Talk:Holland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.


In response to the gentleman from Utrecht: Holland is most definately used by the dutch themselves, but it usually has a patriotic, nostalgic or affectionate sense. At international soccer matches for example, people cheer 'Holland!' instead of 'Netherlands!'. In most everyday use though, Nederland is the way the Netherlands is referred to.


I'm From holland as well, and i'm 100% sure that there isent a difference between holland and the netherlands.. its really the same country. so why are there 2 different artikels? owell... nevermind..
-Holland is the two provinces nort and south holland, the neterland are all of the provinces together.


I'm from The Netherlands (Utrecht), and I'll make it clear to you. Between Dutch people, the word "Holland" is never used to refer to our country, people will always call it "Nederland". Strangely enough, we still use many words derived from Holland, which apply to all the provinces. Like Dutch cheese is translated as Hollandse kaas. Nobody ever says Nederlandse kaas. Holland is also often used in conjuction with our national soccer team. Probaly because it's shorter than Nederland and easier to use in songs.

To people from other countries, we often use Holland to refer to our country. The reason is simple: When you say you're from Holland (even when pronounced in Dutch), everybody immediately knows which country that is, since the word Holland is often the same or almost the same in other languages (Olanda, La Hollande etc.) In other languages, "The Netherlands" are often liturally translated (like Pays Bas in French), so these are much less reconizible for Dutchmen.

In addition, the word "Hollanders" is used in the Northern, Eastern and Southern parts of The Netherlands to refer to people from the Western and center parts of The Netherlands. Quink.


203.0.180.2, the text you keep adding is incorrect. The Netherlands is no longer used for Belgium, an no Belgian is offended by the Netherlands referring to that country, as no Belgian considers himself as such. Also, common usage doesn't make things correct. We often say England or Great Britain when we mean the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), or America when we mean the United States (of America). Jeronimo

It is not the job of an encyclopedia to tell people what to use. As a Limburger I may be insulted by the Netherlands being called Holland, but that does not change the fact that a significant amount of English speakers refer to the Netherlands as Holland.--user:Branko
When I lived in The Netherlands I met lots of Dutch people who explained it's common for them to refer to their country as Holland, although I think this only applies when they're speaking in English. In "Nederlands", as far as I remember, they never refer to their country as Holland. It annoyed the hell out of me that they'd use the same logic for Scotland and England. We Scots DO mind! :) - dduck Dduck 13:06, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've edited the text further regarding the Holland/Netherlands issue, see Talk:Netherlands. Also amended the etymology and removed Holland Tunnel which I believe is named after its engineer/builder, not this Holland. Scipius 21:28 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)

From my own education the etymological link to holt land is incorrect, for a number of reasons too: 1) holt is a scandinavian root, while hol is a native root, 2) the evolution of Dutch in language would not have dropped a t that easily, 3) that region of the netherlands is, and has always been, a very low-density area for woods, so the naming would be totally illogical as well.

  1. This can't be proven - and then there were plenty of Vikings and Saxons around at the time.
  2. In fact it's very common in Hollandic to drop the t's (never forget the standard language is largely Brabantian)- besides the region might well have been Frisian.
  3. Perhaps the name originally referred to the wooded transitional area between the dunes and the peat lands as the latter probably were almost uninhabited. And then bushes are "wood" too.--MWAK 11:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] It's "Holland" in cricket

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.)

Note that Nederland has a full three syllables.--MWAK 15:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Dutch football audiences show shawls with the text Holland on it, but when the country names are shown on television Netherlands is the name, which is official and correct.--84.26.109.69 12:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonies of Holland

I'm removing this as it should be in the Netherlands article not the Holland article. Arthur Holland 08:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It actually is a copy of a paragraph in the Netherlands article, and that is the proper location. -- Eugene van der Pijll 09:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the Netherlands or Holland?

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.

