Talk:Dutch people/Archive 5

New ranking (B → A-class article)

I recently reassed this article and reranked its rating according to the projects quality scale, and it is now a A-class article instead of a B-class article. For comparison, the (only) other 2 A-class articles are Taiwanese aborigines and Berber people. Especially in respect to the latter article (Berber people) I thought this article was better (no offense meant to its contributors). However, it's somewhat not done for a main contributor of an article (to which I count myself) to assed "their own" articles. So if anyone is opposed (though I do expect reasonable arguments) to its new ranking please say so. Rex 13:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Rex, I disagree with your classification for two reasons.
• 1) Comparison should not be done with another A-class article (that may have deteriorated since A-class was given) but with the A-class criteria
• 2) You (and myself as well) have been far too much involved in this article to be an impartial judge to the quality of this article. In general the wiki etiquettes ask people who have been involved in the development in an important way not to judge the article themselves. As A-class is immediately below Featured, I think especially for this class this idea should be adopted very strictly. It is for this last reason I have reset the status to B-level. If you can find a (previously) non-involved editor that agrees with A-class I will happily accept his/her judgement. Of course you ar completely free to nominate the article for any level (as you did with GA for which I think it has a fair chance to make the criteria). Arnoutf 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, well I already explained that I was aware of my own "involvedness" so that bit was somewhat unecessary, but okay. The strange thing is, wel I at least think it is, is that a GoodArticle, is (apparantly) ranked below an A-class article, but the procedure for GAs (reviews/listings, etc) are far more advanced, while practically anyone (with a 2 sentence summary) can list an article as being A-class... if I didn't know any better I'd say a GA outranks an A-class one. I won't deny that the reranking to B is somewhat of a disappointment, as there is so much "crap" in that class, but lets look at where the GAnomination gets us and then continue.Rex 19:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read the following on the projectpage: "[GA-class]This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise acceptable. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class." So my question to you is, if we get trough the GA review, would you then still oppose a reranking to A?Rex 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, there is a good chance of making GA-class, but there will inevitably be remarks. Following up these suggestions would be helpful to further develop towards FA. I agree the classes seem a bit muddled. As far as I know the A,B,start and stub are given by people in larger project (here ethnic people), while only GA and FA have a centralised review. I think that while A should be given to articles of better quality (between GA and FA), the actual rating system for A-class is less robust compared to GA. In other words A is a better rank but given out by a less qualified rating body (perhaps a bit comparable to a BSc of Harvard being worth more than an MSc of a small college). Just let's wait and see the GA review first. Arnoutf 19:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

GA nominee (2007-05-13)

I've nominated the article for a GA review, I think and hope the article meets the criteria.Rex 13:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"XXX (ethnic group)"?

Why is the article still using the name "XXX (ethnic group)"? The content does not seem to be significantly different from any other article about ethnic groups, yet we consistently use "XXX people" for those. Last time I saw an explanation, it seemed to be based on the opinions of a few firebrands, not broad-based consensus. Peter ^Isotalo 08:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC

No that's not entirely true. The project uses names such as Germans, Greeks and Albanians just as often as is uses Danish people, Spanish people and Basque people. Then there are a few examples which use [...] (ethnic group) such as Macedonians (ethnic group) and this article. In this article it is done, because this article is part of the project on Ethnic Groups, and the article should deal with the Dutch as an ethnic group. Now generally that's just fine and there shouldn't be much of a difference between "people" (which we originally used) and "(ethnic group)". However in the past, someone, who I can best describe as a "denier of ethnic groups" thought it was necessary to go into semantics and argued that "people" should be used for an article dealing with all Dutch, ie the total population of the Netherlands, and nothing more. That's not what this article was about, or what the project is about, hence the move to Dutch (ethnic group) to ensure the integrity of this article. Rex 09:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Titles that have simple standard formats should not be moved to piped titles because someone decided to resort to semantic nitpicking. The rather wiki-specific dispute over this topic is not even remotely comparable to the controversy and difficulty in accurate disambiguation of the highly volatile and ambiguous term "Macedonians".

Peter ^Isotalo 12:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what the ambiguality of the term Macedonians has to do with the fact that the article uses "xxx (ethnic group)", and, AFAIK, there is no standard format concerning the project.Rex 13:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peter Isolato here. Reviewing all teh articles in the ethnic peoples project, there are no FA, A, or GA articles with the suffic (ethnic group); and the term is pretty rare all around the start, stub and unassessed articles as well. (Macedonians is an unassessed article). I would suggest to take up the consensus and rename the article to Dutch people. Arnoutf 17:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If we can get it clear somewhere that this article only deals with the ethnic group that is no problem with me. But somehow I know there'll be more people like Paul111 who will (want to ) turn this article into an unreadable mix of ethnicity, nationality and demographics ...Rex 17:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the disputes over this article has involved only a handful of people, and Rex seems to have been part of literally every conflict. We don't need to explain that the article "only deals with the ethnic group" because there is no other similar article to differentiate it from. The "guarding" of the article has to a great extent been very problematic, and this mild paranoia of "more people like Paul111" is exaggerated. We're not supposed to rename articles and rewrite content just to guard ourselves from pedantic misinterpretations from a few overly energetic and opinionated users; that's giving undue weight to minority opinions.

And Rex, I don't think you're in any position to dictate the exact scope of individual articles, least of all the one about the ethnic group you yourself belong to. I hope you realize why some of your statements smack of a very obvious POV.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've kind of had it with the "you can't determine the scope" comments. I myself already admitted in my first post on the subject and my edit summary that I knew it wasn't a regular procedure.Rex 19:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic nationalism vs. Nationalism

"Ethnic nationalism is a form of nationalism wherein the "nation" is defined in terms of ethnicity¹. Whatever specific ethnicity is involved, ethnic nationalism always includes some element of descent from previous generations². It also includes ideas of a culture shared between members of the group ³, and with their ancestors, and usually a shared language⁴.".

