Talk:Kingdom of the Netherlands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EU membership in TLDs section[edit]

According to List of sovereign states, "The Kingdom of the Netherlands as a whole is a member of the EU, but EU law applies only to parts within Europe". Each of the six islands in the Dutch Caribbean are currently overseas countries and territories of the EU, which according to the site of the European Commission ([1]) means that "although their nationals are in principle EU citizens, the territories are not part of the EU or directly subject to EU law". This logically means that only the European Netherlands participates in the EU, though that doesn't mean that only the European part of the Netherlands is a member of the EU. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The state is a member, but states can have territory not in the EU. The Caribbean territories would fall under this category. What in this article should be clarified? CMD (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, in the list of TLDs in the infobox, there is a footnote next to ".nl" (the TLD of the Netherlands only) that says ".eu" is also used and shared with other EU member states. I moved ".eu" to the list of TLDs as a seperate entry because it's the Kingdom that is an EU member. This thread follows L.tak's revert to my edit. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What source notes .nl is the tld only of the European bit? I note France just lists .fr in its box, leaving all the subnational ones to a footnote, and presumably articles on the particular subnational entities. CMD (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any source for whether .nl refers to the Netherlands or the Kingdom, though the ISO 3166-1 code "NL" refers only to the constituent country of the Netherlands (at least the decoding table has a note that NL "includes the islands Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba" without mentioning Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten). SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is never easy with the Netherlands. It is always the Kingdom that is the subject of international law and becomes a party to a treaty. Even if it only applies to Curacao, it would be the Kingdom that becomes a party… And while 3166-1 includes Caribbean Netherlands, but not Curacao et al. for ISO 3166-2:NL, the full kingdom is counted. And citizens of the Netherlands, wherever they live, are citizens of the European Union. But EU law does not apply, and the EU has no formal say at all regarding the caribbean territories, so I'd say the main purpose of the .eu is where the EU treaties apply: not in the OCT… The practical importance of this all is nil I guess: it's easy enough for anyone to apply for a .eu domain…. L.tak (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we change this article so it is similar to France then, specifying only the main tld, and leaving the specialised tlds and eu to a footnote? CMD (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it turns out .nl represents the entire Kingdom of the Netherlands, it would be best to either do that or collapse all TLDs except .nl. If it only represents the Netherlands or the European Netherlands, the list of all TLDs should be kept. As it's not clear which of these is the case, I'm not sure what we should do. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case I would agree; but I think the IANA never was trying to be so exact with these distinctions; and in view of ISO3166 1 and 2 (and the variation of them historically) I don't think that will be as clear cut as we may want to… For France the situation is a lot more clear, as that is a single sovereign state with several dependent territories; for the Netherlands that is (at least formally) not the case… L.tak (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the case of France the administrative structure isn't particularly simple. The five overseas regions/departments are officially integral parts of France, though they have their own ISO codes and thus ccTLDs (.gf, .mq, .yt, .re, .gp). There even used to be an ISO 3166-1 code for Metropolitan France separate from France's FR. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In either situation, none of the 'sub-codes' (so to speak) represent the entire Netherlands (ie not European), or the entire France. Given this, they don't represent the kingdom, as this infobox would imply, but smaller divisions.
It's entirely possible however, that .nl and .fr represent the entire Netherlands and the entire France (the presence of a possible Metropolitan France code would support this). The theoretical legal equality aside, the historically driven reality is that the European Netherlands is dominant and is the main body of the Kingdom, much like Metropolitan France, and to a lesser extent the region/departments (as opposed to the more autonomous communities), is the main body of France. Splitting the tlds for the kingdom and the European bits would practically seem quite pointless, so the IANA probably hasn't bothered. CMD (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

constituent countries/countries[edit]

