![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
"The Netherlands is often called Holland. This is formally incorrect as North and South Holland in the western Netherlands are only two of the country's twelve provinces. For more on this and other naming issues see terminology of the Netherlands."
I don't think this is true. While it's indeed true that Holland refers to the two provinces north- and south-holland, officially it can also refer to the Netherlands. It says so on dictionary.com [1] as well as in the dutch dictionary [2]. The title of this article should have a reference to this widely used alternative name, and certainly not say that it's "formally incorrect". - PietervHuis ( talk) 18:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I added some info to the Demographic / Life expectancy part of the article. Living to 77 (M) or 82 (F) years is only one side of the picture, first you have to survive birth and the the first year to do that. That is where Holland is LAST, highest birth death rate and most miscarriages in the whole civilized Europe. In fact there is the parlamentary comittee set up to investigate this ongoing tragedy and its findings include a totally inhumane medical system, which does not want to see the pregnant women in the first place and throws out new mothers just two hours after the act.
Of course like most countries do, Netherland still manages to create nice looking longevity figures, because they refuse to include babies who die before reaching their first birthday, so barebone maternity wards do not hinder the sunny picture.
[ In contrast, here in ex-communist Hungary the hospitals are often in bad shape with regards to renovation or amenities, but pregnant women spend about half of their 9 months waiting for a huge series of state-funded medical inspections and doctors usually treat the expecing women like military subordinates, they literally order them what they can and cannot do for the greater good of the baby. Giving birth is always administered by a doctor, not a nurse and they usually keep mother and baby locked up in the hospital for 3-5 days even if every check shows nominal. This is a burden on the national budget, yes, but our infant mortality figures are good.
Sorrowfully the current hungarian gov't is in the process of demolishing the state-run monolithic healthcare infrastructure and they often quote the dutch medical system as a desired example. Our current health minister Agnes "Malacka" Horvath is supposed to have spent a lot of time in Holland and adores what she saw. I also heard of other countries' governments verbosely point to the ducth medical system, when proposing their own hospital privatization "reforms".
Therefore it is of great importance that wikipedia articles give both bright and dark side balanced information about the dutch life expectancy and healthcare situation, so net-surfing people of the world can evaluate themselves, if the often-quoted dutch role model of healthcare (or lack of, thereof) is really as desirable as currently advertised by many governments. 82.131.210.162 ( talk) 18:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html states that The Netherlands ranks 198 out of 224 listed countries on the area of death rates, meaning the Netherlands has a very low infant mortality rate (4.73/1000) 62.163.165.29 ( talk) 21:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Netherlands!!! I have something that may interest contributers for this page. In a nut shell, it allows the option to display two maps in your info box, one could be a close up of the Netherlands, and another would be the the Netherlands in a wider European or EU context. This is an example that was being discussed on Scotland's talk page (though I think they have rejected a two map option). Prior to now no one knew that you could have two maps displayed in the info box. For 'smallish' counties the benifits are easy to graps, an up-close view of the country, and a wider contextual visualisation of the country. Dydd da!!
PS: This is an example from the Scotland page, please do not be offended that I display the Scotland info box here. It is only ment as an example.
Nice idea, but imho the infobox is already way too big and adding a second map is going to make it only worse. So I don't see the advantage; but that is my opinion. Arnoutf ( talk) 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The new map is kinda wrong, someone updated it to include montenegro, but the colours changed, no big problem. However, this map doesn't even show Flevoland, which is also lacking on the map used to indicate other countries. - PietervHuis ( talk) 21:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Janneman ( talk) 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if somebody has just added this as vandalism and it hasn't been dealt with yet, but to display this in the intro "the country is more recently known for its rather liberal policies toward recreational drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia". Seems to be an incredibly unfair overview of the entire country by portraying it all as some kind of Sodom and Gomorrah. Shouldn't this belong in the "politics" section rather than the intro of a serious article on a nation? - Gennarous ( talk) 18:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Violating WP: BOLD, I would like to make this proposition first here on the talk page. That is, substitute the left image by the right one. My motivation concerns primarily aesthetics. In terms of content, one might appreciate the fact that the right map displays, in a moderate way, more geographical features. Tomeasy talk 00:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I browsed through pages of discussion in the last days and saw hundreds of valid arguments for and against each version. I also saw other versions, like Solbergs svg maps, that apparently did not make it on one of the articles, although they had their advantages too. Having read all this, I conclude it is an illusion to achieve consistency for the whole of Europe. After all, it's a debate containing so many arguments that in the end it becomes simply a matter of choice and taste. So, I simply say that I like the orange map more. At the same time, I appreciate that there is no rationale to impose one or the other. That means, as long as I appear the only one with this feeling there is no further need for discussion and the existing version should just stay. @Arnoutf: Did you realize that the orange map is a Mercator projection--the same projection that you have been fighting for so perseveringly on EU? As a matter of consequence Sweden shows relatively large and therefore reveals more details ;-) Tomeasy talk 13:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I put back the old map, until an better version of the 'green' map is made. Using a map that misses an entire province is just not aceceptable. It is the same as arguing that a map that depicts the location of the USA but misses Florida is acceptable. MartV ( talk) 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I am quite unhappy with the paragraph on geography in the lead section. Currently we have:
The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying remarkably flat country. Hilly landscapes can be found only in the south–eastern tip of the country on the foothills of the Ardennes, the central part and where the glaciers pushed up several hilly ridges such as the Hondsrug in Drenthe, the stuwwallen (push moraines) near Arnhem and Nijmegen, Salland, Twente and the Utrechtse Heuvelrug.