As a Dutchman living in the province of Noord-Brabant I personally find it rather insulting (misrecognizing the fact that ten of the twelve provinces do not belong to the region properly called Holland) if someone uses Holland to refer to the Netherlands. I always use the Netherlands when I refer to my country in English, but most Dutch people are uncomfortable with using articles in front of country names. That's why Dutchmen use Holland for the Netherlands in English. The Dutch people not being used to use articles in front of country names also leads to pars pro toto mistakes in Dutch such as Engeland for het Verenigd Koninkrijk, which would insult Scots and Welshmen gravely. These mistakes happen constantly on a daily basis (with myself not taking part in this mistake, though I am sometimes tempted to use Groot-Brittannië (without article) instead). Using Holland for the Netherlands and England for the United Kingdom is just a sloppy use of language. It isn't wrong per se but it is certainly not stylish, tidy or correct. It is recommended to use language in a way which insults the least people; that's called etiquette. I don't feel hatred or contempt towards Holland (the two provinces I mean) (I don't speak the Brabantian dialect and even consider a large part of the Brabantian population to be too provincial), but using Holland for the Netherlands is a testimony of ignorance in the broadest sense of the word. A lot of elderly people in Brabant and Limburg would be seriously distraught if you use Holland instead of Netherlands: to them Holland means exploitation and (religious) repression conducted by Protestants against Catholics (a majority in the southern part of the Netherlands). I wouldn't use England for the UK, knowing that I would offend Scottish and Welsh people. I even don't use Great Britain to refer to the UK, knowing that most British people (including English) say for example "In the UK..." It is rather sad that English language speakers and Dutchmen alike make these minor though potentially awkward mistakes. --84.26.109.69 12:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The simple fact is that many people do use "Holland" for "the Netherlands", whether you like it or not. (Ever heard the "Hup Holland Hup" at a soccer game of the national team?) Your personal feelings ("rather insulting"; "not stylish", "a testimony of ignorance") are totally irrelevant. Skarioffszky 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
How is it ignorant to stand up for the truth? With people like you people would still think the earth is flat..

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)

Sorry, that's not true. In the Netherlands we call our own country 'Nederland' and in English we use both 'Holland' and 'The Netherlands'. I'm quite sure, however, that in the region I live (Frisia) people use seldom 'Holland' in English, but choose 'The Netherlands' instead. This is because Frisian 'Hollanner' is an insult and means something like 'kakker' in Dutch (don't know the exact English word). 'Hollanner' means something like the opposite of insultive 'boer', 'farmer'. Holland is seen as the provinces Norht- and South-Holland and sometimes also including the province of Utrecht.-83.117.225.78 15:33, 20 July 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)

Sorry, bur The Netherlands formed never a republic with Belgium and Luxemburg. The three countries were part of the possessions of the duke of Burgundy, but the bishpory of Liege (Limburg) was not a part of it. In those days there were 17 Netherlands and a number of free cities. On the formation of the republic of the Netherlands (7 provinces forming the United Netherlands), the southern Netherlands were not a part of it; they were kept under control of Spain (later Austria). Holland was by far the biggest, richest and most populous province of the United Netherlands. In principle every province had a stadholder (representive of the king, but the king did not exist!), but often several province shared the same stadholder (prince of Orange). Because the power of the province Holland, the stadholder of Holland in practice functioned as head of state for all the Netherlands. That is probably the beginning of the confusion. After Napoleon the kingdom of the Netherlands was formed, until 1830 including Belgium and in practice also Luxemburg. Until a few decades ago the inhabitants of the other provinces considered it as an insult, when was said that they were inhabitants of 'Holland'. However, due to internal migration and under influence of foreign people, also many persons from other proveinces are nowadays saying that they come from Holland. So, correctly speaking Netherlands is the correct translation of the kingdom of the Netherlands, but in practice the use of the word is accepted by most people (but not all!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvhoorn (talk • contribs) 09:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
& sorry again: From the Romans through te Spanisch occupation this region ('countries' didn't exist!) was called 'the low countries = Nederlanden. Only during the so called Golden Age, the name 'Holland' came in use. Wich btw in MY surroundings only is uses as an insult.