The "landen" the Kingdom consists of (the therm landen is Dutch and used in the Statute of the Kingdom of the Netherlands) are not consistently translated. The article now uses the term "countries" with an immediate clarification that this is the wikipedia translation of "landen" in this context. Of course the terms country and state are a bit ambiguous isn these contexts, as both are sometimes used to denote the sovereign enity, or the parts it consists of... In the UK, the term "constituent countries" is used, but that term is rarely used outside the realm of that Kingdom (also our article constituent countries has not many refs referring to entities in Denmark/NL as constituent), so I suggest not to use it here.... L.tak (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Constituent country: "Constituent country is a term sometimes used in contexts in which a country makes up a part of a larger political entity, such as a sovereign state. The term constituent country does not have any defined legal meaning, and is used simply to refer to a country which is a constituent part of something else."
Regarding the first sentence, the countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands fall in this category. The second says that it does not have a defined legal meaning, which means that it is a way of saying rather than an official term. At the pure linguistic level, the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten are therefore eligible to be described as constituent countries. In the end, that is what constituent means: each of the countries is a part and together they constitute a whole. It has no official legal meaning, and the fact that we don't have a satisfying equivalent term in Dutch doesn't mean that we should not use it on the English Wikipedia, because I think this term describes these countries best (certainly in the context of the Kingdom of the Netherlands). thayts💬 18:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the wikipedia article constituent country is that it is very poorly sourced regarding the use of the term outside the UK-sphere, so I am not very confident using it here as an argument. The points not whether we could interpret them as "constituent", but what's the common way to do it in reliable sources; and there the term is virtually absent.... I can image using "landen" is to Dutch, but would be ok using the common translation of landen, which is "countries" and not constituent countries. We could make a note indicating clearly that we are not speaking about sovereign states. Would that be ok for you? L.tak (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but I would like to hear what others think of it with regard to the meaning of the word in the literal sense and whether it is appropriate to use or not. I have added a note stating that the countries are not sovereign on their own and yet are parts forming the Kingdom. Note however that the term "constituent countries" is used throughout this article and other articles. What should we do with those? thayts💬 12:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In practice the term Kingdom of and Country of the Netherlands are often used for the same thing. The situation is somewhat tricky as the word country (land) is often used as a synonym for a sovereign state. E.g. many Dutch will use the word "land" to refer to the UK. The situation is different from the UK in that the Netherlands (the (constituent) country) accounts for over 98% of the inhabitants. Formally it is correct that the Netherlands is talking about the landen (countries) that constitute the Kingdom (sometimes Kingdom-countries but not constituent countries). I am however not sure that for the purpose of Wikipedia this would be a useful idea. The term constituent countries makes it clear it is not a sovereign state, without using many words. That has much appeal to me. Arnoutf (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I too prefer the term "constituent country" (I also use the literally translated "deellanden" in Dutch rather than "landen"). It may not be an official term, but it does make more clear that the listed entities are not actually sovereign countries. We could change the infobox group name to "constituent countries" with a footnote that "landen" (literally "countries") is the official designation. SiBr4 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you all have no problems with "constituent", then by all means let's leave it at that (I understand and accept it as being descriptive; I am concerned that we are "creating" history with this: if you google ""constituent country" Netherlands", the first results all are wikipedia articles). I'd appreciate the note suggested by SiBr4 to show the legal situation. L.tak (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charter vs Dutch Constitution[edit]

The article states: In these cases the Netherlands acts alone, according to its constitution and in its capacity as the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The other three countries cannot do the same for affairs of the Kingdom that only pertain to them and not to the Netherlands proper. In these cases, the provisions of the Charter prevail.

This is factually untrue. The charter always takes presedence in all of the countries regardlless if there is an affair pertaining to the other parts of the Kingdom. There is alot of jurisprudence on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.88.179.51 (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is regulated in article 14 sub 3 of the Charter. It says: "Regelen omtrent aangelegenheden van het Koninkrijk, welke niet in Aruba, Curaçao of Sint Maarten gelden, worden bij wet of algemene maatregel van bestuur vastgesteld". In English: "Provisions concerning Kingdom affairs which do not apply in either Aruba, Curacao or Sint Maarten shall be effected by Act of Parliament or order in council". The two legal instruments mentioned are regulated by the Constitution for the K. of the Netherlands and not by the Charter. Makes sense when you come to think of it. Why should Charter Institutions be invoked for a treaty for instance, that doesn't effect the other countries. Also mind that it doesn't work the other way around. The three Caribbean countries need to invoke Charter institutions even when a 'Kingdom affair' at hand, doesn't apply or touches the interest of the Netherlands. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bicentennial[edit]