Stylistically the second sentence is a nightmare and content wise it does not make much sense. Sure, flatness is remarkable. But why then do we talk endlessly about the exceptions to this flatness. And honestly, are those exceptions worth mention. I mean with a max altitude of <25m the Hondsrug does not even qualify for that.
Instead, I would propose to write about evidences for the flatness and geographical features apart from the topography. What do you think? Does anyone have concrete ideas what could be written? Tomeasy T C 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country. Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills of the Ardennes in the far south–eastern part of the country (the most prominent hills) and several low hill-ranges in the central parts where ice-age glaciers created several ridges (in Dutch: rug), such as the Hondsrug in Drenthe, the stuwwallen (push moraines) near Arnhem and Nijmegen, the Sallandse Heuvelrug, and the Utrechtse Heuvelrug.
Arnoutf ( talk) 12:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. What I find extremely remarkable is that the country lies very low, and then its flatness. The several ridges are less remarkable and do not qualify for the lead IMO. So I would change your proposition to:
The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country, with two third of its surface below sea level. citation needed Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills of the Ardennes in the far south–east and several low hill-ranges in the central parts where ice-age glaciers created several ridges. [Certainly talk about polders, and probably about rivers, dams and dikes (which can then be removed from the curiosity paragraph)].
What do you think? Tomeasy T C 12:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country, with two third of its surface below sea level. citation needed The Netherlands are this low-lying because much of the land is the result of land-reclamation, and is being kept dry through an elaborate systems of polders and dikes. Much of the Netherlands is formed by the estuary of three important European rivers, which together with their distributaries form the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta. Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills of the Ardennes in the far south–east and several low hill-ranges in the central parts where ice-age glaciers created several ridges.
- It is adraft of course, so feel free to comment. Arnoutf ( talk) 13:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Great draft, I would say. I just fill in the citation, adjust the statement accordingly, and cut some (redundant) parts of the following and the last sentence:
The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country, with about 60% of its population living below sea level. [1] These areas are gained through land reclamation and preserved through an elaborate systems of polders and dikes. Much of the Netherlands is formed by the estuary of three important European rivers, which together with their distributaries form the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta. Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills of the Ardennes in the far south–east and several low-hill ranges in the central parts created by ice-age glaciers.
I hope the reference qualifies for usage. Searching for a reference, I found that the reported fraction below sea level can vary quite significantly so I think we are on the safer (and more impressive) side with a statement on the population fraction. Tomeasy T C 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
[unindent] Going through the sources
AREA
POPULATION
Taken together I would take Britannica for area and the Nature one for population (if that is what they report). Arnoutf ( talk) 13:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I do not really see how these mostly interactive links can help us. Even if we assume they are reliable, it would still take original research to derive a percentage. Dutch wiki does not qualify anyway and rather reflects that the issue is not glass clear. The last reference adds to a long list of already collected references with different figures.
I have downloaded the nature article and there is no hidden qualifyer. The passage says:
Sixty percent of the Netherlands territory is located below sea level and 70% of the gross national product is earned in these floodprone areas. So it is quite likely that the Netherlands will be confronted with several effects of climate change, including increased risk of flooding and more frequent summer droughts.
Since the article is a publication on the topic in the most renowned scientific journal, I think we are on very safe grounds using it, even though I personally think that the figure is too high. So, I will change the text according to the nature article, if you agree. Tomeasy T C 11:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
NASA satellite images with height information are in the public domain. Deriving the percentage of land below sea level from these would fall under the "clear mathematical deduction" exemption to WP:OR. User:Krator ( t c) 11:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I am convinced that the 27% area 60% pop. fraction reported by the source which is currently cited are very good estimates. However, the quality of the source is challenged and I agree to this challenge. Now, what to do?
Arnoutf has nicely pointed out how arguable working on a topographical map would be. I would like to add that any conclusion derived from this can be at best as reliable as the producer of the map. Moreover, whoever came up with numbers in the various sources either copied them from somewhere or used exactly this method with more or less precision. Since we are talking about the lead section, I do not see the possibility of including an image.
Krator, can you provide a link to your claimed "clear mathematical deduction" exemption guideline, or did I interpret too much into this statement?
The scientists who wrote the nature article work on this subject and they have surely thought about the number before they used it. Even though I also consider this number to be off, I think it cannot be dismissed as easily as you do, Krator. If someone relies on this reference, we would not create much impact by the argument of it being clear nonsense. I am sure these scientist dealt more with it then we did in the last three days.
I think we have to find a good mix of reliable sources and what we think is realistic. We should not start deducing the value ourselves from other images as it only adds another layer of uncertainty. My proposition is to add the 27% area figure and the Britannica reference to the 60% pop. fraction and the about.com reference. Both references accord reasonably with each other, stating exactly the same area fraction while the pop. fraction reported by only one of the two seems to be in line with it. This way we have both good sources and interesting content. What do you think? Tomeasy T C 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't find the math exemption thingy anymore. I guess some real asshole will show up at Riemann zeta function sooner or later and start demanding sources for the deductions :). The 27% area and 60% population figure sounds about right. 27% area could well be the exact figure anyway, it's close to what it seems on the map. User:Krator ( t c) 13:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia: "Population density refers to the number of individuals per square kilometer of land area." Further: "arithmetic density is the most common way of measuring population density"
The actual population density would thereby actually approximately 485 people per square kilometer, once the 18.41% of water area has been deducted from the total area. The Netherlands would move from the 25th to 22nd position in terms of population density. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.106.129 ( talk) 02:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
"The country is known for its rathers modern, liberal policies towards..." The word Modern is almost certainly POV. Aussie.power ( talk) 21:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
How to archive material? This talk page might qualify for the procedure. Tomeasy T C 13:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be another part of this article with this headline and a paragraph on the foreign relations of the Netherlands? The Dutch military section has an applicable size. Mkruijff ( talk) 13:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody please permanently add the danish-dutch misconception ? For example, if I'm not mistaken, US states officials have publicly mistaken the Dutch army for the Danish army in the Iraq conflict. 81.207.97.6 ( talk) 16:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The inflation number is outdated. Current inflation in the Netherlands is 2.5%. Source is Statistics Netherlands [7], official statistics body of the Dutch government. A recent publication about inflation in the Netherlands can be found here [8] 85.145.53.27 ( talk) 22:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing a report on the Netherlands, and I don't get the article. Can someone make it simpler for me? It's due on Monday, December 8th. That's tomorrow! And I haven't even finished researching. So I need (need!) help!!!