--86.92.83.98 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe — I'm unaware of any exact data — that the number of people in The Netherlands using Holland as the name of the country has actually declined since WWII. As I remember it, this was much more common in the first half of the 20th century. It is now far less common than the use of "English" for "British" in the UK. Another point is that it was never in this sense used in any even slightly formal context.--MWAK 10:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no statistics, but I guess that you are partly right. In the two provinces North- and Sout-Holland the use of the word Holland for referring to the whole Netherlends has strongly declined, however, in the other parts of the country the use of the word Holland has increased considerably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvhoorn (talk • contribs) 08:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map issues

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)

Here you go :) --Astrokey44 15:37, 1 January 2007 (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.

[edit] holland

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.

[edit] Ultimately (possibly)? Which is it?

From the article:

The name Holland ultimately stems (possibly) from holt land ("wooded land")

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 ...


[edit] "Schlovfterdeich"

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)

[edit] Untrue mentioning of transferred villages

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.

According to these websites and my memory the information you dispute is correct. [2] [3] [4] Bart van der Pligt 14:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population

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)

Yes, someone again confused the two concepts :o). I'll remedy.--MWAK 07:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

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).

  • The language and style are rough in places.
  • It jumps around from subject to subject.
  • The headings are misleading and confusing.
  • Inexplicably, there are maps showing the Netherlands, when the article is about Holland. Surely there are maps and other images that deal with Holland itself.

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)

Well, you certainly made a good effort at improving the general arrangement of the information, but I think you also went awry on a few points:
  1. Your style is at present too colloquial. The article is not a tourist brochure.
  2. Do not hesitate to use the adjective "Hollandic" if the use of an adjective would be normal. Your statement that it does and does not exist in English is of course contradictory. It does — many English historians have come to the conclusion they cannot do without — and this is precisely the sort of context in which it would be functional and thus appropriate. The section you wrote about this seems merely to be created to argue otherwise. The statement that especially in an historical context, the adjective "Dutch" can be used, is of course as such correct. But only in those cases in which no contrast exists to the other provinces.
  3. Unless you intend to expand the article considerably, the number of chapters and sections is at the moment much too high. Condensing a bit wouldn't hurt if the subject matter can be logically connected.--MWAK (talk) 16:55, 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)

