomt, lik in Nôord-Broabant, Limburg, Friesland en Groniengn byvôorbeeld.
Strictly speaking, Holland refers to just the western provinces of North Holland and South Holland, but the name Holland is used here for the entire country, which is actually called the Netherlands (a so-called pars pro toto). People in some parts of Holland, like in North Brabant, Limburg, Friesland and Groningen for example, won't be amused if you call them Hollanders.
This actually encapsulates our message excellently. While it's frowned upon by some, others do it without second thought. And there are many cases (e.g. football, folk songs, proverbs, chants) where its usage is unambiguous. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 22:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Since yesterday an anon editor has been adding the following statement repeatedly.
This statement is seriously problematic in my view because (1)
WP:V it is unsourced (2) it violates
WP:NPOV most clearly in the word "oppressing" (3) It is off topic
WP:TOPIC as this article is not about all Dutch provinces, nor it is on the Dutch revolt.
In addition, the traditional view that the Dutch revolt was solely a religious conflict (as implied in the edit summary) is no longer mainstream as economic (tax, trade limitations) and other issues are nowadays considered essential to the conflict. In spite of my request to do so, the anon editor has not given any additional information nor come here to talk. Arnoutf ( talk) 07:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
It is also factually incorrect: at the time the southern provinces were more protestant :o).-- MWAK ( talk) 10:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The heading of the page says that "Holland is a region and former province on the western coast of the Netherlands. The name Holland is also frequently used informally to refer to the whole of the country of the Netherlands". This implies that Holland formally means "North Holland and South Holland" (or the area of the former County of Holland), and informally means "the Netherlands". However, I can't find any reliable source that confirms this. It rather seems that Holland is an informal region in the western Netherlands, thus both uses of the name "Holland" are informal. If so, the text should be edited so that it doesn't seem to suggest that one meaning is more formal than the other. Z28G ( talk) 18:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)