99.156.95.35 ( talk) 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Anonymous
Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills of the Ardennes in the far south–east and several low-hill ranges in the central parts created by ice-age glaciers.
This is a mistake: The Ardennes are largely in Belgium, but this area certainly does not extend into The Netherlands. There are hills though in the province of Limburg in the far south-east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.200.174 ( talk) 16:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The Netherlands being a part of the ancient Roman Empire did not establish its first coinage mint until around the 600's A.D. Maastricht was home to an important mint, and coins issued under the authority of nations that controlled Netherlands were struck there and at other Dutch mints for many centuries. When the Dutch established an overseas empire in the 1500's, Dutch coins were among the most widely accepted around the world. The Gulden became the denomination when the Kingdom of the Netherlands was established in 1815, and remained the unit of currency until January 1, 2002, when the nation adopted the Euro.
The front of each Euro coin from the Netherlands depicts a portrait of Queen Beatrix encircled by 12 stars and the words "Beatrix Koningen Der Netherland". Born in 1938, Beatrix became queen on April 30, 1980 when 71-year-old Queen Juliana abdicated in favor of her daughter. The back of each coin is identical to the Euros from other nations, which are valid in all nations that use the Euros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiders1034 ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
While the parts of the article discussing religious developments in the last 6 decades is nice, the piece with the 1950 figures needs both sources and clarification, as it cannot be correct. In 1950 the Dutch population just surpassed 10 million inhabitants, the outbreak of religion in the text however mentions a total of 13 million. It was however only in the early 1970s that Dutch population surpassed that 13 million mark.
This thus needs serious improvement. But in general it may help to explain to non-Dutch readers that up to the 1960s, the Netherlands was a very profound religious country with a dominant social-conservative culture and deep social influences of religious groups far outside political realms with unions, sporting and social clubs and broadcasters, due to the pillar system. It may help to put in a reference to the work of professor James Kennedy on the big swing to a secular libertine culture at the end of the 1960s.
Now this point is a bit sprawled over various sections of the text. 80.101.98.231 ( talk) 05:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit confused about the difference between these two and was wondering if someone who knows for sure about the Netherlands could explain it to me in simple terms. Is the Kingdom of the Netherlands or Netherlands the sovereign state which is a member of the United Nations?. From reading the info here it sounds like Netherlands is the sovereign state which is the member of the United Nations, EU, NATO etc but i just want to be sure? BritishWatcher ( talk) 20:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not right that foreign relations are dealt with only on the Kingdom level as prescribed by the Statute.. Most of them are dealt with on the "Netherlands" level. Only when these relations touch the interests of Aruba or the Netherlands Antilles they are (art. 10 and 11 of the Statute). When that is not the case they are handled by the "Netherlands" level. Since that level also always acts as "Kingdom of the Netherlands" it is always the Kingdom of the Netherlands acting, even if it's done by the European Netherlands solely. Anything done before 1954 in the field of foreign relations was also done as "Kingdom of the Netherlands" since that Kingdom was established in 1815 and not in 1954. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 16:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It may very well be confusing, but the practice of politics corresponds to the theory of the Statute perfectly well. What makes it so confusing is that both articles adhere to the informal naming conventions that are not up to the task to describe accurately what's going on and that shouldn't be the basis for the seperation of the two articles and the two terms. Basically the Kingdom of the Netherlands as decribed in the other article only exists in matters directly concerning the NA and Aruba. In all other (and by far the most) matters, the affairs of the Kingdom are dealt with by the Constitution (and therefore by the European Netherlands) alone. And it is for that reason only that the two concepts are (and must be) largely overlapping. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 21:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
In the part about history of the Netherlands, Charles V is mentioned in the first sentence. Wouldn't it make more sense to mention Philip the Bold of Burgundy instead, under whose rule the Netherlands (including the southern provinces) was first united? baszoetekouw ( talk) 00:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
We know yes its in Europe but why a part ? why not country, like U.K are a kingdom having parts worldwide and it stays a country. So why here its part ? please responde this and take time to correct the error, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Wrong Im not asking for what you think, if you do this to Netherlands, you gotta do this to U.K, that dominate too 4 countries, see those articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the main Netherlands like you said about U.K is the "European part", like it is known befor the foundation of the kingdom of Netherlands, and like its popular everywhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 09:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The way you say, the Netherlands is a country that is part of the Kingdom of Netherlands, so not a part, take time to correct this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I added several articles in history category without putting linking words, please take time to do that —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
"Despite ranking only 10th in GDP per capita, UNICEF ranked the Netherlands 1st in child well-being"
Since when has a countries GDP got anything to do with child well-being? A countries GDP says nothing about it's destribution among its populations, since it's an average. For this reason even the [UN] doesnt accept GDP as a good instrument to measure a countries social well-being. -- 83.80.236.182 ( talk) 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Historian19 21:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
On january 1 2009 this article was about 74 Kbytes long. According to Wikipedia:Article size this is an indication that it was by that time about as long as it should EVER be (some overshoot over the 60Kb seems fair for a country article).