I agee, the article needs substantial editing and I think that Schildewaert made a good start. I do not agree the style is too colloquial, and anyway as I said, I think it is a good start and I am convinced style will improve in subsequent minor edits. I am a bit worried though about the addition of the list in the middle of the article. One way or another Dutch wiki has many lists in articles, while English wiki tends to split those of. Personally I am more in favour of the latter.
I would be very hesitant to use Hollandic after say 1600 as I have seen it only used by Medieval historians in England. (before about 1600 the Netherlands did not exist and Holland was a separate entity).
I think the proposed structure is a great improvement, again, I see this as a very good start rather then the end result. Some structuring was desperately needed.
Re Schilewaert. There are some standards and guidelines on Wiki (and on English wiki these are more formal compared to most other Wikipedias). Most importantly: it is a cooperative project. You have to assume everyone is out there to improve (assume good faith); and it is perfectly alright to disagree as even 2,000 hours of editing an article will not give you ownership over the content. If you can't take criticism Wiki may indeed not be the project for you, but be aware that only be constant evaluation and improvement by multiple editors, exhibiting multiple ideas and points of view is there any chance of a volunteer encyclopia to be even closely reliable. Arnoutf (talk) 21:52, 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 am not a fan of the warning boxes myself, I think it has grown out of control; there is always something wrong with things even in papers in journals like Science and Nature, and those don't have warning boxes.
Consensus is not necessarily anonimity, but it requires much more than mere majority. The line is thin though (have a look at the European Union article and shiver.
I agree, with your approach, and noticed you fleshed out existing materials. In my opinion Wikipedia is not for historians at all (or any other specialist, they should go to their University library and study the primary literature) but for the interested public. Arnoutf (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
With a "too colloquial style" I meant phrases like: "The colourful picture-postcard images of flower fields, especially tulip fields, are a typical scene in rural Holland in March and April" or "Each of the provinces in the Netherlands has a distinct and proud history that deserves full attention on its own", that are evidently too informal. Perhaps I should also add that I think you write very well and pleasing. Just a tad too colloquial for an encyclopedia ;o).
As regards the vexing question of whether or not to use the adjective "Hollandic": your statement in the article <<There is no adjectival form for "Holland">> is of course simply incorrect. What is lacking is a commonly used adjective. But the reason for this, is obviously that "Holland" itself is commonly used in English as an equivalent of "The Netherlands". If so the adjective "Dutch" is appropriate. In those rare occasions however when "Holland" refers to Holland proper, the province, it would be very awkward not to use an adjective, so linguists and historians, the people most liable to find themselves in such a situation, employ the term "Hollandic" — and not just for mediaeval times: Jonathan Israel, at present the most influential anglophone writer on the subject of Dutch history, regularly uses it for the period of the Republic. Now this article is just such an occasion: it is not about The Netherlands but about the province. It would thus seem appropriate to conform to the specialist use of an adjective, as we indeed need to use the term "Holland" itself in a very special sense. Most readers are no doubt quite surprised to learn that Holland is just one of the Netherlands and that a distinction can be made. To surprise them a bit further, by using the word "Hollandic" to which they most certainly also will not be accustomed, is then quite functional because it has the enormous advantage of avoiding in each instance the inherent ambiguity: is Holland proper meant or not? "Hollandic" leaves no doubt as to that. Appositional constructions like "Holland Lion" produce an English that is just as poor as "Germany Eagle" or "Russia Bear". Obviously we must make it very clear that the usage is specialist and problematical in colloquial language; there are no unproblematical solutions however: the ones you suggested all carry the dangerous ambiguity...--MWAK (talk) 09:04, 9 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)

You're right about Schama at least — but then, stressing the dictinction between Holland and the other provinces would not have fitted his theories ;o). I think the problem in the present section about usage is that you have done what is natural: you have tried to advise the reader on which adjective to use. But the function of an encyclopedia is not primarily prescriptive but descriptive. We shouldn't tell the reader what to do but what the linguistic facts are. So if we should agree that (pace Schama :o) "Holland Lion" is poor English, we still should mention such constructions, because they are in fact used. If the reader should imitate them, this is perhaps deplorable — but not our business.
So I propose the section to be structured like this: first the fact that no common adjective exists, connecting this to the fact that "Holland" most often is an equivalent of "The Netherlands"; then the fact that specialists in a linguistic and historical context sometimes use the terms "Hollandish" or "Hollandic" and last the way the problem outside of these contexts is in fact solved.
As to the very different question whether we, in this article, should employ the term, I tend to answer in the affirmative, following this line of argument:
  1. Our primary task is to correctly inform the reader.
  2. This noble quest is imperilled by the fact said reader has been conditioned to equate "Holland" with "The Netherlands".
  3. This conditioning is apparently very strong: countless times have editors, in good faith, changed the population number from 6.1 to 16.1 million and "County of Holland" into "Country of Holland", despite the article making it abundantly clear it is not about the country.
  4. We are therefore in need of an adjective that unambiguously does not refer to "The Netherlands".
  5. Such an adjective exists: "Hollandic".
  6. This adjective is used by specialists within a historical context for precisely the same reasons we need it: to stress the distinction with the other provinces and to avoid ambiguity.
  7. An encyclopedic article should be as close as possible to the best sources. As these are often scientific, parts of its content will — and should —function as little pieces of scientific discourse, including the terminology. So when we describe the history of Holland it is fitting that we should also adopt the typical historical jargon. Compare this to the use of Italic.
  8. That the adjective is never used outside of a scientific context only serves our purpose.
Your concerns about normativity are reflected by your fear that "Hollandic" would "take hold". I could again say that this is not our business; but should we care about the use of proper language (I know I do :o), there seems to be nothing improper in the spread of a functional concept. Of course this might be different if it were again misunderstood and started to replace "Dutch". But chances of this happening are surely infinitisimally small, certainly if we use the very pedantic "Hollandic" instead of "Holandish" ;o).--MWAK (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the first 4 points of your analysis. However I start to disagree at point 5.
Yes Hollandic as a words exists, but then again British as an adjective also exists and does not refer to the Netherlands. Ok, this is not a very good example but point 5 should be
5 This same adjective should on the other hand refer to the modern province/county of Holland
Then your point 5 (IMHO) no longer holds as it does not refer to the modern province of Holland, but to the old county/state
I also disagree with point 6. Yes it is used in historical context, but not to distinguish from the Netherlands (which at that time did not exist) but as the only option to discuss the largely independent entity of Holland (notice that the early republic discussed by Israel was a very loose federation.
At 7; yes we should use good source; but we only have them for the historic context (I would say pre 1795). So for that period we can use Hollandic, but not after.
At 8 That the adjective is used in scientific context only is acceptable, although I would prefer a more commonly used term if available. That the adjective is only used in historical context is however a problem, trasnfering that to modern context could be considered original research, or some variant on neologism (actually reviving an archaic word no longer in use); both of which are discouraged in Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I too had mainly the use in a historical context in mind; keeping close to the sources will reflect that these rarely use "Hollandic" in a modern context, with the exception of linguistics of course.--MWAK (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vrouw Holle

