Talk:Netherlands

Eighty Years War, independence and whatnot
this edit makes it seem even more than the old wording that the Eighty Years War ended in 1581 with the "independence" of the Netherlands. It didn't. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Mind explaining what it did lead to? Depending on how I interpret the above, you're either worrying about a small detail that to the layman is not at all that important or you're defying every Dutch history textbook printed. The Eighty Years' War led to the peace of Munster, which dictated sovereignty for the Dutch Republic. Dutch independence is a result of defeating the Habsburgs. The only thing I can think of as being a problem would be the fact that the Dutch Republic (a direct predecessor of the modernday Kingdom of the Netherlands) fought the war and was since occupied by France, a subject of France and integrated into France before the Congress of Vienna, making the two a different country alltogether. Again, I'm not all that sure what the issue is here, so if you'd be so free to explain, perhaps we can find a better wording. Wauteurz (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it up to you guys who know more than nothing about Dutch history (that's me, unfortunately), but just so we're clear a discussion of when or how the war ended does not belong in the lede. If it's impossible to sum up the historical situation in a way we can all agree on without using the travel guide-unfriendly terms de facto and de jure, then it shouldn't be mentioned in the lede at all.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The Eighty Years War ended in 1648. The text makes it seem it ended in 1581. And it is rather hard to talk about Dutch independence with the arbitrary limit of not being able to mention when it occurred in fact and when other European powers (especially Spain) accepted it as having legally occurred. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The sentence doesn't state that the war ended when Dutch independence was achieved, it just says that the result we're most concerned with in the lede (the Netherlands becoming independent) occurred in 1581 as a result of the war. You can talk about the difference between de facto independence and recognition in the Understand section, but it is too much detail for the lede. Imagine if the lede to the United States contained the following: "Ever since becoming de facto independent in 1776 (though not recognized de jure by Great Britain until the Treaty of Paris 1783), the USA has been one awesome country." It's too much detail for the lede. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've dug up some of my history notes and 1581 isn't even considered to be the start of Dutch independence at all - 1588, the year in which the Dutch rebels decided to start a new country without a monarch, is. Up until 1588, the rebels looked to other nations to borrow royal families of theirs, amongst which were France and England. NLwiki agrees with me on this, stating:
 * In 1588 werd, op basis van de Deductie Van Vrancken, besloten de soevereiniteit niet meer aan een vorst te laten, maar aan de Staten. Hiermee was de Republiek een feit.
 * Or in English:
 * Justified with the "Deductie van Vrancken", 1588 saw the decision to not leave sovereignty to any monarch, but to the states themselves. This meant that the Republic was a fact.
 * 1581 did see the declaration of the "Plakkaat van Verlatinghe", which did no more than declare that the Dutch provinces no longer wanted Philips II of Habsburg as their monarch. From that point on the rebellion is a fact, but the Republic isn't yet. The Provinces became a protectorate of the English in 1585, but this didn't last. The protectorate was off the table by december of 1587. Not long after the claim to independence without a monarch (i.e., the establishment of the Dutch Republic) followed. Since the independence from any monarch is a key to the Dutch Republic's political system, this is seen as the moment the Republic declared independence. All in all, it may be worthwhile to dedicate an article to the Eighty Years' War, whether or not it is included in the one already existing for the Thirty Years' War isn't something I mind any outcome of. As for the exact date: The English and many other countries and cultures see 1581 as the year of independence, while in the Netherlands (and most likely the rest of the Low Countries), 1588 is that year. 1648 is not an option regardless, since the Twelve Years' Truce (1609-1621) could not have been established between the Habsburgs and Dutch Republic if there was no Dutch Republic yet according to the Habsburgs. It is simply impossible to sign a truce or any document with another country without acknowledging their existence. -- Wauteurz (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You can have a truce without formal recognition. North and South Korea have that situation currently. Many of the Arab Israeli Wars ended in that situation historically. In 1648 it was formally recognized that the Netherlands were not subject to the HRE (at the same time the last theoretical vestige of Swiss suzerainty to the HRE was also done away with) Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

