From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiProjects and notice board[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Netherlands for information on Wikipedia activities related to the Netherlands.


Every now and then, something like "also called Holland" is added to the first sentence of this article, which is often changed in wording time after time and eventually removed before popping up again. I think it's better to get to a consensus on if we want to have it and if yes, in which words.

Personally I don't really mind what it will be, but there is something to say for both. Officially, the country's name is not Holland. Strictly speaking, Holland is only a region in the Netherlands. Dutchmen from outside Holland also don't like this name for the country. However, fact is that in the English-speaking world (and also outside) the country is often called and known as Holland anyway and even the Dutch government is promoting it with that name. I think this usage should perhaps also be acknowledged in an encyclopedia like this.

So, do we want to keep it in and in what wording, or do we want to omit it? If it's kept, then we should have a reliable source for it or otherwise still remove it. Thayts ••• 21:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The NL is often, not rarely, called Holland, even by the Dutch themselves. The answer then is simple - it should be noted somewhere in this article, logically at the start. The problem is not so much with the editors who want to insert the word Holland but with those pedantically correct editors who do not. A good comparison is with the UK-England debate: even though those within the UK who refer to the UK as England, has dwindled to a trickle over time, many outside the UK still regularly persist with this habit, the Dutch included. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, so I'd like to get to a consensus so that we can refer to this discussion later. Thayts ••• 07:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
"Holland" is predominantly used as a synonym of the "Netherlands" in Dutch. In English it is virtually always or plainly always a synonym of the "Netherlands" and it often is the first choice name. This is the English-language Wikipedia so I support putting it in the first phrase of the article and keeping it there. I suggest "The Netherlands, informally Holland, is a country in Western Europe." gidonb (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Thayts and User:Roger 8 Roger, do you agree with this proposal? Anyone else? gidonb (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree Thayts ••• 17:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the phrase in the lead. Thayts ••• 21:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! gidonb (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree FWIW, I agree with the rationale. The government may not use it anymore for tourism purposes, and the term is luckily obsolete in sports. Technically the term is incorrect and only refers to part o the country. However, this term is still in widespread (though informal) use, and as long as that the case, we should mention it... L.tak (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Edit: lack of XP working with Wikipedia, sorry. It is simply wrong; it is the Netherlands, not Holland. Regardless of what some (or even many) of us might be shouting during football matches. Please remove / update it to make this more clear, thanks! Anecdotal reference to this matter somewhere later on in the article would be fine... I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:a0c0:11e4:7c7f:7d9f:9124:eba7 (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
To explain the confusion a bit: Holland vs the Netherlands. The Banner talk 09:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
It may formally be wrong, but if it is commonly used for this purpose by so many English speakers then it does have that meaning to those speakers. As an encyclopedia, I believe this should be acknowledged on Wikipedia, if only to make it clear to the reader this is a country that is also known by that name. The controversy of its use is explained further down the article. Thayts ••• 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
no Disagree The Netherlands has been historically referred to as "Holland" for the same reasons the United Kingdom was referred to as "England" or the Soviet Union as "Russia", simply due to the fact that those regions were the most influential politically and economically in their respective countries. Many people mistake the United Kingdom to be the same thing as England. Should it also be mentioned on the United Kingdom article that it is informally referred to as "England" in that case?
Dutch people living outside of North Holland and South Holland, or what people living in Holland refer to as the "provincial people" feel insulted when they are referred to as "Hollanders". Especially when considering Friesland has a separate dialect and history and Utrecht has a history predating Holland within the development of the Netherlands. --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
no Disagree Calling the Netherlands "Holland" would be similar to saying "Berlin" instead of "Germany" or saying "New York" instead of "United States". Just my 2 cents. Tommy has a great username (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a great point, but it isn't. The designation Holland comes from before the 17th century when Holland was politically AND economically more than 80% of the Netherlands. I made sense then and it stuck. Also note that "The Netherlands", since 2000 more often "Netherlands" is an awkward plural word or plural sounding word. All in all Holland is used often. The people are Dutch and not Hollander; That is not used in my experience.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankk20168 (talkcontribs) 07:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree TobyJ (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree Though maybe geographically incorrect and though people outside the Randstad may feel left out, it is a name that is often used to refer to the country both in spoken language and secondary sources (also according to the Oxford English Dictionary). It is different from calling Germany Berlin, because both secondary sources and people talking about Germany never do this. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
AgreeÆtoms [talk] 12:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree Holland is the formal name that the Netherlands uses in most languages. In English, it's informal but extremely common in use. Hence it should come right after the formal name, as suggested above. The comparison with Berlin for Germany is ridiculous. Holland is just another name for the Netherlands that could also mean something else. Berlin is not a synonym for Germany! All objections so far are prescriptive or wishful thinking. Wikipedia is descriptive. gidonb (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
no Disagree Makes no sense, if has to be mentioned we should mention that it is not just informal but wrong. JonahF (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::no Disagree Holland and the Netherlands are not the same thing. Holland is a region in the west of the Netherlands, the rest of the Netherlands is not Holland. Calling the Netherlands "Holland", be it informal or not, is simply wrong. An encyclopedia is not supposed to give wrong information. PPP (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Was banned for sockpuppeteering in this discussion and elsewhere on enwiki. gidonb (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, are we seriously having this discussion again? Every archived talk page of the Netherlands has a discussion about some people who seem to think they can name countries as they please. The Netherlands is the Netherlands, not Holland. If you don't like it, change the constitution. PPP (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