— Wikipedia article on Ethnic nationalism.

Now look at the (Dutch) situation here. We have a group of people, saying that there's one big Dutch ethnic group^1,2, which exists in the Low Countries, with the same common history and culture³ and who all speak Dutch⁴. I know ethnic nationalism is a form of nationalism by definition, but we can be a little more precise here.Rex 14:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination

I've looked through the article, and while I'll give the main article authors due credit for amassing a lot of information about the Dutch, the presentation of this material needs work. The big problems are language (there needs to be some serious copyediting), organization, the almost preachy nature of some of the fact statements and lack of discrimination in what to include. Here are some of the most obvious examples:

• The lead is much too short for such a long article.
• The prose is full of half-finished sentences and the tense is often all over the place:
  • The Dutch republic for example was the first independent Dutch state, before its establishment there had been various personal unions between a number, and in the end all, Dutch fiefs/provinces.
  • As for religion Flanders, despite the fact that in the 16th century Protestantism first arrived in the Low Countries in Western Flanders, is almost completely Catholic.
  • This however, did not coincide with the Dutch ethnic group, we can safely assume that by that time the Dutch ethnic group had long since emerged. – Poor sentence structure, and some very inappropriate POV-speak (my bolding).
• Stating the obvious should be done from time to time, but there are limits even to this. The following statements have taken this doctrine a bit too far:
  • An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry.
  • Linguistically the dialects of Dutch spoken in Belgium are all cross-border dialects. – This is the normal state of affairs in most border regions. From reading the article, I get the feeling that this is presented as almost unique or at least rather rare.
  • The Dutch descend from a group of Homo sapiens who settled in Europe during the Paleolithic and Neolithic areas.
• The article starts by diving right into the minutiae of Dutch terminology about themselves. I recommend starting something like etymology or history in an article that is going to be read by a majority of non-Dutch.
• Too fine detail concerning some topics. For example, the info on the Dutch diaspora in Asia could very well be condensed a lot more and various anecdotes about ethnic stereotyping be weeded out.
• Organization and odd-ball headings; the paragraph on Dutch drug policies does not belong under "popular culture"; "Epic ancestry"; "Traditions of gov'" should go under "Culture and identity" and so should probably "(Ethnic) Nationalism"
• Dutch is claimed to have originated in 450 (or 470, depending on which part of the article you read) but the sources for this seem anything but clear-cut. History of Dutch says 510 and the link cited here appears to give a much more complex view of the first attestation of Dutch.
• Mutual intelligibility, despite some circumlocution, is still treated almost as a state of affairs that is either true or false. The use of italics on mutual doesn't exactly improve the argument.
• There is such a massive volume of citations that the sources really need to be separated from the notes. Establish one section for notes (in shorthand) and one for the references so one can actually get an overview of what kind of sources have been used. And what is "Literature"? Are those books actually sources or merely recommended reading? I'm not too keen on the translation of the book titles either.
• There are several footnote that reference our own articles, which is completely pointless and only adds footnote dinkiness. The link to the article in the prose should suffice.

And I think the thread just about this one is a very good indication of the almost extreme eagerness to pick almost every little term apart and treat the nuances as separate and almost mutually exclusive definitions instead of trying to take a more top-down view of things. In short, we have a multitude of trees that seem to be effectively obscuring a much more relevant forest. The authors need to be more considerate of readers who haven't read several 100 kB of discussion. Same thing applies to those who've barely ever heard of the Dutch other than the occasional clog-ridden, tulip-smelling, cheese-eating stereotype.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not sure that the use of Image:Frau Antje Der Spiegel.jpg really is valid as fair use. It's rather obvious that the caricature is used to illustrate a stereotype of Dutch, not the work of art itself.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the article section does "provide critical analysis of the poster content" as it explains the view that it represents, and the poster does represents a current view, which I guess could be seen as an "event".Rex 17:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter: thanks for a very thorough review with many good suggestions for improvement and/or rewording. I think that if we make serious effort in responding to your comments we will be able to improve this article vey much. Arnoutf 06:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch "a Germanic people"

The article claims:

"They predominantly descend from various Germanic tribes, and speak a Germanic language, Dutch. Hence they are one of the Germanic peoples." (my italics)

To the best of my knowledge, the characterisation of the Dutch as "a Germanic people" is a very colloquial and romantic one (in the same way as nowadays Scandinavian people may be called "Vikings") and lacks scientific basis. Are there any authoritative sources stating that the modern Dutch are "Germanic"? Certainly the language is, but I have the impression that the definition "Germanic people" is only used in historical contexts. (The Britannica article of the reference, for instance, only deals with the Germanic tribes of the early Middle Ages.) Iblardi 10:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Britannica article opens with "Germanic peoples, also Teutonic peoples: any of the Indo-European speakers of Germanic languages.". The article claims Dutch is a Germanic language. In combination with above line from Britannica this leads to the conclusion (hence the hence) that the Dutch are a Germanic people. So I would say following the letter of the references putting Dutch as Germanic is warranted.

However, I agree the Germanic peoples as such are a difficult category; and they have assimilated in Europe, and are not clearly recognisable after the middle ages. In the late middle ages I think ethnicism was not a major issue in the whole of Europe, and only became so in the Romantic Era (19th century) again.

While I agree that Vikings should not be used there is a clear difference compared to Germanic peoples. Viking is used specifically for ship-borne traders and warriors. The peoples where the Vikings derived from where the Norseman and this term is still used.