So we did. I still think that de facto is awkward wording for this travel and for the lede especially. Why don't we change it to "... that led to the country's independence from Spain in 1588," per Wauteurz's comment of 10 March 2019 above?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dutch independence as outlined above was a gradual process. We can all agree that by 1648 all components were in place and that some components were in place as early as 1581. I still don't understand what's so evil about the words "de facto"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it's legalese and, as we all know, lawyers are evil. De facto also implies that it wasn't really independent, and sounds rather snotty for a fun travel guide.
 * Alternatively, if the history was so complicated, we can avoid giving a definite date in the lede, and just leave it at "...that led to the country's independence from Spain, the Netherlands became..." which, all humour aside, flows better and is more readily understandable for a casual reader.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that it is indeed not a straight-forward case. Looking across the articles for the Dutch Republic on several language versions of Wikipedia in search of a year to pinpoint, we get 1581 out of the French and German Wikipedia, 1588 out of the Dutch and English Wikipedia, or even "starting in 1568" according to the West Frisian Wikipedia. These are either the Deductie Van Vrancken (1588, Dutch Republic decides to not want to look abroad for overlords any more); the Plakkaat van Verlatinghe (1581, Dutch Republic denounces Spanish overlordship, removing Philip II's power); or the first invasion of Van Oranje or the Battle of Heiligerlee (1568), which historically is seen as the start of the Eighty Years' War.
 * 1588 is what I have been taught as being the year the Dutch Republic gained independence, though there is a fair argument to say that it was 1581 as well. It depends on whether you want to define "independence" in this case as independence from Spain or as independence from any overlord. I'm fine with leaving out a date myself, though there is another option, based on the two most potential points to draw this line: "...that led to the country's independence from Spain in the 1580s...". The irony is that even the Netherlands can't make up its mind either: 1588 is what we teach in schools as being the year we gained independence, but the 1581 Plakkaat van Verlatinghe is seen as our declaration of independence. There really is no right or wrong in choosing between these two, but choosing 1648 is only ever just technically correct. The Peace of Munster never served to give the Dutch Republic independence, so it shouldn't be considered if you ask me.
 * Personally, I still stand by 1588, since it seems to be the most accepted year, but even then: The Dutch article for the Deductie Van Vrancken still reads as follows:
 * De Deductie is echter niet het geboortebewijs van deze Republiek. Het woord "republiek" komt in het document maar één keer voor (als Venetië genoemt wordt).
 * The Deduction is, however, not the birth certificate of this Republic. The word "republic" itself is only used once in the document (when Venice is named).
 * The document leaves this on neutral ground, leaving leadership under a prince still as a viable option. As for when the Dutch Republic did become a republic, that's yet another one of these cases where the line is very vague, but it does not matter here. At the end of the day, both 1581 and 1588 aren't ever fully to be considered a point of when independence started, because there is no such point. It's a gradual process, meaning that if you want to pinpoint a year, you need to draw a line. The year of independence can only be de facto. -- Wauteurz (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wauteurz, for explaining the history to us. If there is dispute about "independence", then let's avoid the word. The Canada article does not address independence, because it is the wrong word to use to describe what happened in 1867, which is cited as the founding of the country. After that, we can discuss a bunch of dates up to 1982. But we still share a head of state with 14 other countries including islands in the Pacific, Caribbean, and off the coast of France. A travel guide history section is not a good place to explore historical controversies. Qualifying the term with a Latin phrase and then not explaining it doesnt help readers' understanding. Ground Zero (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I both agree and disagree with what Ground Zero wrote above: Yes, there is no true "date of independence", and yes, it can be argued that different years can be seen as the one in which the Dutch Republic gained its independence. However, this isn't controversial in the slightest for as far as I know. It might be with some fanatics, but both 1581 and 1588 are perfectly fine years to draw the line. The Plakkaat van Verlatinghe and Deductie van Vrancken are tied together quite a bit, and are named in one breath most of the time. In any case, we're not exploring historical controversies here. To me, a controversy is something that lives among the people that it concerns. This is not the case. This vagueness isn't something that keeps people up at night whatsoever, or that causes divides between groups of people.
 * At this point I am considering whether it might be better to change the entire paragraph for as much as it concerns independence. Which, I should add, is not a term we use in Dutch to describe our "independence". Independence usually only gets mentioned when we speak of the country after the Peace of Munster. Anywho, here's an attempt at rewriting the paragraph in question:
 * Starting in 1566, the Dutch populace started revolting against its Spanish overlordship. This Dutch Revolt initially sought to remove Spanish religious influences, as the Spanish king Philip II forced Catholicism upon the Low Countries, which increasingly were becoming Calvinist Protestant. This, as well as a wish for more self-governance, which the Low Countries had under Philip's predecessor, eventually led to prominents such as William of Orange stepping up to the stage to lead the revolt into a new phase. This new phase started with the 1581 Plakkaat van Verlatinghe (Act of Renouncement), in which the Dutch justified Philip II being unfit to govern the Low Countries. During the preceding years, modern-day Wallonia had split itself off with the 1579 Union of Atrecht, wishing to remain Catholic under Spanish overlordship. This in itself was a response to the Union of Utrecht, which unified the Netherlands and Flanders in their desire to depart from Spanish rule. Seven years after the Plakkaat van Verlatinghe, the Deductie van Vrancken followed, with which the Dutch stopped their search for a different overlord, putting the future of the country in its own hands, making the 1580s the time in which the Dutch Republic would find its inception. The Dutch Republic grew to become one of the major economic and seafaring powers in the world during its Eighty Years' War for independence, which ended in 1648 with the Peace of Münster. This period is now known as the Dutch Golden Age (Gouden Eeuw). During this period, many colonies were founded or conquered, including the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) and New Netherland (which at its height extended along the East Coast of today's United States, from Rhode Island to the Eastern Shore of Maryland); the latter was traded with the British for Suriname in 1667.
 * Again, this is a suggestion, but I am starting tot think that rewriting is the way to go here. Someone else might want to work this out into sentences that are a bit easier to read, as I am not that great at that, but I'd like to know what the rest of you think about it. -- Wauteurz (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems very long-winded and academic for the introduction to a general-interest travel guide to the Netherlands.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wauteurz. I am happy to defer to your knowledge of the subject. I think it reads pretty well, but make two suggestions:
 * 1. Replace "prominents" by "prominent people" -- i haven't seen "prominent" used as a noun in English
 * 2. "Seven years after the Plakkaat van Verlatinghe, the Deductie van Vrancken followed, with which the Dutch stopped their search for a different overlord, putting the future of the country in its own hands, making the 1580s the time in which the Dutch Republic would find its inception." This is a bit difficult to follow (for a travel guide-level of English). How about this: "Seven years after the Plakkaat van Verlatinghe, the Deductie van Vrancken followed, with which the Dutch stopped their search for a different overlord, and put the future of the country in its own hands. The Dutch Republic thus was born in the 1580s."
 * In response to TT's comment, it would be less academic if the references to Plakkaat van Verlatinghe and Deductie van Vrancken were removed as they won't mean anything to most English readers. Ground Zero (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I just think the paragraph as a whole is too wordy and there are too many details which don't help to introduce me to the country as a travel destination or make me want to visit. I've attempted a much shorter redraft; the details can go in Understand#History or in some historical travel topic:

In 1566, the Dutch people started revolting against the Spanish overlordship, initially to reduce Catholic religious influence in a largely Protestant country, but increasingly driven by a wish for more self-governance. By 1581, the Dutch judged Philip II unfit to govern as overlord, and seven years later stopped their search for a new overlord altogether, putting the future of the country in its own hands. The resulting Dutch Republic grew to become one of the major economic and seafaring powers in the world during its Eighty Years' War for independence, which ended in 1648 with the Peace of Münster. This period is now known as the Dutch Golden Age (Gouden Eeuw) during which many colonies were founded or conquered, including the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) and New Netherland (on the East Coast of today's United States); the latter was traded with the British for Suriname in 1667.

Thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * First off, I take no offence on my concept being called too wordy, long-winded or academic. I am well-aware that that is how I tend to write, and simply I find it difficult to make it more comprehensive when working down from sources that are written in a similar way. That's exactly why I threw it out there for others to work off of.
 * The only point I have about what you've written is that I personally would interpret "The resulting Dutch Republic grew to become one of the major economic and seafaring powers in the world during its Eighty Years' War for independence, which ended in 1648 with the Peace of Münster." as meaning that the Peace of Münster ended the Dutch Golden Age. It didn't - the Dutch Golden Age ends with the Rampjaar (Year of Disasters), which is 1672. I'm not completely sure whether that's my English failing me or the sentence being a bit off, but outside of that, it looks great to me. Thank you! -- Wauteurz (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was unsure about that too. Specifically, I couldn't tell whether the Golden Age and the Eighty Years War were considered synonyms for the same period of time, or whether they simply overlapped. From your last comment, it sounds like the latter? In which case, how about:


 * The resulting Dutch Republic grew to become one of the major economic and seafaring powers in the world during its Eighty Years' War for independence. This led to an era now known as the Dutch Golden Age (Gouden Eeuw), during which many colonies were founded or conquered...


 * ? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, sounds good! If you'd ask me, the Peace of Münster is still notable enough to name as being the end of the Eighty Years' War, but I guess it's not essential either. To clarify: Yes, the Eighty Years' War (I added "for independence" as that's what it led to, though it was never the goal going in), lasted 80 years (1568 - 1648), with a ceasefire (Twaalfjarig Bestand / Twelve Years' Truce) between 1609 and 1621. The Golden Age starts either with the founding of the Dutch East India Company (Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie) in 1602 or with the start of the Twelve Years' Truce (again, the vague line here isn't important, as the start is a gradual process), and has an indisputable end with 1672 and the start of the Franco-Dutch war. I should also point out that the term "Golden Age" is disputed in modern times, as it only ever was "Golden" in the west (Holland, Zeeland and to a lesser extend Utrecht). The east of the country saw nothing of the prosperity, being only ruined as the battlefield of the Eighty Years' War moved outside of Holland to drive the Spanish forces out, devastating what we class here as the northern, eastern and southern regions. But yes, the Eighty Years' War led to the Golden Age, but the Golden Age did not hinge on the war for its continuation. If anything, the war coming to an end only allowed for trade to flourish even more. -- Wauteurz (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If there's one thing studying history has taught me, it's that so-called "golden ages" are never as wonderful as claimed, and usually have a lesser-known, but chilling, human cost. But as a well-known and easily understandable term, it serves its purpose in our article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * To indulge this tangent a bit further, the Spanish "Siglo de Oro" ("golden century") which actually lasted the better part of two centuries is perhaps the most obvious of such "golden ages" that have the seed of their end entrenched into their beginning - namely 1492 the year in which Spain did three things of momentous importance for its further history: It ended Muslim rule over Granada, it expelled all Jews and Muslims (who did not convert) which gave rise to the Inquisition becoming much more powerful (the Inquisition had no jurisdiction over Jews or Muslims but most definitely over Christians who "lapsed" to their former faiths) and of course last but not least, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. To bring at least a tenuous connection to the Netherlands back into this tangent, the biggest part of the silver Spain would rob from the Americas which did not end up in Asia (Europe had a massive trade imbalance with Asia basically for the entire existence of the Silk Road until the Europeans could just rob stuff at gunpoint) was spent on ultimately lost wars in the Low Countries... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

NL representation and reality
Dear @ThunderingTyphoons! seeing you revert me (and making a comment like that) I find it problematic that you do not assume good faith here...but as you are both English native speaker and sysop here, I as a novice will not argue against you that current form is more problematic...

However NL is much more than picturesque rural country and that my life and work in 4 different cities of NL over multiple years thought me that there is more complexity to the relations that Dutch have towards drugs and prostitution then majority acceptance. I leave this here as a voiced objection in hope others will also find this naive image of a contemporary country like The Netherlands is. --Zblace (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Zblace, did you read Netherlands? Is the last sentence in that subsection of "Stay safe" not sufficient? If you feel anything needs to be added about Dutch attitudes toward prostitution, you could add it in the following subsection. Or more relevantly, you could move the last sentence on drugs in "Stay safe" to the "Respect" section and make a brief statement about Dutch attitudes toward recreational drug use and prostitution there. My take on what Thundering did was to keep the lede of the article more brief and readable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Ikan Kekek my take was different and goes beyond attitude towards drugs...painting NL in 2022 as a porcelain plate wonderland is neither good aestetic taste nor ethical to people who actually visit it. --Zblace (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean; could you clarify with specifics? But why would it not be OK for you to briefly add what you find lacking, as I suggested above? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Destination of the month?
Does this article need anything more to run for DOTM? /Yvwv (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Yvwv: Nothing that is a must, I suppose. I'd say that navigation by thumb should be revisited, as it's nowadays a very uncommon practise, and I wouldn't be surprised if most of the designated hitch hiking spots in the Netherlands are gone, with Uber and the likes taking its place. There seem to be a few formerly dead links in the article that need to be verified, but other than that, there isn't anything that I can see.
 * I would like to say though, that as SHB2000 pointed out, there are a lot of sub-usuable articles for the Netherlands, including all but one of the provinces (that one being North Holland, unsurprisingly). I'd argue that having those provinces at least at usable status is a must-have for it to be featured. -- Wauteurz (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)