But at some level, we can and we do. Germany makes no sense to the Deutschen that live in that country. Japan, Greece (Hellas) are some other countries where the English name has little to d with the local name. Sure China, India, and Birma have successfully bullied the world into changing their names or their city's names in the English language. But except maybe for Peking, Bombay, and Birma you will find few references to those changed names. The name Holland will appear in many English texts and English language readers will want to understand what that means and also why.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankk20168 (talkcontribs) 07:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

::::no Disagree Holland and the Netherlands are not the same Pee-Tor (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet of PPP. gidonb (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sigh :( Here we go again. PPP, what the Netherlands is officially called, and what it is often called in unofficial contexts, is irrelevant here. The rule is what it is called in commonly used English. Evidence, if needed, of what it is called in common English is supplied by RSS's. What someone in Breda calls the country, in English or in Dutch, or what they are thinking at the time, is totally irrelevant. For the purpose of this article the OED is a RSS, but even if you want something better, there are plenty of top quality sources that will confirm the Holland is often used by English users to refer to the Netherlands. This has been discussed and decided. So, please stop barking up the wrong tree and move on. And, do not start an edit war! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, shall I add to the page about the United Kingdom that it's also called England then? No, of course not, because it is wrong, just like calling the Netherlands "Holland" is wrong. Of course that matters more than what it's commonly called. Since this mistake is regularly made, it it notable for this article, but with the notion that it is actually incorrect and with a link to an article about the real Holland. Also please explain to me why you wrote this as a reply to someone else's vote. PPP (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
PPP, I would like to ask you to remove the disputed tag if it is only placed there for the "informally Holland". Nobody here is disputing that originally Holland referred solely to a region of the Netherlands (as is explained in Netherlands#Holland). However, at least in the English language, Holland has come to refer to the entire country, even though it originally only referred to part of it and even though Holland can still be used to refer to that region. The meaning of words is determined by how they are used and that can change over time. Reliable sources overwhelmingly support that Holland can mean the entire Netherlands. Britannica: "Netherlands (...), also known as Holland". Oxford English Dictionary: "The name of a province of the Northern Netherlands (...); now usually extended to the kingdom of the Netherlands". Merriam-Webster: Holland 3rd geographical meaning "NETHERLANDS". Cambridge Dictonary: Holland 1st meaning "a name that is sometimes used for the Netherlands". Oxford Learner's Dictionary: Netherlands "a country in western Europe, also called Holland". Van Dale: 2nd meaning of Holland "Nederland". To compare it with your example of England for the UK. Merriam-Webster, the Oxford English Dictionary, the Cambridge Dictionary, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, and Van Dale don't mention the entire United Kingdom as a meaning for England and don't mention England as an alternative on their United Kingdom page. Britannica does mention it, but says "Outside the British Isles, England is often erroneously considered synonymous with the island of Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) and even with the entire United Kingdom." So, there's a reliable source saying it should not be used. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not necessarily on the official name of something. You keep repeating that using Holland is a mistake rather than just informal, but so far you have presented no reliable source that agrees and Wikipedia is no place for original research. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I have not opposed to having the phrase altogether, only to add the notion that de facto calling the Netherlands "Holland" is wrong, because it is, as per previous consensus (see archived Talk pages). If we were to follow "what people say", we may as well add that the Corona virus is a hoax, because a lot of Americans, and thus a large portion of the English-speaking world, says that. As well as that God created the world in seven days and that Trump has won the elections. And of course that the UK is also known as England. See how silly that is? If we follow everything people say, we are no longer an encyclopedia, but merely a website with lies. The fact that a lot of people say that, is definitely notable, but we must add that in fact it is wrong. Not to mention offensive, because particularly Frisians, Limburgers and Caribbeans are often offended when calling the entire Netherlands "Holland", which is probably why it is so often removed from the article, and I can tell you, it will happen for as long as Wikipedia exists. For references, I refer to archived talk pages, because apparently we really are having this discussion again, as we have it each time this talk page is archived. We had consensus a number of times before, I would also like to see that this will be noted on the talk page once this is archived again. PPP (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Facts in language are fundamentally different from facts in nature. As you say, a lot of things are being said that are untrue. First of all, that is why Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources (per WP:V). A lot of misinformation about COVID-19 is being spread, but Wikipedia is only supposed to include what reliable sources say (i.e. the scientific community and reliable media). Among reliable sources, there is an overwhelming consensus that COVID-19 is not a hoax and that Biden won the elections. The Netherlands being called Holland is reported in such reliable sources as I have enumerated. You keep saying that it is wrong "because it is", but you have still presented no reliable source saying that this is a mistake (see WP:BUTITSTRUE). Second of all, words in language are a convention. If everybody would start saying that COVID-19 does not exist or that 9/11 did not happen, that would not change reality. It still happened and whatever people are saying, they cannot change the truth. Language works differently. The reason we call a chair "a chair" is because we have decided to call it that. There's nothing inherent about the chair that it must have that name. If I would refer to a chair as "table", I would certainly be making a mistake. However, if everybody would start referring to chairs as "table", then the meaning of the word table would change. Dictionaries would change their definition and calling a chair "a table" would now be correct, as the meaning of words are determined by how they are used. This is seemingly what has happened to Holland. Language is just a convention as opposed to facts about nature, and reliable sources (dictionaries and Britannica) state that using Holland for the Netherlands is now a correct usage. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
As I already noted, there are already references made in previous discussions about this topic, but I take it you really want to start the whole thing over and over again. The name of a country is decided by the country itself, nobody else, so the only legitimate source about a country's name is the country's government. As such, this website should be sufficient proof. It specifically states that Holland is only the western two provinces and the country's name is the Netherlands. And thus, for as long as this is not reflected in the article, the dispute-template is justified. PPP (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I only want to add that the assumption that a country itself is the only one who can choose its name goes against Wikipedia policy WP:COMMONNAME/WP:OFFICIALNAMES. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree Agree to keep "Holland" in. It may be technically wrong, this pars pro toto has -Unlike "England" for the UK- been commonly used, also in very formalized settings (like in sports and NL-tourism promotion). It is not up to us to remove the term from the common terminology... L.tak (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Everybody says England when they mean the UK, I've even heard English people say that. PPP (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
You keep saying I've heard that people use England for the UK. And I know it is wrong to use Holland for the Netherlands. Wikipedia is not here to reflect what you believe to be true, but to say what reliable secondary sources are saying. All major dictionaries say that Holland is a correct alternative for the Netherlands, while not a single one of the ones I checked say England is a proper alternative for the UK. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Britannica: "Outside the British Isles, England is often erroneously considered synonymous with the island of Great Britain". PPP (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond here anymore btw because it is pointless, someone else will remove the phrase again soon enough and once this talk page is archived again, someone else will again start this discussion. This will go on forever. PPP (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