Nevertheless I am not necessarily attatched to the term Germanic. Nevertheless there are certain ethnic similarities among those in the Germanic peoples categories. I do not know of another term but Germanic, and think the similarity should be acknowledged. But if you have another accepted term that refers to the N-W European groups of people (Dutch, German, Belgian,....). Arnoutf 11:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Following the letter, the Britannica article would indeed define the Dutch as a Germanic people, but from the contents I get the impression that that first line is not to be taken literally. I am not comfortable with the ease with which the term "Germanic people" is used in our article. If it is a scientifically sound one, then the article should at least have a reference to relevant, mainstream literature. I certainly acknowledge that northern European cultures have many similarities and differ from southern cultures, but why not call them just that, instead of using an ethnonym? Iblardi 11:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like: "They predominantly descend from various Germanic tribes,[29] [30] and speak a Germanic language, Dutch. An ethnic history and characteristics they share with the other ethnic groups in North-Western mainland Europe (e.g. Frisians, Flemish, Germans).". I think this actually might be an improvement. Arnoutf 12:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that is an improvement, but the part on descent is a bit tricky. Has there been any scientific research on Dutch genetics? I'm not arguing that it is impossible for the Dutch to descend from Germanic tribes, but there were other inhabitants before they arrived and there has been a significant amount of immigration since. You might as well say the Dutch are descendants of the Funnel Beaker people (if that is the right translation of Trechterbekervolk) - why not? Iblardi 12:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, this has already been (furiously) debated but because you're a relatively new contributor to this article (and before we unwillingly fall back into that hell-hole of accusations of nazism) I'll try to make clear what we're actually (trying to) say(ing). Let go of all the ideas of the romantic movement. Greater Germany, the Viking revival, the All Dutch movement, etc. Germanic here refers to the linguistic and ultimately dominant ancestry of a number of ethnic groups. I use it purely as a scientific term. The Dutch indeed do not soley decend from Germanic peoples, let alone a single Germanic tribe. European history is full of migrations and Dutch are bound to have had celtic or even pre-indoeuropean contributions but fact remains that the Franks, a Germanic people, form the majority of the Dutch ancestry since the migration period. Rex 13:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus, I don't think the description of the Dutch as "a Germanic people" is ideologically inspired, I just think it's dubious. When you claim to use it as a scientific term, you should provide sources for that. I don't consider a Teleac article (not annotated) as a very authoritative one. Iblardi 13:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The teleac article isn't used for the Germanic claim /fact, but the Frankish ancestry, and Teleac, may be expected to be the unbiased and educative of all Dutch broadcasters.Rex 13:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was mixing those two things up, but they certainly are related. I still think the claims of Frankish heritage, being Germanic etc. are rather vague and too much of a popular generalization. The fact that Teleac is an unbiased and educative broadcast company doesn't necessarily make it a scientifically accurate source. On the other hand, if you or someone else can demonstrate that both claims are supported by mainstream science, I am completely at peace with it. But I have some doubt. For instance, stating that the Dutch are predominantly of Frankish descent does not take into account the inhabitants of the northern and eastern parts of the Netherlands, which are conventionally called "Saxon" and where there has been a lot of immigration from German lands. The great cities in the western part of the Netherlands, too, have seen continuous immigration from and intermixture with people from abroad, including French, Hungarians, and migrants from the former colonies. Yet all of their descendants identify themselves as "Dutch" today, even though there is only a weak Frankish or even Germanic connection. Iblardi 14:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here you need to distinguish between Dutch in the national sense (ie people with a Dutch passport) and ethnically Dutch people. It's true that the ancestries in the far east and north of the country differ, but that's also where (relatively) few people live. Apart from that, those regions have nearly always been dominated by the ("frankish" if you like)" West. As for mainstream science, do you think Teleac would ever represent anything other than mainstream science?Rex 17:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about French Huguenots, to take a clearly identifiable group as an example. Wouldn't you call their descendants ethnically Dutch? Yet, in those cases, "Frankish" or "Germanic" descent is not obvious. And what do you mean by "domination" of the eastern regions by the West? As for Teleac, of course it will not deliberately try to present controversial views, but casual errors may slip in, as everywhere. Iblardi 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah generally French huguenots completely assimilated into the Dutch ethnic group. as for their ancestry, I don't think the huguenots have been interbreeding for the last 500 years since they've been in the Netherlands. And again, it's the broad picture. We can't be expected to present ancestry in percentages for every single Dutch person... Rex 18:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Without going into the specifics above. I think the point that Germanic is no longer in use is acceptably argued by Iblardi. The descent of the Dutch is by now indeed "mixed"; but the origins of the current culture lie in Germanic tribes (and not in trechterbekervolk as their influence, just like other pre-roman influences is not traceable). How do you think about rephrasing the section as this:

The Dutch originally descended from various Germanic tribes,[29] [30] and speak a Germanic language, Dutch. They share their ethnic history and several other charcteristics with the other ethnic groups in North-Western mainland Europe (e.g. Frisians, Flemish, Germans). Arnoutf 19:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unnecesary. Apart from that it's unreferenced and I do believe inaccurate. Mainly Frankish herritage might go for the Flemish, but Frisians and Germans? Especially the latter, for example has influences you will not find in the Dutch, such as Slavic elements. It's making things more vague. Why have it anyway? The point is that the Dutch are a Germanic people... Rex 19:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with the proposed rephrasing. I don't think speaking of the Dutch as "a Germanic people" is scientifically sound. And since this has been the subject of earlier discussion, it is apparently a source of controverse among editors and thus, if used, it needs to be accounted for properly. I have no problem with calling the Dutch "Germanic" as long as relevant sources are provided. Iblardi 19:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Then what's the problem?Rex 08:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I already explained my reservations about the Britannica and Teleac sources above; I don't think they carry enough weight in this matter. Iblardi 12:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then I really have to say you need to adjust your personal view on this, because they are reputable sources.Rex 14:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