Today (only 17 days later) it peaked at 132 kByte which overshoots any reasonable reading prose (or in Wikipedia terms):
Examples of the additions were lengthy information in the history section (while a perfectly suitable sub article exists and is mentioned!); a lenghty debate on Dutch cuisine (not very notable, nor essential, and again a perfectly good subarticle exists), and most recently a lengthy discussion of recent wars the Dutch have been involved in (hardly notable, and each war has its own subarticle).
To get this article past any quality level (be it Good Article or better) the article can never ever be beyond 100kB. In other words edits taking it above 100kB is making the article by definition worse instead of better. Therefore I will revert such edits from now on. I hope editors will take time to make their addition concise, make good use of sub-articles, and cut dead wood from other parts of the article to make place for additions.
Arnoutf (
talk)
18:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
So what is exactly the problem ? I see you report many of things. All those articles that I've added are revised and arranged by myself without doing anything wrong or as you say " style differs drastically between different section", please be more clear about this recent remark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I've never put references on any article I've added personally, if what you say is in fact correct, provide an example below. and what do you mean by other things that I've found just "additionals" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Dont worry about the ownership, those are my own edited articles (with some expert editors), I revised those article and apparently, no trace of them online. About the length, you can check Sweden, that is less important than Netherlands, and is more long, so I dont see why this problem with this article.
Yes, I know the only worry is about length as you say, but speaking purely and morally, why Sweden is long than Netherlands, and we know all that Netherlands is more impotant than Sweden, so why ? And why Sweden contain more articles on its History category ? it start since prehistory while Netherlands startedin a very late êriod, is that a normal thing that should we keep here on wikipedia ? making wikipedia perfect is the best no ? I hope you answer those Q And one more thing: Why I hear always that I' ve entered some new articles that are in different order of style ?, Yes I read all Help:Wikipedia and I think I do not do something that is uncoform to that, in contrary, improving articles and cuustomizing them is what I do me and my collaborators that are in complete charge of editing those articles writed by me offline and pasting them directly in Wikipedia This have to stop, because I do not do something apart editing naturally from morning (I work for a local press here in Lisboa; Im originally from Morocco) Last thing is we need all to improve the article of Netherlands while it can be. Historian19 22:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs)
I think all is clear, the problem come from you naturally, that is not my article, unless you are a true editor to remark that I picked it from this ecnyclopedia and you are wrong since your thinking and your posts on this section, go to Military history of the Netherlands and scroll down to the article that you found on Netherlands "Contemporary Wars". while you have a true thing that have rapport with this section., then you should do so. good time. Historian19 22:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, certainly, such a small category need to be improved, or in last to be merged with the other article Historian19 23:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs)
the one you mean, the military category, see it, its too small to be a category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
o.k thats fine thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
User Historian19 has indicated on my talk page that he thinks the article is in fine shape now. I think there are some issues to resolve.
Do you agree with these issues to be resolved, have I missed some, or did I misrepresent some issues. Let's make a to do list, before uncoordinated editing starts. Arnoutf ( talk) 14:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
After reviewing the evidence presented at this ANI post I came to the conclusion that almost all material added by Historian19 has been copied from Britannica Online. This is not only plagiarism but outright copyright violation; as Britannica's content is not in the public domain. In spite of repeated questions where Historian19 got his materials from, he has uphold the claim that he had prepared them by himself, offline, together with co-editors. The current evidence strongly suggests this is not true.
Hanging the final conclusion on this case, I have reverted the article to the version of January 8 (before Historian19's first edit). I sincerely apologise to editors who have made good-faith edits since, which have also been reverted. I could not remove the massive texts without also sacrificing some good edits.
I hope we can work from this version, and make this a good article on our own quality. Arnoutf ( talk) 15:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The caption of the image in #Floods ( Image:NederlandvolgensNAP.PNG) says: "The areas of the Netherlands that are above sea level". This does not make it clear which part of the map is above sea level and which is below sea level. I've been trying to come up with an alternative, but I haven't been able to find any. "The blue areas are below sea level"? It's true, but the seas and lakes are in blue as well, and the borders between land and water are not shown in the map, so the caption would present a false picture imo. "The Netherlands if there had been no protection (e.g. dikes and windmills) against the water"? Highly speculative, it's not certain that this is the way it would end up. Any suggestions? Aecis·(away) talk 01:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
the text says the deployment of the dutch forces in 1830 against the Belgium Revolt was unsuccesful. This how ever is not quite correct. The deployment was a big succes. However, the french forces threatned to join in the fight for the Belgium people. This forced the Dutch to quit the fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B. le Duc ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
In recent years the Netherlands has become increasingly intolerant against foreigners. Because some Turkish and Moroccan people make problems, it is very difficult for Dutch people to marry someone from a non-EU country and bring him/her into the country. Also Dutch people who have worked outside the EU and want to return with their foreign spouse and children meet enormous barriers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.92.111 ( talk) 19:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The Dutch army was used troughout the Dutch empire
should be
The Dutch army was used throughout the Dutch empire
Kevinarpe ( talk) 00:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Eurocoin.nl.100.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 16:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
"The Netherlands is often called Holland. This is formally incorrect as North and South Holland in the western Netherlands are only two of the country's twelve provinces. For more on this and other naming issues see terminology of the Netherlands."