- 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, the theory that the name is derived from Hel (being), today has been almost entirely discarded by serious scientists. The area also had a wooded zone between the dunes and the swamps — and bushes are holt too. --MWAK (talk) 07:11, 5 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. Please sign your posts using the four tildes ~~~~
  2. While this is all interesting it feels like original research. If you think "unwritten history" is neglected, feel free to change that...... by publishing it in the scientific literature outside Wikipedia. As Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia, and not a scientific journal, all presented facts require verifiable sources; and tends to adopt mainstream theories.
  3. More about the content. If you doubt the etymology of "Holland" to "Holtland" please ask for a reference for that claim; that should be found easily. However be careful with your lay-etymology attirubting Holland to Hollow and through that to vrouw Holle (btw "holle trees" is not proper Dutch, "Holle bomen" is). I am pretty sure that "Hollow" and "Holt" are very different. Arnoutf (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


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)

I realised you didn't know the ~ thingies, no problem. And of course the holle bomen etc was a joke, my response was meant as one too, but agree did not come across as such.
Back to the issue. This is the Holland article, and the accepted etymology is Holtland (that's why I entered Holt into the debate). Neither Holt nor Hollow is likely to have immediate relation to Hout. But the similarity makes it difficult. Anyway, I am still not convinced the whole "vrouw Holle" story needs to be in this article. Arnoutf (talk) 19:28, 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)

Scientific publishing maybe biased sometimes, it still is the best thing we have.
Anyway, according to Wikipedia policies, wikipedia is not the place to engage in original research as all facts need to be verifiable. And even if you can find some references for your theory it still needs to be shown to be more than a fringe theory. This does not say all information on Wikipedia needs factually be true, only that it reflects mainstream scientific opinion (which maybe wrong). Wikipedia is not the place to engage in debate concerning the validity of current views. If you think you can make the case for your Holle->Holland, feel free to publish those views elsewhere; gather support for the view after which the view is welcome on Wikipedia. (please read the Wikipedia policies on original research WP:OR, verifiability WP:V and the inclusion of fringe theories WP:FRINGE, before continuing with this debate). Arnoutf (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


ok. it was still worth trying though :D 85.144.220.201 (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Holland" is colloquially used in English and other languages, including sometimes the Dutch language itself,"