They may be reputable, but this doesn't make them flawless. Teleac is a non-specialist source that is probably OK to use for undisputed, encyclopedic information, but not for backing up specific and possibly controversial definitions - as I said, the article is not annotated. The Britannica article deals with historical Germanic tribes, not with modern nations. Therefore, I stand with Arnoutf's proposed rephrasing. Iblardi 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Britannica definition is very clear. "any of the Indo-European speakers of Germanic languages". Rex 14:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there may also be a problem in defining "an Indo-European", since this is a linguistic category not an ethnic one, as is "Germanic people", if it isn't used historically. This should at least be made clear. (See also Indo-European people and Germanic peoples.) The Britannica article itself does not mention any contemporary "Germanic" people, but stops right after the early Middle Ages. Would that make sense if the author had meant the term to include modern nations? Iblardi 15:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's logical. Afterall during the middle ages, "modern" ethnic groups start to emerged, and "Germanic" was pushed further down the "heritage bagg". But it is still a classification. Rex 15:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

But according to your own argument, an inappropriate one when applied to modern ethnic groups. Iblardi 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not saying that. Rex 15:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I misinterpreted your words. But what do you think of the fact that the article Germanic peoples says:

"Germanic" as understood today is a linguistic term. Modern ethnicities speaking Germanic languages are not referred to as Germanic peoples, a term of historic scope. All present-day countries speaking a Germanic language including Germany have mixed ethnic roots not restricted to the Germanic peoples.([1])

Doesn't this indicate that calling the modern Dutch "a Germanic people" in this article is questionable at least? Iblardi 16:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We should never use Wikipedia as a reference. Note how that section lacks sources. What exactly do you find questionable about "germanic"?Rex 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to the fact that it is apparently not in line with the consensus in a related article (the one defining the very term), where it has been discussed on the talk page. My other reservations are stated above. I think "Germanic" is inaccurate as an ethnic label for contemporary nations. If I may return the question, why do you insist on using the term "Germanic people" when it arguably lacks scientific basis? Iblardi 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well we should go with the article which has references, those are reliable. "I think "Germanic" is inaccurate as an ethnic label for contemporary nations" is not a factual answer, just your opinion. Please use arguments to explain your point of view. I insist omn using "germanic" as it is a scientific term, which is not lacking a basis. When I read "germanic" in an article on an ethnic group, it's an idicator; "speaking a Germanic language, and (mainly) decending from Germanic tribes". It's that simple.Rex 14:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep with the Germanic peoples phrase Rex? Iblardi acknowledges the ethnic relationship between the group and the history of Germanic tribes and Germanic language. The mentioning of Germanic peoples (which is indeed usually used in historic context) is IMHO no longer needed if these elements are already presented. Arnoutf 16:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I must admit though that, apart from the arguments I already gave, I have not been able to supply any good sources that explicitly support my point of view, and I am doubtful whether I will be able to find any; I am not even sure where to look for them. So technically, "Germanic people" stands sourced, in spite of the serious reservations that I have voiced, as there are at this moment no counter-sources explicitly denying the statement that is made in the article. Perhaps I will find some later on, perhaps not. Anyway, I have made my point but accept the status quo for now. Iblardi 10:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I happened upon this passage in the Concise Brtiannica, under Germany:

"Germanic peoples occupied much of the present-day territory of Germany in ancient times. The Germanic peoples are those who spoke one of the Germanic languages, and they thus originated as a group with the so-called first sound shift (Grimm's law)..." (my bolding)

This, in my opinion, helps to clarify the definition given in Germanic peoples, "any of the Indo-European speakers of Germanic languages". This definition lacks a verb, and I already reasoned above that, given the content of the article, it probably was meant to refer to ancient peoples and not to post-medieval European nations. From the passage I quote here it is clear that this assumption must be right; Britannica does not use the term "Germanic peoples" to denote modern peoples such as the Dutch, and the statement

"They predominantly descend from various Germanic tribes, and speak a Germanic language, Dutch. Hence they are one of the Germanic peoples"

