Talk:Greater Netherlands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Older comments

As there are Dutch-speaking people in Surinam (which has become a member of the Dutch language union, but isn't considered part of "Dietsland"), I changed "all Dutch-speaking peoples" to "most Dutch-speaking peoples". D.D. 21:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) --- The map is completely wrong. There are two concepts in the reunification movement in Flanders/Belgium. One is a reunification of Flanders and the Netherlands (Dietsland/Dutchland, but in more moderate circles known as Great-Netherlands (Groot-Nederland)) (sometimes with parts of France, in the Nord region). Another one is for a reunification of all the Netherlands, including the French speaking parts. A moderate group wants the return of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands from 1815, which would mean a unification of the Benelux, a more extreme group wants ALL the Netherlands, including Artesia and all the former territories. This map is from that irredentic group and has nothing to do with the Dietsland concept. It is known as "Whole-Netherlands" (Heel-Nederland).

i think the new map (below the text) is a good one

[edit] Unsourced claims about politicians' opinions

"The idea is also current among members of several right-wing parties including the Vlaams Belang in Flanders and Hilbrand Nawijn and Nieuw Rechts in the Netherlands.

Gradually there has been a shift to more moderate politicians who advocate this concept, like Bart De Wever (N-VA), Andries Postma (CDA), Erik Jurgens (PvdA) and Jan Terlouw (D66)."

Do we have any source on this?Evilbu 17:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced. Vlaams Belang supports Flemish independence. There are no doubt some 'Diets' nationalists in the party, and in Nawijn's party and in Nieuw Rechts, but a source is needed for what significane they have. It is highly improbable that the others named would ever support anything 'Diets'. This article is being quoted as a source at Dutch people so it needs more accuracy.Paul111 20:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted your edits and added source. [1] Rex 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality and accuracy disputed

The article in its present form implies that there is a real country called Dietsland, whereas in reality it is simply a political claim with no corresponding pre-existing geographical name or territory. There never was an entity called Dietsland.

The article falsely claims that 'Dietsland' originates in the 16th century, whereas its usage is 19th century and especially 20th century.

The current intro falsely presents the term Dietsland as a synonym for Greater Netherlands, whereas they have different connotations.

Using an unreliable source (a pamphlet supporting a Greater Netherlands) the article attributes support for "Dietsland" to politicians who would not use the term, and implies support is widespread among political parties in the Netherlands, when in fact it is confined to the fringes of Flemish separatism in Flanders itself. The article also downplays the use of the terms Diets and Dietsland by national-socialist parties in the 1930s, which is the main reason why it was discredited after the war.

All of these points can be quickly corrected, since it is a short article.Paul111 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The article implies no such thing, refrain from making up these kind of remarks.Rex 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose to change the title back to 'Greater Netherlands' and undo the earlier redirect. Greater Netherlands is a more neutral name, and corresponds to the terminology for other irredentist movements. The use of Diets and its connonations (Verdinaso, etc) can be treated as a section within the article, and 'Dietsland' would redirect.Paul111 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. Those opposing the move didn't really give reasons not to move, so much as point out that "Dietsland" is a more specific topic than "Greater Netherlands". This article, it seems, aims to be about the larger topic, so it makes sense to have it at the title with larger scope. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Dietsland → Greater Netherlands — Revert to old name, 'Greater X-land' is standard terminology for irredentist movements, more inclusive term, since 'Dietsland' was used by fascists in 1930's and is now discredited. Paul111 18:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
  • Weak Support. The article says that this is largely a 1930's movement, as I skim it, so the link to fascism appears to be real. However, Greater Netherlands would be more intelligible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Dietsland and the Greater-Netherlands are simply not the same things.Rex 13:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    How so? Patstuarttalk|edits 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The two may not be the same but Dietsland is a subset of Greater Netherlands and Greater Netherlands is preferable per WP:UE. —  AjaxSmack  06:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As it stands now, the article refers to the "Greater Netherlands" concept in general, not specifically to "Dietsland". - Evv 20:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The name deals with the concept of Dietsland, while the correct political term in a locality based description is Greater-Netherlands, (Dietsland is not intended to be used in that way) -- Hrödberäht 22:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    What does this mean? —  AjaxSmack  04:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed with Ajax; at the risk of sounding rude, this explanation reminds me of the Chewbacca Defense. Patstuarttalk|edits 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    No, I think I get what he's saying: the article does talk about Dietsland, but if we're titling the article based on geography, i.e., based on its physical boundaries, then the best name for that piece of land is "Greater-Netherlands". "Dietsland" is not the name of that piece of land, but an article about that land will necessarily discuss Dietsland. At least, that's how I read it. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per above. --Bob 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

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

[edit] About the map of Holland and Flanders

I can see the connection; it is natural that some speakers of Flemmish or Dutch would entertain a desire to unite nationally. The only thing is that the markings come to an abrupt halt at the western end of the horizontal line where Belgium meets France, but the speakers of the Dutch/Flemish dialects do not stop there because the French department of Nord (accross from Belgium) is traditionally Dutch/Flemish speaking. There is a significant population in that region today, and in previous years, the number was greater (obviously, some were dissimilated as a result of French centralisation). Does anyone wish to cover the French department in red too? Or is it documented that those at the heart of Netherlandic nationalism have decided that only Belgian areas would be their goal? (It is possible as the same thing happened with Serbia: in the 19th century, such a state would have annexed areas in what is today Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, where-as the revised ideas of the 1990s simply concentrated on areas lost within Yugoslavia). Can anyone throw any light here? Thanks. Evlekis 09:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Most speakers of Dutch and Flemish have no interest whatsoever in political unification of Flanders and the Netherlands, and do not see themselves as a single nation. Only a tiny minority hold these views, and an even smaller minority believes that French territory should be annexed to a Greater Netherlands.Paul111 12:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/e/Talk%7EGreater_Netherlands_c482.html"