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 agree the sentence is complex, but IMHO the line ""Holland" is colloquially used in English and other languages, including sometimes the Dutch language itself, to mean the whole of the modern country of the Netherlands. " should be read as "In English and other languages (including Dutch), the word Holland is used as a synonym for the country the Netherlands"'. Arnoutf (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The sentence as it originally was makes sense. The source of 88.111.123.170's confusion (i.e that this sentence refers to the language as opposed to the name of the region) is unclear. Perhaps he/she isn't an English speaker. Your suggestion is also fine Arnoutf. Although the change seems unnecessary, I've amended it to try to eliminate this confusion, unnecessary as it is. Schildewaert (talk) 05:27, 13 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

First of all, nobody is referring to Holland as a language, and I cannot read that in any of the texts; so I really don't see the point of this discussion.
My suggestions was not immediately meant as a replacement only to deconstruct the meaning of the original sentence; but if you think it fits, fine with me
Thirdly, the article agrees with the colloquial use of Holland for the Netherlands, but states that it is only about the province Holland. The disambiguation pointers to the full Netherlands should help readers who thought they would end up in the Netherlands (btw, this is not so different from England which is colloquially used in many countries to mean the whole of the UK).
Finally. when we are specifically referring to the province Holland, the adjective is Hollandic. This is archaic but used in English (e.g. by historians such as Israel). When referring to the pars-pro-toto the adjective is Dutch; but this page is not about the Netherlands. Arnoutf (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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"."

I agree with your comment here, but it's not clear why you made it. It seems to be based on the erroneous assumption that in this article it says somewhere that someone can "speak Holland". That's not what it says. (There is a reference to a dialect called "Hollandic".) With all due respect, you seem to have misread what was written there. I've simplified it so that others hopefully don't make the same mistake.

You said: "Holland is the name for a country not a language."

This is completely false. Holland is not a country at all. You've missed the entire point of the explanation. The name of the country in English is "The Netherlands". (If you want references to back this up, let me know. They are easy to find.) "Holland" per se no longer exists. The region that used to be called "Holland" is merely part of the Netherlands. It was divided into two provinces, neither of which is called "Holland". It is important to point this out in this article because there is a wealth of information available on Wikipedia for those who search under the correct names.
I've been told by Dutch people that English speakers are confused about this point, but until reading your post I've never really understood how deep this confusion is. People who refer to the Netherlands as "Holland" are doing so colloquially and incorrectly.
The approach taken here is the same as that taken in the Merriam-Webster definition of "Holland":
1 - ...
2 - medieval county of Holy Roman Empire bordering on North Sea, now forming North & S.South Holland provinces of the Netherlands
3 — see Netherlands
I want to add here that for someone to insist that another country's name is something that it is not is culturally insensitive and close to arrogant. Imagine insisting to a Scot that the Scot is from "England". Yes, many people (including Dutch people) do themselves use "Holland" in this way but it is colloquial and inaccurate.

You said: "The English name for the language most commonly used is Dutch."

I don't disagree with you, but just to reiterate: no one is saying otherwise.

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."

I'm sorry, but I quite disagree. It is incorrect to refer to the U.K. as "England", even though many people throughout the world commonly do exactly that. Does this common mistake mean that it would be correct to refer to Scotland as part of England? And that Wikipedia should promote that? Surely not.
People who refer to the Netherlands as "Holland" are not speaking formally, clearly and accurately. They are speaking colloquially. This is explained in the article. It doesn't help that Dutch people are themselves often using "Holland" in this way when they communicate in English.
More importantly, a choice has to be made in Wikipedia about whether to put everything under "Holland" or everything under "the Netherlands". Clearly, it should not go under "Holland". Still, some kind of article is needed for "Holland". This has to include some kind of guidance to direct people to the correct pages.

You said: "The adjective for 'Holland' in English is 'Dutch'."

No, "Dutch" is the adjective for "the Netherlands".

You said: "You may not like that fact...that English is not Dutch."