can not be warranted by citing the Britannica article. Hence it must be considered unsourced. Iblardi 13:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice that the idea of the Netherlands as an entity different from the German kingdoms only emerged around 1500. So before that time Germany would include the current Netherlands. In the light of this new reading of Britannica, I would say that my earlier (May 17) compromise text still does justice to the Britannica: The Dutch originally descended from various Germanic tribes,[29] [30] and speak a Germanic language, Dutch. They share their ethnic history and several other charcteristics with the other ethnic groups in North-Western mainland Europe (e.g. Frisians, Flemish, Germans). Arnoutf 15:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Again you're just making it more complicated. Now there's a claim that the Dutch share their ethnic history with Frisians, Flemish and Germans. But let's be honest now ... that's not in Britannica. Could you just make clear what is wrong with the current one? Rex 17:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rex Germanus that the Dutch are a Germanic people. The point argued by Iblardi is problematic because the article lists the Frisians as a related people. The Frisians are undeniably a Germanic people, because their language closely resembles Old English, the language the Anglo-Saxons in England spoke. The Angles and the Saxons were Germanic. Add to this information the fact that the Frisians succesfully resisted being ruled by a fuedal lord until the Burgundian period, we can conclude that the Frisians of the 15th century were the same as those ruled by Radbod in the 8th century. Denying that most Dutchmen are descendants of the Franks, Frisians (who are still more or less distinct) and the Saxons, is the same as denying that most Italians are descendants of the Romans.--84.26.116.26 16:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I would begg to differ on the Frisian matter. A common myth, but Frisian does not closely resemble Old English. It simply often resembles it in more ways than modern English does. Also, even if that were true it would not make the Frisians any more of a Germanic people, as both languages are Germanic anyway. The main deal here conserning Iblardi on one side and me on the other side is that he considers the term obsolete for modern peoples, which I think would be correct when speaking of Germanic peoples as the Romans did, and probably (willingly or not) associates it with nazism/nationalistic megalomania (which also is logical given history) but I see it as a linguistic term, that "links" certain people of europe. If he considers it to be such a big problem then I say... okay, have it your way, because it isn't realy that important (to me).Rex 16:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the term "Germanic peoples" isn't obsolete and very relevant today. After all, in my humble opinion, the only speakers of a Germanic language that aren't Germanic in nature are the Irish. I used the Frisians as an example to prove that the Germanic peoples at the end of the Migration Period are the ancestors of the peoples that now speak a Germanic language. In the case of the Dutch, the Franks are the ancestors of the people of North Brabant, Limburg and Utrecht, the Saxons of the people of Gelderland, Overijssel, Drenthe and Groningen, the provinces of Holland and Zeeland are of mixed Frankish/Frisian descent, Friesland is the only province with complete Frisian ancestry. Holland and Zeeland were once part of the Frisian Empire of Radbod, but came under the influence of the Frankish kings Pippin the Short and Charlemagne and eventually the people of Holland (with the exception of those of West-Friesland, which was only subdued by Floris V at the end of the 13th century) were assimilated into the Frankish people. After the fragmentation of the Frankish Empire, the Franks as a united people ceased to exist. The Franks in Germany merged with Saxons, Alemannians and Bavarians into the German people, the Franks in France were assimilated by the Gallo-Roman majority in France, becoming the French in the process. The Franks in the Netherlands turned into the early Dutch. When the Burgundians centralised the Low Countries, the Frankish dialects of Holland and Brabant supplied the backbone of the standardised Dutch language and the Saxon dialects in the east gave way to Dutch. The Frisians have always resisted Frankish and Saxon rule, and that is why they are distinct from people in the other provinces of the Netherlands. To a certain extent it's more visible that they are Germanic than with the neighbouring peoples. And since they are related to the Dutch, the Dutch are Germanic as well.--84.26.116.26 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Your argument above has some wobbly logic (e.g. the last sentence could be interpreted as something like "Penguins are arctic birds and as polar bears are actic animals as well it is proven that polar bears are birds") but that maybe merely the phrasing you used. There is a more fundamental problem with this reasoning, and that is that it sound like original research. For this argument to influence the main space article, as source given this argument has to be provided. Please do before you start editing the article. Thanks Arnoutf 20:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell me, Arnoutf, why is it so hard to accept that a Germanic language is spoken by a Germanic people? Linguists must have grouped Dutch, English, Frisian, Danish, German, Norwegian and Swedish together under the term "Germanic languages" for a reason. As for my last contribution being original research. I will only admit to this, if you can prove that there have been more migrations between 500 and 1500.--84.26.116.26 20:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be aggressive. I have no feeling about the Germanic issue, however there has been much resentment calling the Dutch Germanic people; and there has been made a distinction between the linguistic use (which nobody denies) and the ethnic use of the term (where some editors have problems).

Why it may be original research: You claim the term is not obsolete. You say you used the Frisians to prove your case. For these claims you need references otherwise it is original research. I am not claiming the Dutch are Germanic, I am not claiming they are not. You are making the claims, hence you and you alone have to provide proof of offered facts (but not in the form of original research). Arnoutf 20:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I would like to apologise for appearing aggressive, I didn't mean to. The link between ethnicity and language can be proven by examining the Basques. The Basque language is a language isolate, which means that it isn't related to any language known. The Basque people aren't related to their neighbours either, according to this link (http://basque.unr.edu/16/16.1t/16.1.1.faqs1.htm). Their unusual language has lead to intense studies of their genetic background and the results of these studies say that they may not even be Indo-European. Furthermore I would like to say that Iblardi disputes the fact that the Dutch aren't a Germanic people and that it is therefore up to him to prove that they are not.--84.26.116.26 20:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no. Thats not really the case here, or often on wikipedia as a whole. The person who says it is is the one who needs to prove his or her point.Rex 20:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Which btw, I believe I did with this source. But Iblardi disagreed.Rex 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, then I'll try to prove it. I have the following arguments for classifying the Dutch people as a Germanic people:

• The Dutch speak the Dutch language, a Low Franconian language of the West Germanic language family, a sub-family of the Germanic language family. Low Franconian is a descendant of Old Low Franconian, which is descended from the Old Frankish language, spoken by the Franks.
• The Franks were a Germanic people.
• The Dutch are mainly descended from the Franks (a point also made by Rex Germanus).
• Looking at the three points above, we can conclude that the Dutch are a Germanic people.

--84.26.116.26 21:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are all facts already in the article, and no one is questioning them. What Iblardi wants is a definition of a Germanic peoples, not charactaristics, to fitt the Dutch.Rex 10:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Germanic peoples are peoples who, from the Iron Age onwards, lived in Germania, the region located to the east of the Rhine river, north of the Alps and located to the west of the Elbe river. What they had in common was their use of Germanic languages (which is attested by Tacitus).

When the Roman Empire weakened, the Germanic tribes launched raids into Roman territory. At the same time the Germanic tribes between the Rhine, Ems and Weser rivers confederated into the Frankish confederacy. With the arrival of the Huns in Eastern Europe the Migration Period started. Alarmed by the expansion of the Huns the different tribes started to move westward and some of them, such as the Goths, the Vandals and the Franks desired to settle permanently in Roman-held areas. Unable to hold them off, the weakened Romans, allowed them to settle as foederati. The Salic Franks were given land in Toxandria (modern-day North Brabant and Antwerp Province) by the Emperor Julian (their Ripaurian cousins continued to live along the river Rhine). As can be seen by the present language border between Dutch and French in Belgium, Frankish raids and invasions had depopulated the regions immediately west of the Rhine and what is now the southern Netherlands and Flanders became predominantly populated by the Germanic invaders (the reason why Dutch is spoken in Flanders). South of the present-day language border the Gallo-Romans remained dominant and influential. --84.26.116.26 10:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Again this doesn't change anything. You need a modern source that says the modern Dutch are a Germanic people. (by whatever definition) Rex 10:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Flemish etc.

