User talk:HP1740-B
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HP1740-B (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Sources
Could you point me to some of your literature on the topic of Dutch ethnicity? Iblardi (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Many of the books on specifically Dutch ethnicity are nationalist 19th/early 20th century works, from before the advent of genetic studies. Most literature with good information on the Dutch etnicity can be found in general ethnic books like those by Eysenck and Smith. Or culture books, like those by Vossestein. Also many of the best books on Dutch history touch and explain the subject.HP1740-B (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New intro
I think the new introduction you came up with is a real improvement in comparison with the previous one, much more balanced and much better stylistically. Not a bad job at all. Iblardi (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] German
It's a bit POV provocative to keep mentioning German. We know without question what the SS's cause was. SS is far less weasily than German as an adjective, since it refers directly to the organisation. WilliamH (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Translation of Nederlands to Lowlands
Hi I saw your edit, and tend to disagree. I have given two issues why I think Netherlands is a better translation than Lowlands, and why I think Lallans is irrelevant. Can you please comment on those on the new section on the Talk:Dutch language page, so we can find a mutually acceptable solution instead of engaging in a revert war. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Your discussion/debate w/ Arnoutf and Iblardi in the Dutch language article is insightful, and for me, a rallying point. The ambiguity that exists in any discussion/article/statement referring to the terms "Dutch" or "Netherlands" is inevitable. I think the point is to make the reader/researcher/visitor aware that any use of the words "Dutch" or "Netherlands" may require, perhaps almost demands, an awareness of that ambiguity. It points to the discrepancies that come about when using Dutch/Netherlands/Low Countries/Flemish (anyone of those words and more) as though they were clear and precise, and interchangable. They are not...even to those that have some perception of their use in context. I view the debate(s) here and on other pages with deep interest, but more than a little trepidation. I am aware that my vantage point alters my view but perhaps it also provides a unique perspective. I will continue to watch and learn. Thanks for your insights.--Buster7 (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Usage
[edit] "gouda reference was not a reference"
Hello, could you clarify what you mean exactly with your words "gouda reference was not a reference" in this summary? Thanks. Iblardi (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was positioned behind a statement it did not validate/back up.HP1740-B (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dutch (Etnic Group)
85.146.24.65 has undone your removal of the famous Dutchmen gallery. Also, how and to who do I report this anonomous and abusive editor. His racist and vulgar edits on other Belgian/Netherlandic articles and discussions are not appropriate. Not censorship but a censure is in order.--Buster7 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