I don't think this is true. While it's indeed true that Holland refers to the two provinces north- and south-holland, officially it can also refer to the Netherlands. It says so on dictionary.com [1] as well as in the dutch dictionary [2]. The title of this article should have a reference to this widely used alternative name, and certainly not say that it's "formally incorrect". - PietervHuis ( talk) 18:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I added some info to the Demographic / Life expectancy part of the article. Living to 77 (M) or 82 (F) years is only one side of the picture, first you have to survive birth and the the first year to do that. That is where Holland is LAST, highest birth death rate and most miscarriages in the whole civilized Europe. In fact there is the parlamentary comittee set up to investigate this ongoing tragedy and its findings include a totally inhumane medical system, which does not want to see the pregnant women in the first place and throws out new mothers just two hours after the act.
Of course like most countries do, Netherland still manages to create nice looking longevity figures, because they refuse to include babies who die before reaching their first birthday, so barebone maternity wards do not hinder the sunny picture.
[ In contrast, here in ex-communist Hungary the hospitals are often in bad shape with regards to renovation or amenities, but pregnant women spend about half of their 9 months waiting for a huge series of state-funded medical inspections and doctors usually treat the expecing women like military subordinates, they literally order them what they can and cannot do for the greater good of the baby. Giving birth is always administered by a doctor, not a nurse and they usually keep mother and baby locked up in the hospital for 3-5 days even if every check shows nominal. This is a burden on the national budget, yes, but our infant mortality figures are good.
Sorrowfully the current hungarian gov't is in the process of demolishing the state-run monolithic healthcare infrastructure and they often quote the dutch medical system as a desired example. Our current health minister Agnes "Malacka" Horvath is supposed to have spent a lot of time in Holland and adores what she saw. I also heard of other countries' governments verbosely point to the ducth medical system, when proposing their own hospital privatization "reforms".
Therefore it is of great importance that wikipedia articles give both bright and dark side balanced information about the dutch life expectancy and healthcare situation, so net-surfing people of the world can evaluate themselves, if the often-quoted dutch role model of healthcare (or lack of, thereof) is really as desirable as currently advertised by many governments. 82.131.210.162 ( talk) 18:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html states that The Netherlands ranks 198 out of 224 listed countries on the area of death rates, meaning the Netherlands has a very low infant mortality rate (4.73/1000) 62.163.165.29 ( talk) 21:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Netherlands!!! I have something that may interest contributers for this page. In a nut shell, it allows the option to display two maps in your info box, one could be a close up of the Netherlands, and another would be the the Netherlands in a wider European or EU context. This is an example that was being discussed on Scotland's talk page (though I think they have rejected a two map option). Prior to now no one knew that you could have two maps displayed in the info box. For 'smallish' counties the benifits are easy to graps, an up-close view of the country, and a wider contextual visualisation of the country. Dydd da!!
PS: This is an example from the Scotland page, please do not be offended that I display the Scotland info box here. It is only ment as an example.
Nice idea, but imho the infobox is already way too big and adding a second map is going to make it only worse. So I don't see the advantage; but that is my opinion. Arnoutf ( talk) 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The new map is kinda wrong, someone updated it to include montenegro, but the colours changed, no big problem. However, this map doesn't even show Flevoland, which is also lacking on the map used to indicate other countries. - PietervHuis ( talk) 21:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Janneman ( talk) 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if somebody has just added this as vandalism and it hasn't been dealt with yet, but to display this in the intro "the country is more recently known for its rather liberal policies toward recreational drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia". Seems to be an incredibly unfair overview of the entire country by portraying it all as some kind of Sodom and Gomorrah. Shouldn't this belong in the "politics" section rather than the intro of a serious article on a nation? - Gennarous ( talk) 18:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Violating WP: BOLD, I would like to make this proposition first here on the talk page. That is, substitute the left image by the right one. My motivation concerns primarily aesthetics. In terms of content, one might appreciate the fact that the right map displays, in a moderate way, more geographical features. Tomeasy talk 00:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I browsed through pages of discussion in the last days and saw hundreds of valid arguments for and against each version. I also saw other versions, like Solbergs svg maps, that apparently did not make it on one of the articles, although they had their advantages too. Having read all this, I conclude it is an illusion to achieve consistency for the whole of Europe. After all, it's a debate containing so many arguments that in the end it becomes simply a matter of choice and taste. So, I simply say that I like the orange map more. At the same time, I appreciate that there is no rationale to impose one or the other. That means, as long as I appear the only one with this feeling there is no further need for discussion and the existing version should just stay. @Arnoutf: Did you realize that the orange map is a Mercator projection--the same projection that you have been fighting for so perseveringly on EU? As a matter of consequence Sweden shows relatively large and therefore reveals more details ;-) Tomeasy talk 13:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I put back the old map, until an better version of the 'green' map is made. Using a map that misses an entire province is just not aceceptable. It is the same as arguing that a map that depicts the location of the USA but misses Florida is acceptable. MartV ( talk) 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I am quite unhappy with the paragraph on geography in the lead section. Currently we have:
The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying remarkably flat country. Hilly landscapes can be found only in the south–eastern tip of the country on the foothills of the Ardennes, the central part and where the glaciers pushed up several hilly ridges such as the Hondsrug in Drenthe, the stuwwallen (push moraines) near Arnhem and Nijmegen, Salland, Twente and the Utrechtse Heuvelrug.