PPP, you just don't get it, even if you did look at pages such as weight. For those who do not know, in Holland it is reasonably common to call the UK 'England', and the Dutch word for England is England. This may or may not have a bearing on the current debate.

Actually the Dutch for 'England' is 'Engeland', although I'm not quite sure why this is relevant.TobyJ (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A typo on my part borne of dispair. The relevance, if it applies, should be obvious. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. PPP, it is not "wrong" if a word or name is commonly used to refer to something, because in language it then simply gets that meaning. But Tristan Surtel already explained this. Yes, technically it's "wrong" and the Dutch government even doesn't advertise the country like that anymore, but fact is that the English-speaking world often still uses Holland to refer to the Netherlands and in that sense it's not wrong. I therefore think that the maintenance template is a bit out of place. Thayts ••• 19:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, my serious last comment here: WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES absolutely do not mean official information is just to be ignored. In the website I linked above, the government of the Netherlands writes that Holland is a region within the Netherlands, it is not the country itself. Also, nowhere did I suggest that we should remove the phrase altogether, only add that although people may call the Netherlands Holland, or Great-Britain England, it is in fact incorrect. Which is true. I seriously don't see what's wrong with adding information that is factually correct. Furthermore, see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6] and tell me who is trying to override existing consensus by bringing this discussion up again. PPP (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC) (seriously not responding here anymore because it is pointless for above mentioned reasons)

The Dutch government in that source and in for example this source is mostly communicating that it is often called Holland, but that the Netherlands is preferable as Holland technically refers to only two of its provinces. That seems to be in agreement with what is currently in the article, namely the lead states that it is informally called Holland and the section Holland states that Holland proper is actually just the two provinces. Explaining the entire matter between the subject and verb of the first sentence would make it unreadable (and including "incorrectly referred to as Holland" does not seem to summarize the matter properly as neither the government nor the dictionaries are calling it outright wrong to use Holland, they just communicate that the Netherlands is more desirable/better). If it is still misleading, "informally referred to as Holland" or "commonly known as Holland" is also fine by me (the latter is used in the article United States for America, a very similar example). - Tristan Surtel (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Holland is a regio in The Netherlands. Thanks to a long history it became the most important part. That's why it's sometimes used as synonym for the Netherlands. I'm Dutch and I know many Dutch people don't like the term Holland. 2A02:A453:C8B7:1:E477:6460:D403:1341 (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Confusing Begin[edit]

The following sentence is confusing to me, certainly when you consider that for most people The Netherlands, Holland and The Kingdom of the Netherlands refers to the same thing.

"The Netherlands (Dutch: Nederland), informally Holland,[13] is a country primarily located in Western Europe and partly in the Caribbean, forming the largest constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.[14]"

It reads to me as if the country, both in Europe and the Caribbean, form the the largest constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. I would suggest replacing the first two sentences with the following wording:

The Netherlands (Dutch: Nederland), informally Holland,[13] is a country primarily located in Western Europe and partly in the Caribbean. In Europe it consists of 12 provinces that form the largest constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.[14] These provinces border Germany to the east, Belgium to the south, and the North Sea to the northwest, with maritime borders in the North Sea with those countries and the United Kingdom.