Hebel, I'm not looking for a secondary source that says the Kingdom of the Netherlands was founded in 1815. I want secondary-source coverage of the bicentennial events that establish them as important enough to be discussed at all in an encyclopedic article. The bicentennial was previously in the lede. I moved it out, but now it is still presented as being on par with the Belgian secession in terms of importance. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That can be a bit tricky because the perceived importance (or lack thereof) of the festivities can be viewed as subjective. I don't put particular value of this being in the article at all. It could be reduced to a mere mention of the anniversary and be done with as far as I'm concerned. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about making it just: "The Kingdom has been celebrating its bicentennial in 2015"? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: subjectivity, I've found this interview with nl:Coos Huijsen (historian, former member of parliament) and this post by nl:Marnix Koolhaas (historian/journalist), both of which critique the bicentennial for celebrating the wrong thing.
If you think these qualify as WP:RS, then I suggest I/we write a short article about the bicentennial listing festivities, publications (new biographies of the first three kings were published) and the bicentennial's reception and link to that. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, regarding the choice of 2015 as the "actual" year of the bicentennial: 1863 apparently saw a celebration of "50 years of independence of the Kingdom of the Netherlands". The choice of year is more arbitrary than it might seem. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard that about 1863, but I own a commemorative plate celebrating the 100st anniversary from.... 1913! I suppose they wanted to emphasize the dynasty a bit more than the Kingdom. They divided it over three years this time around. I'll look at the link you provided and see what can be made of that. Thanks! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being a Dutch person living in the Netherlands all her live, I happen to notice the party has not begun yet. Perhaps the festivities will start on 26 September 2015, that week is the moment 200 years ago the first king was announced (apart from the French king Louis Bonaparte we had from 1806-1810). Anyway, I do not see much preparations yet. Currently our country is preparing for the start of Tour de France . So the event does not seem notable at the current state imho. Ellywa (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ellywa, I'm afraid you are late to the party. The Kingdom was declared on March 16th 1815. A day that twohundred years later, as far as I can recall, went by without any festivities whatsoever. Oh, apart from Arjan Lubach declaring himself Pharao of the Netherlands... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hebel, it is really stated that the national event will take place on 26 September, please read this calender: https://www.200jaarkoninkrijk.nl/content/kalender-6. And yes, I laughed a lot about Lubach. His joke is not finished yet. I'm expecting a parliamentary debate on it, when Lubach is back on TV after his holidays. Ellywa (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lubach's initiative is funny (in a cynical way) indeed, as his claim to Pharao-ship is legally at least as strong as that of the Oranges to that of kingdom (with the exception that the Oranges hold their title for 200 yrs and where instated with the support of a huge foreign military power, while Lubach actually petitioned to the legally appointed Dutch government for his appointment)  ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Interesting date that of 1863. If you look at the dates several years could qualify. 1806 (the French vassal state Kingdom Holland), 1813/14 (independent principality), 1815 (kingdom of the Netherlands) 1830/1839 (reduced kingdom with Belgium (de facto/recognized), 1954 current charter (including Antilles and Surinam). The bicentennial is that of Orange dynasty as King (Queen) more or less regardless of what Kingdom.
The main contribution of the Oranges to founding the dynasty seems to have been that they were a convenient anti-republican fraction to head a buffer state in the eyes of victors (England, Austria, Prussia) at the end of Napoleontic wars. More interesting dates to celebrate would however have been (IMO) 1981/2031 - 400 yrs/450 yrs independent state (de facto) or 1998 - 350 yrs independent state - recognised. Arnoutf (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ellywa: there have been news reports, publications, exhibitions and public debates surrounding the bicentennial. The question is whether these collectively establish notability. Lubach's prank is related; if it drew third-party attention, it might add to notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a short article at Bicentennial of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kingdom of the Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category confusion with Netherlands[edit]

Almost all categories of Netherlands are on Netherlands, such as Category:Member states of the European Union and Category:Member states of NATO.

But Category:Member states of the Council of Europe uses Kingdom of the Netherlands instead. Is there any reason to use Kingdom for that particular one? It's more confusing since in Member states of the Council of Europe article it links to Netherlands, not Kingdom of the Netherlands. --fireattack (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The member state is the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Not the constituent country. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So should Kingdom be used in all such instances? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Basically yes. Sometime the membership of an international organization only applies to the European territory (that used to be the constituent country) but to the outside world it always operates as the "Kingdom of the Netherlands". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I think it's more appropriate to use Netherlands when the jurisdiction of the organisation only applies to that part (such as the EU). In the case of the Council of Europe, it would be applicable to the whole state unless there are exceptions made in the agreements for the other constituent countries. Any idea about Benelux? Rob984 (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would make things even more confusing because some of the Carribean Islands, that do not or not entirely take part in these international organisations are now part of the constituent country. Treaties about these matters do not speak or define the constituent country to indicate limitations generally. The speak of the European territory of the kingdom. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is how it is currently I think? Treaties just refer to the Kingdom of the Netherlands with the exception of those parts. Same for Denmark with respect to Greenland and the Faroes. The Kingdom of Denmark doesn't even have a separate article however. Rob984 (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The whole of Denmark is discussed in Danish Realm, which makes more sense as a title than Kingdom of Denmark in my opinion as it's less ambiguous than a straight formal name. I think it makes sense to use the Kingdom for most/all categories, pipelinked to put it under N for ease of navigation. CMD (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if that article formerly called "Rigsfællesskabet" is at the right translation right now. The state including all of it's territories is the Kingdom of Denmark. "Rigsfællesskabet" is just a description of it's internal relations, which empahasises the unity of the Realm. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the state including all of its territories is also unadorned "Denmark", which is the shorthand name of the entire state as well as the term used to refer to the constituent country. While using the formal and shorthand names differently is a useful tool of convenience, I feel it can be taken too far. "Danish Realm" is meanwhile used in sources as well as "Kingdom of Denmark" (and other variations such as "Danish Kingdom"), but lacks the potential ambiguity of also being the formal name of Denmark. CMD (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it's called Denmark. Which is also the shorthand name of it's territory proper (without the dependencies), but I must admit that the use of the term Danish Realm surprises me a bit. I know that "Rigsfællesskabet" is used to describe the internal relations within the state, but I can't really see how that translates to Danish Realm. Not that I have a problem with the use of that term, but I do think it is just a description. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Constituent Countries Reconsidered[edit]