Stylistically the second sentence is a nightmare and content wise it does not make much sense. Sure, flatness is remarkable. But why then do we talk endlessly about the exceptions to this flatness. And honestly, are those exceptions worth mention. I mean with a max altitude of <25m the Hondsrug does not even qualify for that.
Instead, I would propose to write about evidences for the flatness and geographical features apart from the topography. What do you think? Does anyone have concrete ideas what could be written? Tomeasy T C 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country. Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills of the Ardennes in the far south–eastern part of the country (the most prominent hills) and several low hill-ranges in the central parts where ice-age glaciers created several ridges (in Dutch: rug), such as the Hondsrug in Drenthe, the stuwwallen (push moraines) near Arnhem and Nijmegen, the Sallandse Heuvelrug, and the Utrechtse Heuvelrug.
Arnoutf ( talk) 12:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. What I find extremely remarkable is that the country lies very low, and then its flatness. The several ridges are less remarkable and do not qualify for the lead IMO. So I would change your proposition to:
The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country, with two third of its surface below sea level. citation needed Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills of the Ardennes in the far south–east and several low hill-ranges in the central parts where ice-age glaciers created several ridges. [Certainly talk about polders, and probably about rivers, dams and dikes (which can then be removed from the curiosity paragraph)].
What do you think? Tomeasy T C 12:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country, with two third of its surface below sea level. citation needed The Netherlands are this low-lying because much of the land is the result of land-reclamation, and is being kept dry through an elaborate systems of polders and dikes. Much of the Netherlands is formed by the estuary of three important European rivers, which together with their distributaries form the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta. Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills of the Ardennes in the far south–east and several low hill-ranges in the central parts where ice-age glaciers created several ridges.
- It is adraft of course, so feel free to comment. Arnoutf ( talk) 13:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Great draft, I would say. I just fill in the citation, adjust the statement accordingly, and cut some (redundant) parts of the following and the last sentence:
The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country, with about 60% of its population living below sea level. [1] These areas are gained through land reclamation and preserved through an elaborate systems of polders and dikes. Much of the Netherlands is formed by the estuary of three important European rivers, which together with their distributaries form the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta. Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills of the Ardennes in the far south–east and several low-hill ranges in the central parts created by ice-age glaciers.
I hope the reference qualifies for usage. Searching for a reference, I found that the reported fraction below sea level can vary quite significantly so I think we are on the safer (and more impressive) side with a statement on the population fraction. Tomeasy T C 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
[unindent] Going through the sources
AREA
POPULATION
Taken together I would take Britannica for area and the Nature one for population (if that is what they report). Arnoutf ( talk) 13:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I do not really see how these mostly interactive links can help us. Even if we assume they are reliable, it would still take original research to derive a percentage. Dutch wiki does not qualify anyway and rather reflects that the issue is not glass clear. The last reference adds to a long list of already collected references with different figures.
I have downloaded the nature article and there is no hidden qualifyer. The passage says:
Sixty percent of the Netherlands territory is located below sea level and 70% of the gross national product is earned in these floodprone areas. So it is quite likely that the Netherlands will be confronted with several effects of climate change, including increased risk of flooding and more frequent summer droughts.
Since the article is a publication on the topic in the most renowned scientific journal, I think we are on very safe grounds using it, even though I personally think that the figure is too high. So, I will change the text according to the nature article, if you agree. Tomeasy T C 11:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
NASA satellite images with height information are in the public domain. Deriving the percentage of land below sea level from these would fall under the "clear mathematical deduction" exemption to WP:OR. User:Krator ( t c) 11:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I am convinced that the 27% area 60% pop. fraction reported by the source which is currently cited are very good estimates. However, the quality of the source is challenged and I agree to this challenge. Now, what to do?
Arnoutf has nicely pointed out how arguable working on a topographical map would be. I would like to add that any conclusion derived from this can be at best as reliable as the producer of the map. Moreover, whoever came up with numbers in the various sources either copied them from somewhere or used exactly this method with more or less precision. Since we are talking about the lead section, I do not see the possibility of including an image.
Krator, can you provide a link to your claimed "clear mathematical deduction" exemption guideline, or did I interpret too much into this statement?
The scientists who wrote the nature article work on this subject and they have surely thought about the number before they used it. Even though I also consider this number to be off, I think it cannot be dismissed as easily as you do, Krator. If someone relies on this reference, we would not create much impact by the argument of it being clear nonsense. I am sure these scientist dealt more with it then we did in the last three days.
I think we have to find a good mix of reliable sources and what we think is realistic. We should not start deducing the value ourselves from other images as it only adds another layer of uncertainty. My proposition is to add the 27% area figure and the Britannica reference to the 60% pop. fraction and the about.com reference. Both references accord reasonably with each other, stating exactly the same area fraction while the pop. fraction reported by only one of the two seems to be in line with it. This way we have both good sources and interesting content. What do you think? Tomeasy T C 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't find the math exemption thingy anymore. I guess some real asshole will show up at Riemann zeta function sooner or later and start demanding sources for the deductions :). The 27% area and 60% population figure sounds about right. 27% area could well be the exact figure anyway, it's close to what it seems on the map. User:Krator ( t c) 13:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia: "Population density refers to the number of individuals per square kilometer of land area." Further: "arithmetic density is the most common way of measuring population density"
The actual population density would thereby actually approximately 485 people per square kilometer, once the 18.41% of water area has been deducted from the total area. The Netherlands would move from the 25th to 22nd position in terms of population density. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.106.129 ( talk) 02:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
"The country is known for its rathers modern, liberal policies towards..." The word Modern is almost certainly POV. Aussie.power ( talk) 21:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
How to archive material? This talk page might qualify for the procedure. Tomeasy T C 13:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be another part of this article with this headline and a paragraph on the foreign relations of the Netherlands? The Dutch military section has an applicable size. Mkruijff ( talk) 13:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody please permanently add the danish-dutch misconception ? For example, if I'm not mistaken, US states officials have publicly mistaken the Dutch army for the Danish army in the Iraq conflict. 81.207.97.6 ( talk) 16:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The inflation number is outdated. Current inflation in the Netherlands is 2.5%. Source is Statistics Netherlands [7], official statistics body of the Dutch government. A recent publication about inflation in the Netherlands can be found here [8] 85.145.53.27 ( talk) 22:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing a report on the Netherlands, and I don't get the article. Can someone make it simpler for me? It's due on Monday, December 8th. That's tomorrow! And I haven't even finished researching. So I need (need!) help!!!