I recently edited this article and I'm an English speaker. I repeat: I am not Dutch; I am an English speaker. You've assumed a Dutch POV when there is none. These explanations in the article are an attempt to provide some guidance on usage to English speakers and others who are utterly confused about the concept of "Holland" and what it means. I would think that such subtleties would be understood by experts on linguistics and qualified English teachers. Look up pars pro toto.

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)

[edit] What to do with this page?

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)

To begin with answering your last issue: indeed, there very much is a Holland — and it has much more than a merely ghostly existence. This Holland is also more than simply the political history of the County of Holland (ending in 1795 — or as some would say already in 1581) or the province of Holland (ending in 1840); its geographical qualities are relevant too — and so is its history prior to its becoming a county — and most important is its development as a cultural entity. Some information might be best inserted into North Holland and South Holland, like the details about the regions. The issues "Origins and usage of the word Holland" and "Holland's identity" have however their natural place in an article "Holland"; giving them their own article in full length would be nice (combined with the present summary style mention in the larger article) but should not lead, by removal, to creating an artificial division between all kinds of information that must still somewhere be treated as an integrated whole. This is clearly shown by the obvious fact that a County of Holland article would also have to explain the origins of the name — and would also have to dedicate a chapter to the growing cultural dominance of the province within the whole of the Netherlands during the 17th and 18th century. As this growth did not stop in 1840 but to the contrary accelerated, it would be most natural to mention the beginning, development and present result of this phenomenon in one article.
However, directing the reader immediately to a disambiguation page seems most practical; the present article could then be renamed Holland (region), which would elegantly solve your last problem. The humongous amount of information available about the political history made by the Hollandic counts could then be placed in a separate County of Holland article.--MWAK (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree we can best rename the current disambiguation page Holland (disambiguation) Holland and then create a Holland (region), County of Holland C mon (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Hollanders referring to themselves as Hollanders

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)

Simply put the first version was not very controversial and (with the references provided by you) does conform to WP:V, the second line is at best original research. (In any case; but this is a bit incrowd, following Poppers reasoning, the line reverted by you requires that all 16+ million Dutchmen are interviewed, while the opposite only requires a single Dutch person to disagree. I do, so the "all Dutchmen" line is already proven (i.e. sufficient empirical evidence of the contrary is already provided by my statement "I do") to be incorrect)
In other words, I support your change for 100%. Well caught. Arnoutf (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment of this page

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)

But this is not where we have reached consensus on! The idea was to rename the present article into Holland (region); geography and language information can then simply be kept.--MWAK (talk) 09:23, 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

  • duplicates information already found under Netherlands, South Holland, North Holland, Hollandic or perhaps another page and
  • gives the false impression of Holland being a country in itself and
  • leads people to think this is a country page

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)

Sounds like a very good proposition to me:-) Tomeasytalk 06:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that an article about a region should have geographical and linguistical information about that region. The, presently rather minimal, historical information, had better been on that page too, for the simple reason that the region had a history before it became a county — and the historical administrative changes after it ended being a county and before the split between North Holland and South Holland (i.e. the period between 1795 and 1840) has to be treated somewhere also. Disambiguation pages should emphatically not be "beefed up". And is the impression that Holland is a "country in itself" totally false? Not really. Of course the concept "country" is in itself ambiguous. According to Jonathan Israel The Netherlands originated by a process of nation formation making them in essence a Greater Holland. If so, by necessity any correct treatment of the subject will reflect this historical ambiguity: Holland was at the same time a region among others and the core of a new nation. So foreigners do not simply make a mistake when calling The Netherlands Holland; they are recognising a fundamental truth. Yes, this is a bit confusing and thus will also confuse the reader. But this is as it should be. Deleting and fragmentating those aspects only obfuscates the true situation: that there is a political and cultural entity called "Holland", persistent through the centuries, that is in some ways contiguous with The Netherlands and in some ways in contraposition to them and this till the present day. You are trying to create a false impression of clarity where none is present :o).
You see, encyclopedias are not there to makes things easy for the reader but simply to present the facts, even if these be difficult facts.--MWAK (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)