Anybody else agree?

Dutchdavey (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Your initial reading is correct, the BES islands are part of the Netherlands proper. CMD (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Neither the current nor the suggested texts are great. gidonb (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: a consensus to not move this page. The nominator is aware that the problems are related to the content of the article rather than the title itself. I'm closing this early as this is highly unlikely to succeed in the remaining days. (non-admin closure) (CC) Tbhotch 22:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

NetherlandsNetherlands (Constituent country)

This article does not refer to a sovereign country but the constituent country, which causes a lot of confusion. The Netherlands is both the name of the constituent country (to which this article refers) as well as the short name used by the sovereign country Kingdom of the Netherlands. The sovereign country, which is the member of the UNO, OCD, WTO, EU, NATO, etc. goes in all those instances by the short name The Netherlands. Furthermore, when people and references think of /refer to the Netherlands they mostly refer to the sovereign entity and not to the constituent country.

As a parallel, the article Denmark also refers to the sovereign country Kingdom of Denmark (which also goes by the short name Denmark) and not to the constituent country.

This proposal also considers moving Kingdom of the Netherlands to Netherlands, as this is the name under which this sovereign country is known all over the world and formally referred to in the UNO, OCD, WTO, EU, NATO, etc. SFBB (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Injecting a parenthetical disambiguator here is completely unnecessary. I dispute your contention that "when people and references think of /refer to the Netherlands they mostly refer to the sovereign entity and not to the constituent country". I think the exact opposite is actually true. When most English speakers refer to "the Netherlands" they are talking about the territory in Europe. And as far as your Denmark example, the constituent country of Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark apparently share the same article, so that's not directly applicable to this case where there are two separate articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify: both the country of Netherlands as well as the constituent country of the Netherlands have territories in the Caribbean and both are primarily located in Europe (so the argument about talking about the territory in Europe applies either to both or to none). SFBB (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Wikipedia:Article titles. Best read protocols and not waste peoples time on trying to move an article to some convoluted title..... this train of thought has only ever come from one person before User:Politialguru--Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 06:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I've read Wikipedia:Article titles and that's precisely the reason for proposing this change. The commonly name used for the Kingdom of the Netherlands is Netherlands and that's what the short name is most commonly used for, not for the constituent country. SFBB (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • no Disagree Absurd. We need an article with the commonly used name of the country.TobyJ (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. That's precisely the point for the change. To be able to use the common name Netherlands for the actual country, which is Kingdom of the Netherlands and not the constituent country. SFBB (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I wonder just how much confusion readers would suffer from if this proposed change did actually take place. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course it is confusing, as the country and the constituent country share the same common name, but there's nothing that wikipedia can make about that (blame the Dutch). What wikipedia indeed can do, is to avoid that people searching for a country, end up in the article of a constituent country. SFBB (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If moved it should be Netherlands (constituent country) (lower case "c") since a constituent country isn't a proper noun. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I'm guessing people are not understanding what this proposal is about: The main idea is to make space to move Kingdom of the Netherlands to Netherlands, which is the commonly used name of the country. The name Netherlands is mostly for used for a sovereign country, like France or Germany, and not for a constituent country like Wales or Faroe Islands.
Furthermore, all sovereign countries in the world in eswiki (see List of sovereign states) go by their common name and not by the official name (e.g. Republic of China is Taiwan and Syrian Arab Republic is Syria). The only exception in the encyclopedia is Netherlands, in which case the common name is occupied by a constituent country and not by the actual country. This situations absolutely ad-hoc and it should be corrected. The proposed change satisfis WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION (indicating the the constituent country is not an actual sovereign country and so avoiding confusion) and WP:CONCISE (using the common, short name for the sovereign country instead of mostly not used official name for a sovereign country) SFBB (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article Kingdom of the Netherlands mostly discusses the organizational structure of the kingdom and the country's relation with its Caribbean territories. I think the average reader typing "Netherlands" in the search bar is more likely looking for information about the Dutch culture, geography, history, and economy. These things are not really addressed in the article Kingdom of the Netherlands, so I would argue it is most useful to send readers to the current article Netherlands. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tristan Surtel: you're completely right and the idea would be to move that content to the article Kingdom of the Netherlands. It would make much more sense that this information would be in the article of the actual country than in the article about the constituent country, which is basically an administrative structure. SFBB (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I kind of get what you're saying, and I think the articles should 2 articles should be merged.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
That would also be a possibility (akin to what's done in Denmark, but I think it does not hurt to keep a small article fully dedicated to the constituent country, dealing with the administrative and organizational issues only. But the main article (includign history, culture, etc.) should be about the actual country. SFBB (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Merging the two articles like what is done with Denmark is the only way anything is going to change. I'm not sure if merging the two articles is a good idea or not, but I'm willing to listed to the arguments for and against such a merger. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
More importantly, the argument has to be laid out more clearly than it has here. I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what is being proposed.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "The Netherlands" is the common name for the main country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and that's what most people mean when they mention the word "Netherlands". JIP | Talk 19:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support a move to Netherlands (constituent country) (lower-case c!) and moving Kingdom of the Netherlands here. I think that having the article Netherlands not be about a sovereign country is more confusing than giving this convoluted polity a convoluted title. This should have a been a multi-move and should probably be withdrawn by the nom and re-nominated as such. I would also consider a merge discussion. The Denmark case is apt. Srnec (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Srnec: I guess withdrawing this and re-nominating it as multi-move would have to be the way to go. I just thought that it would be so obvious that no one would oppose moving the article about an organizational construct to make space for the actual country, but I clearly overestimated the reading capacities of the community and the proposal is receiving a lot of oppose votes from users not taking a single second to read what this is about (not all, but the majority; some users have expressed some valid concerns that obviously would have to be taken into account when doing such a move). A merge would also be an option (actually, what I picture is kind of like a merge, but keeping a short article for the constituent country dealing only with organizational stuff). SFBB (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common name. ~ HAL333 00:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Did you ever bother reading what's being proposed? per common name does not make any sense here: there are two entities that share the same common name: a sovereign country and a constituent country, and this is about giving priority to the actual country over an organizational construct. SFBB (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Like I said above, you'd have better luck trying to merge Kingdom of the Netherlands into this article the way the Denmark article is structured. As long as there are two separate articles, the status quo is very likely going to be maintained. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Add another vote for merging the KotN article here.--Khajidha (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Question how do you refer to the country that's member of the UNO or of the WHO then? or the country that is member of the EU, lead by Mark Rutte? of to the constitutional monarchy led by Willem Alexander? or the Dutch soldiers of the NATO? or to the football team that competes in the FIFA World Cup? or the team competing in the Olympics (there was a time when the constituent countries were allowed to have their own teams/federations, but not anymore)? all of them is the Kingdom of the Netherlands and not the constituent country. SFBB (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
AS I said before, the merge is indeed a valid alternative and I'd support it. The important thing is that people searching for the Netherlands, end up in the article about the country and not in the article about a political construct (which btw is fairly new; the entire history section of this articles refers to the KotN and not to the constituent country). SFBB (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding the comparison with Denmark articles in the original post and some replies, it is incorrect that there is only a single article, there is a separate article about the wider Danish constitutional arrangements at Danish Realm. CMD (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Usage of "Netherlands" to refer to the constituent country is way more common than to refer to the complete kingdom. Also, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is not exactly comparable to the Kingdom of Denmark. Note that this discussion has come up before and was