Talk:Culture of the Netherlands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has a lot of overlap with the List of Dutch people. Other countries' culture pages (France, Belgium, etc.) have full text with historical facts, perhaps that would be a better format here too. I'm willing to help if some people agree to start rewriting this page. Spinster 07:56, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The word 'cabaret' has a different meaning in English than in Dutch (the English word refers to performances with dance etc.). A more appropriate term would IMHO be 'stand up comedian'. --Isk s 16:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not really, a stand up comedian (from what I know) does most of his act based on improvisation, and has a lot of interaction with his/her audience. In Dutch 'cabaret' is used for a form of theater where one or more people have a humourous act, usually in some way socially engaged (meaning the topic has something to do with the current state of affairs in the country, in any sense of the word). In the Dutch form of 'cabaret', there is much less interaction with the audience, and the comedian will not mock anyone there (which is often a standard part of a stand-up comedian's act, as far as I'm aware).

These are my best edits because I'm sick but I will clean them up later today or tommorow. Falphin 17:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to stop for now, I intend to add more Falphin 17:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a piece on Dutch literature can be added here as well? Mulisch, Hermans, Wolkers, Nooteboom, ... Fram 12:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Why no sports? Perhaps I got a false impression of a high sport popularity in the Netherlands from seeing the number of elite athletes (particularily in football) that come from there, as well as the high attendance in football matches (I just estimated that 5 million tickets are sold per year). Peoplesunionpro 22:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] zanger bob

anyone else heard of him? he's some kind of 9 year old prodigy pop star and i'm pretty sure he's dutch. hilarious video: [1].--Alhutch 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch behaviour

One of the main characteristics of the Dutch culture is the bluntness. Their proverbial bluntless is not to everyone's taste. The Dutch are also so commited to equality, compromise and avoiding conflict that they have created a labyrinth of rules and regulations from which there is no easy exit. Dutch obsession with equality and keeping everything "normal" is reflected in one of the most famous Dutch sayings which says: "Doe maar gewoon, dan doe je al gek genoeg" (Bahave normally, that's mad enough). Another traits which can define the Dutch behaviour are the fact that many of them are practical, direct, outspoken, stubborn, well-organised, blunt and think they are always right, these traits are reflected in the English term Dutch uncle. (See the source below p. 38). The Dutch are also very prone to grumbling and complaining. According to the writer of the "Culture shock, the Netherlands" this is the result of the fact that the Dutch think they know how matters really should be arranged. Hypocricy is also a characteristic which is often called as a wide-spread trait in the Dutch society and culture. (Source: Janin, hunt,Culture shock, a guide to customs and etiquette, Netherlands, London: Kuperard 1998, pp.36, 38-39) --Mani1 08:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been put in the article, but seems way to negative. This Dutch saying is quite popular in the Netherlands, but to put it like this seems to purposely shed a negative light on the Dutch. I do not recognise the Dutch in this text.
I do believe that the Dutch are blunt, stubborn and prone to grumble, but it is not as if we cannot laugh. Bluntness and compromise to avoid conflict seems to be a contradiction. Just my two cents.
I reverted that section again, as I think it should be rewritten. Bluntness and directness don't apply to Dutch people as a whole. To an outsider the average Dutchman may appear like an individual who values equality, avoids conflicts and is extremely blunt to others. But I think that's a cliché and should be dealt with as such, it's like saying: "American people are nice, they always greet you on the street". That view might not be shared by others, or Americans themselves. Of course listing things like "Doe maar gewoon dan doe je al gek genoeg", "Double Dutch", "Dutch treat" and "Dutch uncle" may provide some context to write about these generalisations about directness, etc. but not in the way it's done now. mensch • t 10:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi.

I agree with you guys that the paragraph did too much generalisations. Maybe somebody later can use some of the points in that paragraph which come from the "Culture shock, the Netherlands" and talk about the streotypes and the view of outsiders regarding the Dutch society, somewhere in Wikipedia.