The article states that, "The four parts of the kingdom—the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten—are constituent countries." Now, I don't dispute that this is a factual statement, the question is whether the Netherlands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are the same thing or different things? I maintain that the independent state / sovereign state of the Netherlands just is the Kingdom of the Netherlands, a "juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area."

To be sure, there is another institution or political arrangement that would refer to the set of four entities (Netherlands + Aruba + Curaçao + Sint Maarten) but I don't believe that this overall arrangement is a sovereign state.

Another question we might ask to figure this out is, "How many entities are we talking about?" The way that wikipedia currently presents this data we would get the following list:

This way of defining the data implies that there are five entities, one sovereign one and four dependent ones. One of the problems with this is that the sovereign state in this list is not a country in the technical sense because it has no "geographic area" of its own. It is an abstract governing power with sovereignty only over its dependent states.

The other problem is that this is not how the standard reference works, such as the CIA World Fact Book and Wikipedia, present the data (See: Lists of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent). Following these reference works, I propose that we are dealing with only four entities, one sovereign and three dependent:

Likewise, the United States is comprised of multiple dependent states and territories. But the United States itself is not also one of its own dependent states (or "constituent countries") along side, say, United States Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico. No, these two are among the dependent territories belonging to the the United States while the United States is itself a sovereign state.

I suggest looking to the articles on the Kingdom of Denmark as an example. Instead of referring to the overall institution as the sovereign state, it refers to The unity of the Realm, a political arrangement in which there are only three entities, one sovereign and two dependent. Likewise, there is a political arrangement under the Kingdom of the Netherlands such that there are only four entities, one sovereign and three dependent.