99.156.95.35 ( talk) 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Anonymous
Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills of the Ardennes in the far south–east and several low-hill ranges in the central parts created by ice-age glaciers.
This is a mistake: The Ardennes are largely in Belgium, but this area certainly does not extend into The Netherlands. There are hills though in the province of Limburg in the far south-east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.200.174 ( talk) 16:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The Netherlands being a part of the ancient Roman Empire did not establish its first coinage mint until around the 600's A.D. Maastricht was home to an important mint, and coins issued under the authority of nations that controlled Netherlands were struck there and at other Dutch mints for many centuries. When the Dutch established an overseas empire in the 1500's, Dutch coins were among the most widely accepted around the world. The Gulden became the denomination when the Kingdom of the Netherlands was established in 1815, and remained the unit of currency until January 1, 2002, when the nation adopted the Euro.
The front of each Euro coin from the Netherlands depicts a portrait of Queen Beatrix encircled by 12 stars and the words "Beatrix Koningen Der Netherland". Born in 1938, Beatrix became queen on April 30, 1980 when 71-year-old Queen Juliana abdicated in favor of her daughter. The back of each coin is identical to the Euros from other nations, which are valid in all nations that use the Euros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiders1034 ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
While the parts of the article discussing religious developments in the last 6 decades is nice, the piece with the 1950 figures needs both sources and clarification, as it cannot be correct. In 1950 the Dutch population just surpassed 10 million inhabitants, the outbreak of religion in the text however mentions a total of 13 million. It was however only in the early 1970s that Dutch population surpassed that 13 million mark.
This thus needs serious improvement. But in general it may help to explain to non-Dutch readers that up to the 1960s, the Netherlands was a very profound religious country with a dominant social-conservative culture and deep social influences of religious groups far outside political realms with unions, sporting and social clubs and broadcasters, due to the pillar system. It may help to put in a reference to the work of professor James Kennedy on the big swing to a secular libertine culture at the end of the 1960s.
Now this point is a bit sprawled over various sections of the text. 80.101.98.231 ( talk) 05:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit confused about the difference between these two and was wondering if someone who knows for sure about the Netherlands could explain it to me in simple terms. Is the Kingdom of the Netherlands or Netherlands the sovereign state which is a member of the United Nations?. From reading the info here it sounds like Netherlands is the sovereign state which is the member of the United Nations, EU, NATO etc but i just want to be sure? BritishWatcher ( talk) 20:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not right that foreign relations are dealt with only on the Kingdom level as prescribed by the Statute.. Most of them are dealt with on the "Netherlands" level. Only when these relations touch the interests of Aruba or the Netherlands Antilles they are (art. 10 and 11 of the Statute). When that is not the case they are handled by the "Netherlands" level. Since that level also always acts as "Kingdom of the Netherlands" it is always the Kingdom of the Netherlands acting, even if it's done by the European Netherlands solely. Anything done before 1954 in the field of foreign relations was also done as "Kingdom of the Netherlands" since that Kingdom was established in 1815 and not in 1954. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 16:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It may very well be confusing, but the practice of politics corresponds to the theory of the Statute perfectly well. What makes it so confusing is that both articles adhere to the informal naming conventions that are not up to the task to describe accurately what's going on and that shouldn't be the basis for the seperation of the two articles and the two terms. Basically the Kingdom of the Netherlands as decribed in the other article only exists in matters directly concerning the NA and Aruba. In all other (and by far the most) matters, the affairs of the Kingdom are dealt with by the Constitution (and therefore by the European Netherlands) alone. And it is for that reason only that the two concepts are (and must be) largely overlapping. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 21:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
In the part about history of the Netherlands, Charles V is mentioned in the first sentence. Wouldn't it make more sense to mention Philip the Bold of Burgundy instead, under whose rule the Netherlands (including the southern provinces) was first united? baszoetekouw ( talk) 00:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
We know yes its in Europe but why a part ? why not country, like U.K are a kingdom having parts worldwide and it stays a country. So why here its part ? please responde this and take time to correct the error, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Wrong Im not asking for what you think, if you do this to Netherlands, you gotta do this to U.K, that dominate too 4 countries, see those articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the main Netherlands like you said about U.K is the "European part", like it is known befor the foundation of the kingdom of Netherlands, and like its popular everywhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 09:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The way you say, the Netherlands is a country that is part of the Kingdom of Netherlands, so not a part, take time to correct this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I added several articles in history category without putting linking words, please take time to do that —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
"Despite ranking only 10th in GDP per capita, UNICEF ranked the Netherlands 1st in child well-being"
Since when has a countries GDP got anything to do with child well-being? A countries GDP says nothing about it's destribution among its populations, since it's an average. For this reason even the [UN] doesnt accept GDP as a good instrument to measure a countries social well-being. -- 83.80.236.182 ( talk) 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Historian19 21:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
On january 1 2009 this article was about 74 Kbytes long. According to Wikipedia:Article size this is an indication that it was by that time about as long as it should EVER be (some overshoot over the 60Kb seems fair for a country article).