closed with consensus not to move. Thayts ••• 11:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The situation is exactly the same as in the Danish case, e.g. sovereignty, passports, international representation, governing, sports teams, etc. (if no, please provide a reference, but I'm sure you will not, because you won't find any differnce). And second, there was a vote before, so what? back then people voting showed that they do not really know where the KotN ends and where the constituent country (political construct created in 1954) begins and the same is happening right now (apparently some users voting here wrongly believe that sports teams representing the KotN would be representatives of the constituent country, which is incorrect; or that the constituent country would refer to the European portion of the KotN only; or that the Netherlands would not be the common name of the KotN). The only thing that both votings are revealing is that when people don't really know, they prefer the status quo. SFBB (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be a bit on edge. To give you an example in sports, Aruba has its own National Olympic Committee and previously the Netherlands Antilles did too. The Netherlands Olympic Committee primarily represents the constituent country only (although Dutch Caribbean athletes outside Aruba can choose to participate for either). In 1954, when the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands was signed, "Kingdom of the Netherlands" got a different meaning than just the European part as it was expanded to explicitly include the former Dutch colonies. Together with the Netherlands, they became constituent countries on an basis of equality (even though international representation for the most part is done by the constituent country of the Netherlands). This distinction is not clearly made in Denmark, in which Greenland and the Faroe Islands are merely referred to as autonomous territories and the territories together are referred to as the Danish Realm (rather than the Kingdom). In the Kingdom of the Netherlands, you also have the Kingdom Games for example which emphasises all constituent countries to be a proper part of the Dutch kingdom.
I'm also not saying that "Netherlands" is not a common name for the kingdom, but its meaning depends on the context in which it is used. Like I said in my first sentence, it most commonly refers to the contituent country, though.
And I was just linking to the previous vote for reference, what's the harm in that? Thayts ••• 17:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. "Netherlands" as a short name for "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is only used when the constituent countries don't represent themselves individually, i.e. only in international relations. In virtually all other cases, e.g. international sports events, "Netherlands" usually refers to the constituent country and not to the Kingdom as a whole. Also, as per WP:NATURAL, natural diambiguations are preferred over parenthetical disambiguations. In other words: Wikipedia policy demands the use of the full name for the sovereign state to distinguish it from the constituent country, even if it's not its common name.
I'd also like to discourage proposing a merger of the two articles. Aruba, Curaçao, the Netherlands and Sint Maarten have an equal status within the Kingdom of the Netherlands and should be treated as such, also on Wikipedia. Suggesting that "Kingdom of the Netherlands" and "Netherlands" should be merged shows little understanding of (and respect for) the Kingdom's constitutional structure. It's like merging United Kingdom into England or vice versa. ― Ætoms [talk] 12:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
First of all. You're completely mistaken and you're examples show it: in all international sports events the name Netherlands refers to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and not to the constituent country. The Royal Dutch Football Association or the Olympic committee NOC*NSF, among many others, are institutions at country level (i.e. KotN) and not at the level of the constituent country (that's why Curaçao and Sint Maarten are not allowed to have their own representatives and have to compete for the Netherlands; Aruba is only allowed to compete independently for historical reasons) see here.
Second, I'm also not sure if you really understand this topic. The constituent country is a political construct created in 1954. Before that date only the country KotN existed and the whole history/culture section of this articles refer to the KotN and not to the constituent country:
Third: the comparison with UK is a good one, in the sense that the information associated with the UK is different from the information associated with England. Same applies here, with the difference that the political construct of the constituent country was created in 1954 and up until then only the KotN existed. The situation is 100% equivalent to the Danish case. SFBB (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Your source does not say why Curaçao and Sint Maarten would not be allowed to have their own representation. The Netherlands Antilles of which they were previously part did have their own Olympic Committee, it's just that that constituent country was dissolved and no new Olympic Committees have been created for the new constituent countries (yet). Thayts ••• 17:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@SFBB: Sorry, but this is just not true. Aruba and Curaçao have their own FIFA member associations and their own national football teams competing in the qualification rounds for the 2022 World Cup. Indeed, Curaçao and Sint Maarten currently don't have an NOC of their own, so