Though I definately think we should mention and explain the position/situation of the Flemish, (especially given the state of the "Flemings" article ...) we should try to keep the information at a single section. Now, "Flemings" appear just about everywhere, and it could work confusing.Rex 18:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC

Erasmus

Erasmus is not a good indicator of Dutch ethnogenisis. Erasmus was never proud of his, what he called 'peasentish/common', heritage, hence he consistantly called himself Desiderius Erasmus instead of Gerrit Gerritszoon. Furthermore, he talks about himself, its sort of Erasmus' inner developement. So while this information would be very interesting for the Erasmus article, it does not give a picture of the cotemporary Dutch. (Also, the fact that Erasmus thought of Dutch as "separate" in the 16 century, doesnt change the fact that modern linguist consider a separate language from common west Germanic since 450/500AD if you know what I mean) Rex 10:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I was doubting whether I should place it there or in the "Cultur and identity" section, I strongly disagree with your implication that the reference to Erasmus has no relevancy to this article. I put it in as an interesting early example of awareness of a distinctive "Dutch" identity, which is after all what ethnicity is about. It does not serve to prove any futher point. Iblardi 10:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But what does it come down to? Escentially I mean? Just one man, an intellectual, acknowledging his past? (Apart from that, the use of "German" and "Germany" is also off/incorrect) Rex 11:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The relevant part is that here we have an early 16th-century writer (yes, an intellectual, which is kind of inherent to the fact that we are dealing with written sources - it is our only way of knowing how people thought of themselves), who makes a distinction between his own native country and Germany at large. Bear in mind that Erasmus is writing before the rise of modern nation states. To be honest, I am quite surprised that you, given your interests as an editor, do not seem to find this interesting. As for "German" and "Germany", I do not know what would be the correct way of using those, always slippery, historical terms. Iblardi 11:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I do find it interesting but like all writers before 19th century, they've got a bias because they're wealthy citizens, not common people. So do we know who 'people' thought about themselves, or how 'erasmus' though of himself?Rex 12:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rex is, as always, spinning things in the interest of nationalism (as opposed to the interest in history). Of course there was a separate Low Franconian linguistic identity from the 5th century. But there was no such "German" identity. Low Franconian was just one among many "theodisci" vernaculars, besides Alemannic, Franconian, Saxon and so many others. Your 5th century Low Franconian was every bit as "German" or "non-German" as your 5th century Saxon or Swabian, hence saying "5th century Low Franconians were not Germans" makes about as much sense as saying "Charlemagne was not a Caucasian American". A "Dutch identity" in contrast to a "German identity" becomes possible from the 16th century at the earliest. Ironically, I find, not because there was no Dutch identity, but because there was no German identity. It is only from the 16th century that we have a "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation", hence the Dutch can only from the 16th century state that they did not feel part of this "German Nation". dab (𒁳) 13:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire is a bit older, but the consolidation of the fiefdoms into something resembling a state is indeed later. Mind you, this also goes for the Netherlands where the middle ages saw some fierce fighting between Guelders, Holland and the Sticht; not at all a entity (although several similar characteristics). In this light I think Erasmus' section about the Dutch is interesting as it shows that the different Dutch fiefdoms are now growing together to form the united provinces (and Netherlands later). So, if we view this as an important indicator of an intermediate stage, I would say put it in. But we should treat it as an observation in a continuum, rather than an observation of a suddenly emerged Dutchness. Arnoutf 14:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire, you will note, is called Roman, not "German". To the best of my knowledge, it only came to be called "of the German Nation" in the 16th century. I wouldn't dream of denying there were local patriotisms in medieval Europe, tied to towns or regions, but that's neither peculiar to the Netherlands, nor does it have much to do with "Dutchness". Yes, the Early Modern emergence of a Dutch ethnic identity is a gradual process, and perfectly parallel to trends in the rest of Europe. It has its roots in the 15th century, and culminates in the 19th century nationalisms. The antiquity frenzy we observe on Wikipedia (people trying to prove their respective ethnicities are "ancient") is a late hangover from 19th century Romantic nationalism. I see it part of Wikipedia's educational purpose to put this sort of thing in its place, which regularly puts me in conflict with editors up to their ears in national mysticism. dab (𒁳) 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh Dbachmann, on another thread you asked me to read first and then take actions, well do it yourself first. I never claimed that there were Dutch in the 5th century. Never ever. So I really don't know what you're getting at. What exactly did you came here for?Rex 15:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You said:

Also, the fact that Erasmus thought of Dutch as "separate" in the 16 century, doesnt change the fact that modern linguist consider a separate language from common west Germanic since 450/500AD if you know what I mean.