Take care. --Mani1 10:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Being a Dutchman myself, I cannot deny that much of what the paragraph mentioned is, in fact, true. Generally speaking, the Dutch are blunt, stubborn and prone to grumble. But at least most of us know it ;-) - Quistnix 17:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the text not acceptable for this encyclopedia. The Dutch I know may be 'blunt' (I prefer the term 'direct, no nonsense'), but not uncivilized. They may be stubborn, but accepting of opinions of others when the arguments are sound. They may grumble and easily complain, but seldom without good reason. Many POV's. --JohJak2 07:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complete rewriting of article.

This article, is a bit of a mess. It looks like an effort to throw everything even slightly related to culture in one big bowl. No doubt everything was putt here with good intentions but wikipedia deserves better. I'll try to rewrite this article in the course of the day. Rex 10:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright then. I've done the cutting and pasting and in my opinion it only needs one vital section, about the people. Which means there's has to be a main article on Dutch etiquette first so this will take a bit longer.
Rex 12:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The article was still in need of an extensive revision and upgrading. Now it seems to meet some standards of representativity somewhat better. Ad43 09:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if its just me or what, but there are a number of sentences that are awkwardly worded and the layout of the page is not easy on the eyes, especially that picture at the top! Fruitblender 23:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

On a rather big screen such as mine, this layout is definitely the most elegant. If you are able to try and improve some of my solutions, please do so and let me judge on my turn. The same holds true when phrasing and formulating are concerned. Please try to keep the content intact as much as possible, because the facts themselves are correct and rather carefully chosen. Ad43 09:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture at the top needs moving, it completely wrecks the page layout if your browser window is less than 1100 pixels wide, the text overlaps the info box, half the infobox disappears under the picture, etc. Alternatively the info box needs moving but I think wiki standard is to have it at the top. Such a large picture needs to be laid out in its own bit of full-width space so text does not wrap around it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.50.168 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, would you also be able to give it the maximum volume that is workable on most windows? I now have tried the alternative. Ad43 11:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

By adding the "frame" you undo the 500px setting and recreate the maximum size. For a small screen, as many of us still have, the picture then fills it for most part. That is an unpleasant introduction to the article. I tried various settings and 400px and 500px seems to strike the best balance. I request removal of the "frame" and leaving it at 500px. Thanks. VanBurenen 11:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the image altogether. Its placement shouldn't be on top of the article for starters, because this isn't standard for Wikipedia. Furthermore I'm not convinced that this image adds anything to the article. There are a lot of images in there already and it mainly summarizes all the clichés of the Netherlands, only the clogs seem to be missing. mensch • t 12:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't be that sour, Maester_mensch, this very theme deserves a ravishing visual introduction. I already let it shrink to modest proportions. Don't be too humble here. Ad43 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not about humility our being sour, but about Wikipedia policy. I'm not against putting the image somewhere else in the article, but it shouldn't be in the header. mensch • t 08:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course, that was one of the possibilities that came to my mind, and I tested the various alternatives, but they did not work. See what happens when we put it at the end of the introduction. Now I try another possibility. To me this is no improvement. I regard it second best. Ad43 10:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
No, please, if we must have that image (of which I'm not convinced at all, it's the kind of image you expect on a promotional tourist folder, not in an encycloepedia), it should definitely not be placed on the top left. From the manual of style, first item about images: "Start the article with a right-aligned image." Fram 07:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not kill this darling. So I tried a third position. Ad43 13:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It needs to go, it really does. Read the manual of style and you'll come to the same conclusion. Apart from that it's an unencyclopedic image. What are your reasons for keeping the image in the article? mensch • t 13:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever see a more beautiful, more delicate girl right in her eyes? Now you have banned her cruelly. Gone she is, forever. Ad43 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DutchSinterklaas2005.jpg

Image:DutchSinterklaas2005.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)