If you disagree with my assessment, I am eager to be corrected. I would consider my position to be refuted if you can demonstrate a flaw in my logic in equating Netherlands with the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the same way that Denmark equals the Kingdom of Denmark just as the United States equals the United States. I would also consider my position refuted if you can demonstrate from standard reference works that there are five entities, one sovereign and four dependent just as in my first list. Ryan Close (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every country is an "abstract governing power". The United States is made up of (primarily) 50 states. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is made up of 4 countries. As the relevant Denmark articles and this one should hopefully make clear, the constitutional arrangements are different in each state, which is why the articles are different. CMD (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the response! You are right every country’s constitution is different. A certain amount of abstraction is necessary when making a database that lists all such entities. What I meant by “abstract governing power” is a supposed sovereign state without any geographic territory of its own. There is no such thing. One generalization we make is to define a sovereign state in such a way that all of the sovereign states in our list meet this definition. And one of our criteria is that it be sovereign over some geographic territory. Take, your example of the United States. In lists of sovereign states and dependencies one would see one sovereign state (the United States) and at least 16 dependencies. Not 17 dependencies. The “50 States,” neither individually nor collectively, are not dependencies. Texas and Missouri and Florida are not listed as dependencies. The “50 States” is not listed as a dependency. Check out the Lists of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent. It’s basically the same as the CIA world fact book. The United States is a country synonymous with the entity known as the “50 States” listed under sovereign states (“independent states” in the CIA World Fact Book). Then there are 16 generally recognized dependencies: “five major self-governing territories” and 11 minor outlying islands. Now, your wanting to compare entities such as Texas and Illinois to Aruba and Curaçao is not a good analogy. Texas and Florida are internal administrative divisions of a single sovereign country. Aruba and Curaçao are not internal administrative subdivisions of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. They are dependencies, countries that are administered as semi-autonomous but dependent countries under the ultimate authority of a sovereign state. They are more similar to the United States Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico and Greenland. Now, in the list of sovereign states one finds the Kingdom of Denmark (meaning the country of Denmark), the Kingdom of the Netherlands (meaning the country of the Netherlands), and the United States of America (meaning the country comprised of the 50 States). That these are accurate equivalencies can be verified by looking up these States in the CIA World Fact Book and looking at the land areas and populations of the states I listed. It should be clear what geographic areas these entities actually represent. If I’m wrong then the constituent country of the Netherlands would be listed as a dependency of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the said Kingdom would have four dependencies rather than just three. Likewise the European country of France would be listed separately from the République Française, the first being a dependency and the second would be the sovereign state. And, again, the country of the “50 States” would be a dependency of the sovereign state of the “United States.” There would be a strange doubling effect. If this is how Wikipedia interprets sovereign states and dependencies then it would require extensive editing of the Lists of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent by adding additional dependencies previously thought to be sovereign states. If I have misinterpreted your rather brief response, then perhaps you could clarify by telling me just how many sovereign states and how many dependent countries there are under the Complex of entities comprised by the set of the “Kingdom of the Netherlands and it’s dependencies” as it would be listed under the Lists of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent. I contend that it should be one sovereign state and three dependencies. What do you say? Ryan Close (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The term "dependency" is ill-defined and should be treated with care. Aruba is not like Puerto Rico. All constituents of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are full parts of the state, constitutionally integrated into one sovereign state, just as the states of the US have been constitutionally integrated into one sovereign state. (Similarly, Greenland is constitutionally part of the Danish state, although through a different structure.) This is different to Puerto Rico, which has never been integrated into the US. The CIA World Fact Book is a useful tool, but it is not a constitutional guide. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is one sovereign state, which constitutionally consists of four members. Despite this constitutional convention, one of these, due to history, geography, population, and more, is readily associated with the state itself and contains many organs of the state. CMD (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I understand your position and I appreciate your openness to good faith dialogue. Before you decide, please let me make a few more comparisons.
French Guiana is an overseas department or overseas region of France which is fully incorporated as part of France. According to wikipedia, French Guiana is "[f]ully integrated in the French central state in the 21st century," and as such it is "part of the European Union." "As an integral part of France, its head of state is the President of the French Republic, and its head of government is the Prime Minister of France." Yet, "[t]he President of France appoints a prefect... ...as his representative to head the local government of French Guiana." So in the article "Regions of France," French Guiana is listed separately from France's European regions as one of France's five Overseas Regions. It is not clear to me whether French Guiana is on an equal footing with France's other 13 metropolitan regions such as Centre-Val de Loire or Occitanie. The 13 metropolitan regions are each headed by presidents, not prefects. So there does seem to be some justification for these overseas regions to be considered special cases different from the 13 metropolitan regions. And perhaps that is the reason that these overseas regions are consistently listed as "dependencies" in lists of sovereign states and dependent territories.
Question: Is French Guiana more like Alaska or Puerto Rico? Alaska is a state just like Florida and Missouri. It is never listed as a "dependency." Yet French Guiana and Puerto Rico are both always consistently listed as "dependencies." You claim that "Aruba is not like Puerto Rico" because "All constituents of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are full parts of the state." Yet in the case of French Guiana, it is also fully integrated as a part of France, yet it is still considered a "dependency." Should Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten be listed together with French Guiana? Or should they be deleted from the list of "dependent territories" just as Alaska is never listed as a "dependent territory?
My second comparison is the United Kingdom. The UK consists of the "constituent countries" of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Please notice that these four are never listed as either "sovereign states" or "dependent territories." They don't appear in lists of sovereign states and dependent territories at all because as "constituent countries" they are neither "sovereign states" nor "dependent territories." Question: If the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten are actually "constituent countries" then shouldn't they be deleted from the list of "dependent territories"? This would result in a list like this:
In this case, we would be dealing with one sovereign state, zero dependencies, and four constituent countries. This seems to be what you are saying and I accept that. However, are you willing to delete Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten from the list of dependent territories in the list of sovereign states and dependent territories? I am not. I maintain that there is one sovereign state and three dependencies, and all four said entities are constituent countries as defined in the Constitution of the Netherlands.
I believe that the concept of landen is distinct and different from the concept of "sovereign states and dependent territories". Both concepts are important and necessary. As such the conceptual arrangement and description of these international political arrangements ought to be described in terms of both sets of concepts. To these ends, I propose the following compromise text:
"The Kingdom of the Netherlands, also commonly known as "the Netherlands" or "Holland," is a sovereign country located mainly in Northwestern Europe comprising 12 provinces, three dependent territories in the Caribbean Sea—Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten, and three special municipalities—Bonaire, Saba, and Sint Eustatius. However, the Constitution of the Netherlands defines the four parts of the kingdom—the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten—as constituent countries (landen in Dutch) which participate on a basis of equality as partners in the kingdom."
This edit makes the description of the Kingdom of the Netherlands conceptually consistent with the other sovereign states that have dependent territories as outlined in the list of sovereign states and dependent territories and as generally understood in the field of international law while also clearly explaining that the Constitution of the Netherlands defines things differently which presents this other important concept of landen. Ryan Close (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The overseas French regions have different histories to Metropolitan regions, but are equivalent and on equal footing to the metropolitan regions. They are constitutionally special only in their sheer distance from the Metropole. Alaska is an excellent comparison to French Guiana.
The more interesting French cases are the other overseas territories, which have been constitutionally integrated into France, but are not Regions. (The most interesting case perhaps being Saint Barthelemy, which was part of the overseas Region of Guadeloupe, but seceded.) These are much more similar to Aruba, due to their much higher levels of autonomy, although the situations are not identical. A key difference between this and Puerto Rico is again that Puerto Rico has never been integrated into the US by law, but the French territories have. (I have read arguments that Puerto Rico has de facto been integrated due to judicial rulings and various small acts of Congress, but I have not gained the impression this is a mainstream legal view.)
Regarding the UK, the term "constituent country" has no meaning outside of the meaning assigned to it in each situation. The UK and Dutch situations are very different, and would not be compared if different terms were used.
The problem with that proposed wording is that it puts a lot of weight on the phrase "dependent territory", which is not a term which is used very consistently with a clear definition. When it says the Netherlands has 3 dependent territories, what does that mean? What is the very concept of a dependent territory? If you have sources that discuss the Dutch Caribbean as dependent territories "as generally understood in the field of international law", it would be very useful to see them.
How to deal with such questions on List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent is tricky. It's an odd article anyway, mixing a bunch of different information without many coherent sources on the topic, so I'm not inclined to wade too much into it. In general, there is a lack of great sources on the topic of "dependent territories". In the case of Australia, it is hard even to find out whether the oft-listed dependent territories are integrated or not. CMD (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands "the Kingdom comprises of the countries of the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten", "in which they look after their own interests independently and look after the common interests and provide mutual assistance on an equal footing".[1] When a Dutch person speaks about the Kingdom, (s)he is almost always explicitly referring the to entity including the Caribbean constituent countries. Even though each country has its own national government, the whole of the Kingdom is represented by the government of the Netherlands and so the goverments of these two entities are de facto one and the same. You can also notice this from the Charter, which sets some rights and obligations specifically for Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. Although "equal", these three countries are in fact still dependent on the Netherlands (think for example about foreign policies and defence; of course this has to do with history). So I don't think that the situation in the Netherlands is perfectly comparable with the other countries that you gave as an example. Thayts ••• 13:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CMD for the response. Great points all around. I have a question about one statement you make. "The problem with that proposed wording is that it puts a lot of weight on the phrase 'dependent territory', which is not a term which is used very consistently with a clear definition." On the contrary, it seems to me there is a great deal of consistency, even if different reference works use slightly different terminology. If you compare the CIA World Factbook with wikipedia's List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent (based, I believe, on the United Nations) you will see what I mean. The CIA World Factbook lists 'Entities' which are either 'Independent states' or 'Dependencies" and "areas of special sovereignty.' According to their definitions: " 'Independent state' refers to a people politically organized into a sovereign state with a definite territory. 'Dependencies' and 'areas of special sovereignty' refer to a broad category of political entities that are associated in some way with an independent state." And the number and kind of entities they list is the same as the List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent except that what the CIA World Factbook calls 'independent stated' wikipedia calls 'sovereign states' and what the CIA World Factbook calls 'Dependencies' and 'areas of special sovereignty' wikipedia calls 'dependent territories.' That shows that there is substantial conceptual overlap between what the CIA World Factbook calls 'Dependencies' and 'areas of special sovereignty' and what wikipedia calls 'dependent territories' and that the shared concept is defined at least well enough that both reference works can put the same 'entities' into the same conceptual categories. My question: Wouldn't you say the concept of 'dependent territory' is well defined?
I am not against creating a new system of concepts and categories. Perhaps the problem with the List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent is that it is based a limiting number of concepts that forces the list to categorize all the 'entities' into one of two groups. But this is the basic paradigm that all the entries about states and international jurisprudence are based on. For consistency sake all these articles must conform conceptually to the conceptual system presented in the List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent. Are you proposing that we reformat the list and overhaul all the related articles? Perhaps increasing the number of conceptual categories?--Ryan Close (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 'Thayts' for your response. Very informative! Based on your knowledge of the Statuut or Charter which of the following lists would best summarize the entities involved?:
or
or
The first list is how how wikipedia's List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent categorizes the entities. Should we change this list? Should we delete Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten from the list altogether, because they are neither sovereign states nor dependent territories? Or should we add Netherlands to the number of dependent states, because it isn't listed there as it is? Either change would be fine with me. Thank you for your time.--Ryan Close (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New proposed edit:
The Kingdom of the Netherlands, also commonly known as "the Netherlands" or "Holland," is a sovereign country located mainly in Northwestern Europe comprising 12 provinces, three dependent territories in the Caribbean Sea—Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten, and three special municipalities—Bonaire, Saba, and Sint Eustatius. According to the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands "the Kingdom comprises of the countries of the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten." These four constituent countries (landen in Dutch) participate on a basis of equality as partners in the kingdom, "in which they look after their own interests independently and look after the common interests and provide mutual assistance on an equal footing."[1]
This is consistent with the way 'Thayts' characterizes the Charter. Notice he says that, "When a Dutch person speaks about the Kingdom, (s)he is almost always explicitly referring the to entity including the Caribbean constituent countries." This edit also expresses this by making it clear that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is comprised of four constituent countries, namely Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten. It just makes clear that three of these constituent countries are commonly considered to be dependent territories, just as 'Thayts' explains: "Although "equal", these three countries are in fact still dependent on the Netherlands." I link to the wikipedia article concerning dependent territories in case that concept isn't thought to be well defined. In this context it means that, despite being "equal", Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten depend on the Netherlands for certain things and have special "rights and obligations" that apply to them as dependencies that do not apply to the Netherlands. All of this can be explained more fully in the main body. Questions? Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Close (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan. I would not say that the Netherlands is dependent on the Kingdom of the Netherlands, because they are in fact represented by the same government. In a way, it is the same country that has a realm (referred to as "the Kingdom") that includes three other dependencies. Yet the constituent countries have agreed to be as independent as possible within the realm. To the outside world, the sovereign state is the Kingdom of the Netherlands that has sovereignty over all the territories including all the Caribbean ones. Within the Kingdom, the autonomy of each constituent country is respected as much as possible, although the Netherlands sometimes intervenes in the other countries' affairs if deemed necessary (as happened just this week with Curaçao).[2] I would not overcomplicate the lead text as you propose. The lead as it is right now already reflects the situation quite well in my opinion and does not require alteration. Thayts ••• 08:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryan Close It's really not more complicated that the common name of the Dutch state is the Netherlands and the official name is the Kingdom of the Netherlands. But it's described differently from what is technically true, because people think of the Netherlands proper (European area) as the Netherlands.Kisualk (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kisualk You are completely right. My proposed edit clearly acknowledges this: "The Kingdom of the Netherlands, also commonly known as 'the Netherlands' or 'Holland,' is a sovereign country located mainly in Northwestern Europe comprising 12 provinces, three dependent territories in the Caribbean Sea, and three special municipalities." As you can see the distinction between "The Kingdom of the Netherlands", "Netherlands", and "Holland" is mostly a matter of how people talk.
I even acknowledge that what we call the "The Kingdom of the Netherlands" is in fact comprised by both its European area and it's overseas parts. The question is how those parts relate to one another.
For example, Alaska is a state (an internal region) of the United States. It is neither a sovereign state nor a dependency so it is never listed in lists of sovereign states and dependencies. But Puerto Rico is listed as a dependency. Likewise, the Collectivity of Saint Martin is an overseas region of France and is listed as a dependency where as Occitanie is never listed as a dependency because it is an internal region of France just like Alaska. Furthermore, England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and as such are also never listed in lists of sovereign states and dependencies since they are neither sovereign states nor dependencies.
The main question here is this: Is Aruba more like Alaska and Occitanie or is it more like Wales and Scotland, or is it actually more like Puerto Rico and the Collectivity of Saint Martin? If the first, then Aruba should be deleted from lists of sovereign states and dependencies because, like Alaska, Aruba is not a dependency. If the second, then Aruba should be deleted from the list of sovereign states and dependencies because, like Wales, Aruba is not a dependency. If the third, then Aruba is a dependency and ought to remain in that list. And it Aruba is a dependency (or dependent territory to use wikipedia's preferred term) then the article ought to say so by saying something like this:
The Kingdom of the Netherlands, also commonly known as "the Netherlands" or "Holland," is a sovereign country located mainly in Northwestern Europe comprising 12 provinces, three dependent territories in the Caribbean Sea—Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten, and three special municipalities—Bonaire, Saba, and Sint Eustatius.
Which do you prefer?Ryan Close (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the structure of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is quite similar to that of the United Kingdom, in which all constituent countries except England have their own parliaments and the United Kingdom as a whole is represented by the government seated in London. Aruba, Curaçao, the Netherlands and Sint Maarten all have an equal status of constituent countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, whose government happens to be same as the government of the Netherlands. The difference is that Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten do not elect representatives into the Dutch parliament, meaning they are de facto dependent on the Netherlands' government. To answer your question, I would say that Aruba is more like Wales, but it is still a dependent territory as the organizational structure is not exactly the same as that of the United Kingdom (see also the definition provided at Dependent territory and how the Netherlands is listed in that article).
Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius, on the other hand, are integral parts of the Netherlands and are directly administered by the Netherlands' government. They should not be considered dependent territories as they are part of the Netherlands' territory, just like the 12 provinces in Europe. Therefore, they should be removed from the "Dependent territories" section at List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent#North America and replaced by "Netherlands – Kingdom of the Netherlands" under "UN member states" with a note similar to how Greenland is listed as an integral part of Denmark.
When it comes to the lead text, it should say something along the lines of:
"The Kingdom of the Netherlands, commonly known as the Netherlands, is a sovereign country and constitutional monarchy comprising four constituent countries in Northwestern Europe and the Caribbean: Aruba, Curaçao, the Netherlands and Sint Maarten."
'Holland' is used informally to refer to the (European) Netherlands, but is hardly ever used to refer to the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a whole. The special municipalities should not be named separately, since they are already included in the constituent country of the Netherlands. ― Ætoms [talk] 23:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b "Statuut voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden". Dutch Government (in Dutch). 17 November 2017. Retrieved 3 June 2019.
  2. ^ "Den Haag grijpt opnieuw in op Curaçao" [The Hague intervenes again on Curaçao]. NOS (in Dutch). 12 June 2019. Retrieved 15 June 2019.