I think I do know what you mean. You think that the Old Low Franconian is identifiable from the 5th century has something to do with the separate Dutch identity visible from the 16th. Otherwise you'd just be listing two completely unrelated factoids, as in

Also, the fact that Erasmus thought of Dutch as "separate" in the 16 century, doesnt change the fact that the Inca empire was established in the 13th century. (to be sure it doesn't)

If you agree that 5th century dialectology has nothing to do with the topic, then why pester this talkpage? dab (𒁳) 15:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well let me tell you that you don't know what I mean Dbachman. Ethnogenesis requires a number of factors, and one of them is language. The Dutch language predates the Dutch as a clearly distinguisable ethnic group. What Erasmus thought about Dutch is hence irrelavant given modern linguistics. Rex 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ps. Apart from rudely reinserting a contested line, where does the source say that he was one of the first? Original research if you ask me. Dbachmann.Rex 15:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Our article: "it appears that he was one of the first to acknowledge the existence of a distinct Dutch language"

Our source (synopsis): "in fact, he must have been one of the first to acknowledge the existence of a distinct Netherlandic language." Sorry that I have to be brief, but I am busy right now. Iblardi 15:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the case for a distinct Dutch language prior to 1500 is probably stronger than that for the country. I would use Erasmus as an illustration for both. In general for this old sources modern secondary sources are preferred; ie if we have a modern treaty on Erasmus lines that would be preferred over the original text, as using original texts out of context (and 500 yrs difference in time IS out of context) may easily lead to debate concerning interpretation, which can lead to debate about original research. Arnoutf 16:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If we really want to use Erasmus, we could go with something along the lines of "though modern linguist (...) 500AD, the difference with surrounding West Germanic dialects was not as large as the difference between modern standard languages, and the divergence was a gradual process (...) for example Erasmus remarked that (...). Rex 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rex, you completely fail to see the point. Modern linguists write after Erasmus. You can discuss the up-to-date linguistic properties of Old Dutch over at Old Dutch. The entire point here is that Erasmus was the first to point out there was a "Dutch language". This isn't about dialectology, it is about the emerging awareness of langauge as a constituent factor of an ethnicity. Nobody noted (says our source) the existence of a separate Dutch dialect prior to Erasmus because nobody cared about various peasant vernaculars. We agree every town in the Holy Roman Empire had its own distinct dialect from its foundation, that's nothing to do with Dutch identity, and nothing with this article. Seriously, Rex, how old are you? Why do I always have to painstakingly translate for you perfectly simple affairs that you could read up in the article? Try to show a little intellectual maturity, I am not your private tutor, and it is not that great a pleasure for me to spend time patiently exhorting sulking rebels to switch on their brain and be reasonable. dab (𒁳) 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My private tudor? Who do you think you are? You come here shout around something I didn't claim at all and then call me the daft one? Do you even know what you're talking about?Rex 20:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

well, you keep asking me to explain things that are already explained in articles. I concluded that you just don't like reading them yourself. dab (𒁳) 18:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I pretty much wrote this one, so you're apparently seeing things in them that aren't there.Rex 14:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Once more

Erasmus, how famed he may be, merely gave his opinion. Further more, you claim "he was one of the first", which isn't what the source said and thus can't be proven, and the source speaks of national awareness. (nationaal besef) which is different from ethnicity. We explain that the emergence of Dutch ethnicity was a graduall process, then suddenly you make it seem as if we have a point in which it actually emerges. It's not helpfull. Rex 18:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rex that you have probably overinterpreted the source. I cannot prove it as I cannot access JSTOR from home; but for your claim the source you quote should include the almost literal sentences you type: From the writings of the humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) it appears that he was one of the first to acknowledge the existence of a distinct Dutch language and that he saw his own native country and Germany proper as two different entities. In other words the aticle you quote should make two un-ambiguous statements: (1) From the writings of Erasmus he seems to be the first to acknowledge the language and (2) from the writing of Erasmus he seems to be one of the first to see the Netherlands separate from Germany. Statements that point into that same direction but are vaguer are not sufficient to support your claim.

By the way Rex, if you can provide a reference by a reputed historian/scientist in a good publication giving evidence that the Dutch language and or country was actually much before Erasmus, this would easily prove your point. Arnoutf 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You should read more closely. The text does not say he was the first person to (verifiably) acknowledge the existence of a Dutch language, merely one of the first. Since I am aware of the fact that this is only one (be it scholarly) source, I provided a caveat by using the word "appears". In my wording, I almost literally followed the author's abstract of his article, as you can see if you follow the link. (You don't need access to JSTOR for that.) My text does not say that Erasmus was one of the first to see Germany and the Netherlands as different entities, it merely says that he did. (From the writings of the humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) it appears (...) that he saw his own native country and Germany proper as two different entities). It still makes him an early example though, which is why I added the statement. Iblardi 19:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I hope it is clear that I am not asserting that the Dutch language and people themselves sprang into existence with Erasmus' observation? Iblardi 19:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

We have to keep focussed here. This is about an ethnic group, people. So the information that Erasmus saw Germany (with which he mean the HRE) and the Netherlands as separate, is nice to know ... but in relation to the Dutch, somewhat meaningless. As for the Dutch language, and Erasmus wasn't a Germanic linguist, he's hence just giving an opinion. Dutch does predate Erasmus by nearly a millenium, that's a fact, and I due believe already (sources) in the article. "Acknowledgement" and "being" are very different things, which should not be confused.Rex 20:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Rex, the article states: "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other (...)". Rather than confining himself to the narrower area of his native Holland, or extending his self-identification to Germany at large, Erasmus identifies with people from Holland, Brabant, and Flanders. The significance in this is that he is (apparently) one of the first persons of whom we know that he has a sense of "being Dutch", which is an important constituent of ethnicity according to the definition given in the article. Iblardi 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no way of knowing he was the first, so you can leave out apparantly. Erasmus indentifies with them because they have a similar culture and language. But those charactarisitcs didn't fall from the sky when Erasmus picked up his pen.Rex 21:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Read my last comment again, and the one above it. I am not contesting what you say. Iblardi 21:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

@Iblardi, I have to agree you are right on account of the abstract. Also when reading the full text there is something in what you say, although it comes across very much simplified in the abstract (please try to get hold of the full text and read it carefully as it is a very nice article indeed). Notice however that the argument in the article is much more complex and focusses more on Erasmus looking for arguments why he is not a German then for arguments about the Dutch nation. Also notice the different definitions of Germany (i.e. Holy Roman Empire (including Netherlands); Germania (Roman times - everything beyond the Rhine; half of the Netherlands; Germany (focussed on Upper-Germany, basically modern Germany, not the Netherlands), or the languages (German; the language group which includes Dutch but also the High German Dialects (no Dutch) / Dutch - The group of Low Germanic dialects, but sometimes also Hollandic). Also note that the author frames this all in the grwonign nationalist feeling of the 15th century.