athletes from these countries may choose to represent Aruba or the Netherlands instead, or to compete as an independent Olympic athlete. This is explained at Netherlands Antilles at the Olympics#Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles. Simply put, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a sovereign state (not a "country" as you keep calling it) that unites four countries under a single monarch. That being said, please stop bludgeoning the process: you've made your point and repeating it over and over again is not helpful at all. ― Ætoms [talk] 18:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ætoms: I'm not bludgeoning anything. I'm just disproving completely wrong arguments that have been brought forward and have nothing to do with the actual facts. It's not that Curaçao and Sint Maarten currently don't have an NOC of their own: they don't and they won't have any NOC because only sovereign country may have NOCs, and the NOC representing the entire country of the Netherlands is the NOC*NSF (which is open to anyone with a Dutch pass). As previously said, the Aruban NOC only exists as reminiscent of an old rule, as it is clearly exemplified by the case of Netherlands Antilles at the Olympics#Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles.
Second, for the purpuses of wikipedia, the general understanding of a country is a asovereign state as shown Lists by country. A constituent country is neither what wikipedia nor an average English speaker understands under country.
And third, it is not that KotN be a political construct created to unify 4 constituent countries. The KotN has always been the country and the constituent country of the Netherlands, is a political construct created in 1954 when the colonies were intended to get more autonomy still within the same country. That'S a fact and it cannot be twisted. SFBB (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
And to keep putting more facts
  • Since 1932, het Wilhelmus is the national anthem of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and not of the constituent country. There is not national anthem of the constituent country (and aabsolutely no ruling about it).
  • The motto Je maintendrai is the motto of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and not of the constituent country.
  • The coat of arms in the article is the Coat of arms of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and not of the constituent country.
  • Amsterdam is the capital of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as stated Grondwet voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlande. There is absolutely no document in which a capital of the constituent country is mentioned (if something the capital of the constituent country could only be The Hague).
And I could keep going on and on. Most of the information in this article refers to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and not to the constituent country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFBB (talkcontribs) 22:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is very much a political construct to unify several countries since 1954 (as I explained in my other comment). Together they form a sovereign state. The former colonies were not actually part of the country. In Dutch, the word land is used to refer to each part, which literally means "country"; no equivalent of "constituent country" is even used in the language. Also, why is it that for example the article on England starts with "England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom" instead of "England is a constituent country that is part of the United Kingdom" (and is not even mentioned anywhere in the article)?
I can explain your list of facts by Article 42 of the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which says that the constitution for the constituent country of the Netherlands is arranged by the Grondwet, while the other constituent countries have separate arrangements. I think that the name "Grondwet voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden" is inherited from the very first version of 1815 (and it probably also applies to the whole of the modern Kingdom in some sense, but to be honest I'm no expert on the constitution). Thayts ••• 23:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

English in the Netherlands[edit]

Apart from the Caribbean Netherlands also the city of Amsterdam and The Amsterdam Metropolitan Area recognizes English as official second language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a446:4e09:1:e874:3afd:c6a:df6a (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Article English[edit]

Why is this country (Article) claimed for British English? US English is much more suited in most Dutch and German speaking countries. We have all this tolerance towards Britishness in American Articles, but the opposite seems not true. Also, US English is widely used in the Netherlands (Europe) and it is dominant in the Netherlands (Americas). US cultural imports (e.g., movies are not "translated" into UK English. Hence for most Dutch it is the Color of Money). In Short, I propose to delete this superfluous designation.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankk20168 (talkcontribs) 07:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC) 
Oppose. Sorry, I don't think your argument is persuasive. Also, MOS:RETAIN. Overtone11 (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 14:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. By the best of my knowledge UK English is more prevalent in the Netherlands. If you want to claim it's US English, please back this up with sources! gidonb (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)