Today (only 17 days later) it peaked at 132 kByte which overshoots any reasonable reading prose (or in Wikipedia terms):
Examples of the additions were lengthy information in the history section (while a perfectly suitable sub article exists and is mentioned!); a lenghty debate on Dutch cuisine (not very notable, nor essential, and again a perfectly good subarticle exists), and most recently a lengthy discussion of recent wars the Dutch have been involved in (hardly notable, and each war has its own subarticle).
To get this article past any quality level (be it Good Article or better) the article can never ever be beyond 100kB. In other words edits taking it above 100kB is making the article by definition worse instead of better. Therefore I will revert such edits from now on. I hope editors will take time to make their addition concise, make good use of sub-articles, and cut dead wood from other parts of the article to make place for additions.
Arnoutf (
talk)
18:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
So what is exactly the problem ? I see you report many of things. All those articles that I've added are revised and arranged by myself without doing anything wrong or as you say " style differs drastically between different section", please be more clear about this recent remark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I've never put references on any article I've added personally, if what you say is in fact correct, provide an example below. and what do you mean by other things that I've found just "additionals" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Dont worry about the ownership, those are my own edited articles (with some expert editors), I revised those article and apparently, no trace of them online. About the length, you can check Sweden, that is less important than Netherlands, and is more long, so I dont see why this problem with this article.
Yes, I know the only worry is about length as you say, but speaking purely and morally, why Sweden is long than Netherlands, and we know all that Netherlands is more impotant than Sweden, so why ? And why Sweden contain more articles on its History category ? it start since prehistory while Netherlands startedin a very late êriod, is that a normal thing that should we keep here on wikipedia ? making wikipedia perfect is the best no ? I hope you answer those Q And one more thing: Why I hear always that I' ve entered some new articles that are in different order of style ?, Yes I read all Help:Wikipedia and I think I do not do something that is uncoform to that, in contrary, improving articles and cuustomizing them is what I do me and my collaborators that are in complete charge of editing those articles writed by me offline and pasting them directly in Wikipedia This have to stop, because I do not do something apart editing naturally from morning (I work for a local press here in Lisboa; Im originally from Morocco) Last thing is we need all to improve the article of Netherlands while it can be. Historian19 22:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs)
I think all is clear, the problem come from you naturally, that is not my article, unless you are a true editor to remark that I picked it from this ecnyclopedia and you are wrong since your thinking and your posts on this section, go to Military history of the Netherlands and scroll down to the article that you found on Netherlands "Contemporary Wars". while you have a true thing that have rapport with this section., then you should do so. good time. Historian19 22:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, certainly, such a small category need to be improved, or in last to be merged with the other article Historian19 23:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs)
the one you mean, the military category, see it, its too small to be a category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
o.k thats fine thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
User Historian19 has indicated on my talk page that he thinks the article is in fine shape now. I think there are some issues to resolve.
Do you agree with these issues to be resolved, have I missed some, or did I misrepresent some issues. Let's make a to do list, before uncoordinated editing starts. Arnoutf ( talk) 14:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
After reviewing the evidence presented at this ANI post I came to the conclusion that almost all material added by Historian19 has been copied from Britannica Online. This is not only plagiarism but outright copyright violation; as Britannica's content is not in the public domain. In spite of repeated questions where Historian19 got his materials from, he has uphold the claim that he had prepared them by himself, offline, together with co-editors. The current evidence strongly suggests this is not true.
Hanging the final conclusion on this case, I have reverted the article to the version of January 8 (before Historian19's first edit). I sincerely apologise to editors who have made good-faith edits since, which have also been reverted. I could not remove the massive texts without also sacrificing some good edits.
I hope we can work from this version, and make this a good article on our own quality. Arnoutf ( talk) 15:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The caption of the image in #Floods ( Image:NederlandvolgensNAP.PNG) says: "The areas of the Netherlands that are above sea level". This does not make it clear which part of the map is above sea level and which is below sea level. I've been trying to come up with an alternative, but I haven't been able to find any. "The blue areas are below sea level"? It's true, but the seas and lakes are in blue as well, and the borders between land and water are not shown in the map, so the caption would present a false picture imo. "The Netherlands if there had been no protection (e.g. dikes and windmills) against the water"? Highly speculative, it's not certain that this is the way it would end up. Any suggestions? Aecis·(away) talk 01:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
the text says the deployment of the dutch forces in 1830 against the Belgium Revolt was unsuccesful. This how ever is not quite correct. The deployment was a big succes. However, the french forces threatned to join in the fight for the Belgium people. This forced the Dutch to quit the fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B. le Duc ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
In recent years the Netherlands has become increasingly intolerant against foreigners. Because some Turkish and Moroccan people make problems, it is very difficult for Dutch people to marry someone from a non-EU country and bring him/her into the country. Also Dutch people who have worked outside the EU and want to return with their foreign spouse and children meet enormous barriers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.92.111 ( talk) 19:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The Dutch army was used troughout the Dutch empire
should be
The Dutch army was used throughout the Dutch empire
Kevinarpe ( talk) 00:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Eurocoin.nl.100.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 16:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)