In brief having (skim)read the full article I can see where your remarks come from; and they seem fair enough, although by use of the abstract rather than full text slightly taken out of context. I might see what I can tweak. Arnoutf 07:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

From the writings of the humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) it appears that he was one of the first to acknowledge the existence of a distinct Dutch language and that he saw his own native country and Germany proper as two different entities.[48][49] Alright I'll try to explain my problem one more time. This text makes it appear as if there was no Dutch before Erasmus saw it as such. But every modern linguist will tell you that there was Dutch, almost a millenium before erasmus, and that languages sets them, by definition, apart from others. Also, in Erasmus' day the Dutch fiefs/gewesten were more 'competitive'. This is why he differentiates between Hollanders, Brabanders and Flemings, but trows Italians on a big pile. Your interpretation of this source is too black and white, and simple. Rex 09:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Holland/Brabant/Flanders thing is not my "black and white" interpretation, it's Huizinga's. I cited his text in my footnote! I never said that the Dutch language was not in existence prior to Erasmus' observation, and the statement about Erasmus doesn't say so either. The Wikipedia article makes clear that this is not the case, right? I have to leave now. Iblardi 13:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree with you Rex, that the source is interpreted too black-white. I thin the most interesting thing in the source is not that Erasmus refers to the Netherlands outside of Germany, but that he gives a fairly narrow definition of Germany; i.e. the article also states that Swiss is not Germany. In that respect the article and Erasmus are relevant as this is the first time that Germany as a nation smaller than the area covered by Germanic languages and or the HRE is discussed. But I agree we have to place this in the context of the increasing feeling of nationalism in the 15th century (as the article in the body text does), so prior to the 15th century the idea of a nation was largely irrelevant.

If we look at the proposed text: "From the writings of the humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) it appears that he was one of the first to acknowledge the existence of a distinct Dutch language and that he saw his own native country and Germany proper as two different entities.[48][49]

". Would it not be an idea to rephrase it to: "The emergence of the idea of a nation in the 15th century was an important milestone in the emergence of the Dutch people. This changed perspecive on nationalism is illustrated by the writings of the humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) who is one of the first known authors who acknowledged a Dutch language separate from German, and who regarded the Netherlands and Swiss as different countries from Germany.[48][49]"Arnoutf 11:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not have anything concerning nations at all. But then again... I still think we should make the things he said more contemporary, to avoid misconceptions with modern connotations. So ... (along with some minor other changes)

"The emergence of the idea of nations in the 15th century was an important milestone in the developement of the Dutch. This changed perspecive on nationalism is illustrated by the writings of the humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) who is one of the first known authors who acknowledged the Dutch language as separate from the West Germanic continuum, and who regarded the Low Countries and Swiss cantons as different countries rather than merely regions of the Holy Roman Empire.[48][49]"

In my opinion this text is closer to what Erasmus really meant. This would be acceptable.Rex 11:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

When I read the article that is not what the author says (and we should use his work). The author fairly explicitly states that Germany (ie the continuum) has now become dominated by Upper Germany, but that both the Netherlands and Swiss are no part of the sphere of influence of the Upper Germany dominated region (hence separate countries) (p.392). On the same page the author states that Erasmus has most likely not considered the Netherlands apart from the HRE. A similar arguement is made (p398) that the language of Germany proper is High German and that Dutch is separate from High German. Arnoutf 13:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems impossible. If high German dominated the Empire (which is fair to assume as the Hanseatic league was past its zenith) then Switzerland would be a part of that, speaking High German.Rex 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are now confusing linguistic and military dominance I think Erasmus meant Dutch (not Swiss) was a separate language, but both were separate countries. Arnoutf 18:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Culturally you mean?Rex 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more about power and economics instead. Arnoutf 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Then why do we even care about it?Rex 21:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Realising (after some more reading) how complicated and controversial the matter of Erasmus' "ethnic consciousness" in fact is, I have removed my contribution for now. Iblardi 15:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The view on others/stereotype section

A general note when editing this particular section. The information there is almost literally cited content as provided by the sources. Please do not make changes to it that alter the meaning but still make it seem as if it's referenced. Rex 16:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the change I made to this? The Germans seem to be generally unaware of the way they are stereotyped by their neighbours and often think it is merely a soccer phenomenon, as this is when the anti-German feelings are most visible.. I do not have access the the citation but I know that this statement is false. From my time living on both sides of the border, I know that this is not true. Also, using the term "seem to be" is very flimsy. So instead of coming out and saying that this is wrong (which some might consider WP:OR), I reworded it a bit to make it clearer that this statement is a matter of opinion (in this case, the author of this reference, who I assume is Dutch). - 52 Pickup 17:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well you see, you're not the first one who did this, but indirectly yes. I know you merely reworded it, (and added a cite-tagg), but the source (which I thought was directly accesible) is very clear on the matter. Btw, in this case the author was a Dutch "Germanist" (ie one who specialises in German language and culture), in all other cases (concerning stereotypes) the authors are English (speakers).Rex 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've undone some of your edits. All the information there was fully sourced (you can't have such a section without them) next time when you doubt something read the source before you remove or alter. Especially concerning this section. Refrain from adding unsupported personal experiences at all times.Rex 10:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)