@Ætoms Thank you for the thoughtful and informative reply! Ryan Close (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 May 2020[edit]

Per WP:COMMONNAME, closed as not accepted. Feel free to revert this if it's premature, but I don't think this will go anywhere. Mgasparin (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Kingdom of the Netherlands → Dutch Realm – Kingdom of the Netherlands should redirect to the Netherlands. When most of the people write "Kingdom of the Netherlands", they are thinking of the Netherlands 83.137.6.126 (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The Netherlands is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It is not called "Kingdom of the Netherlands" on its own, but forms a kingdom together with the other constituent countries. As far as I am concerned, the kingdom as a whole is never (officially) referred to as the "Dutch Realm". ― Ætoms [talk] 13:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Absolutely true. Most people think of the Kingdom of the Netherlands as only referring to the Netherlands itself, whatever the technicalities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I live here and would never think of it as the "Dutch Realm", that has no connection for me at all and seems to be more ambiguous. Going by what most people think, should we rename the page of "The Netherlands" itself to Holland then? or rename The United Kingdom to just England? The page for the United Kingdom is also not the "English/British Realm". If people have trouble with not understanding the difference they are already helped by the note This article is about the sovereign state. For the constituent country with the same name, see Netherlands. And I would also strongly disagree with the Dutch part, its not the "Dutch Kingdom", and I think people from, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, part of the kingdom may quite rightfully identify themselves as Aruban,Curaçaoan and St. Maartener respectively. Only people from the Netherlands itself (for the largest part) are called "Dutch". Grouping that all under "Dutch" would in my opinion be very negative. "Kingdom of the Netherlands" identifies quite clearly and accurately about what it is, a group of countries under the king of the Netherlands, not something that is owned by the single country of Netherlands itself, as the "Dutch Realm" or any variation with the word "Dutch" would imply. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. never used term and thus also not the common name; nor is it the formal name. The Kingdom is the generally applied term and also the formal constitutional term. Yes, the mixing of the Kingdom and the Country is confusing, but that is instrinsic to the concept where the country often harbours the institutions of the Kingdom... L.tak (talk)
  • Strong Oppose per above. The proposed page title is rather informal. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

IPA transcription of the word "der"[edit]

I can believe that it's [dɛr]. The weak form of en ('and') can be [ɛn] too, to avoid homophony with the indefinite article. Apparently der is the same in that regard, presumably to avoid homophony with the unstressed form of haar (d'r, pronounced [dər]). But as far as I know, the original pronunciation of der, des and den originally contained a schwa even in the stressed form, much like de (nobody says [deː], no?). Sol505000 (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason is unclear to me, but the pronunciation "rules" are quite clear. It is ɛ when 'der' means "of the" (former genitive plural form), but not in a last name combination ("van der"), although even the latter is pronounced with ɛ sometimes when a lastname is specified (and to make sure people don't write down "van de"). I have always heard of des and den with a ɛ though, and not in any other way.... L.tak (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Netherlands which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands&oldid=1211097013"