Rydel~nlwiki

An open letter

Hello,

I am a journalist from Radio Free Europe, Belarus Service, and I am a linguist amateur, and I would like to bring up the topic on how the name of "Belarus" is mis-translated in your language, Dutch.

The problem is that "Belarus" does NOT mean "White Russia".

I am so sorry to say that this is something that many of our citizens find quite offensive, misleading and simply wrong.

But you are not alone. There is the same problem with the German language. Here is the relevant document. I urge you to read it:

• http://www.pravapis.org/art_weissrussland.asp

Fortunately, the German media responds very friendly to this, and there is a strong trend not to use "Weissrussland" but use "Belarus" lately.

I hope there is someone at the Netherlands language institute with whom I can discuss this problem on a serious level and who could read the relevant materials and think about the issue.

Thank you very much in advance for your answer.

Kind regards,
Uladzimir Katkouski aka Rydel 23

• http://www.pravapis.org/
• http://blog.rydel.net/
• http://rydel.net/

---

Thank you for the information. I added a link to this item in the discussion about Belarus.
Kind regards O E P 3 nov 2004 00:54 (CET)

---

First, I'd like to repeat the Wikipedia-NL does want to take part as little as possible in naming discussions, and especially the political tinted ones. Normally we use the recommended spellings as given by the Taalunie, the result is that no one can accuse us of being biased, it's perfectly NPOV. (The Taalunie determines the official spelling of the Dutch language. The spelling is enforced by laws in .nl and .be. Geographic names are not covered by those laws, so the Taalunie can only recommend a spelling.) In general, the list recommended spelling of geographic names is of high quality, and can be viewed on-line here [1]

I have investigated the issue a little bit. It seems the Taalunie did acknowlegde the name change of your country into Belarus. However, the Taalunie does not design the Dutch language on its own, it is guiding it. And we have a situation here where the guiding has failed; the Dutch speakers did not start to use the name Belarus, they kept calling it Wit-Rusland. So, the Taalunie had to change its mind. In normal language, the word Wit-Rusland is being used, and no recommendation exists not to use it. In official documents, Belarus is recommended.

Since the use of Wit-Rusland versus Belarus in Dutch approaches 100% versus 0%, see for example recent coverage of the elections in your country [2] it would be wrong not to use the word Wit-Rusland. We can explain the naming issues in the article though. Wit-Ruthenië is completely unknown and is therefore very hard to use in everyday language.

Lastly, we have to accept that name changes do not allways propagate into other languages. Ever imagined why the Britts call us "Dutch" and why it is so close to "Deutsch"? (And confuses stupid Americans). Well, a few hundred years ago, "Duits" was a completely neutral word. In fact the first ever dictionary in our language, published in the 16th century was called the "groot woordenboek der Nederduitse spraakkunst". Yes, Dutch was being called Nederduits, German was being called Hoogduits.

The terminology changed when what is now Germany started to call themselves "Deutschland". Suddenly "Nederduits" wasn't neutral anymore, so it became "Nederlands".

The Brittish were a bit stupborn and continued to call us Dutch, and they continued to call Deutschers "Germans". Correct? No. Is it offending to us? Not at all.

Danielm 3 nov 2004 12:41 (CET)

---

from: Jacqueline Balteau - Nederlandse Taalunie (jbalteau at taalunie.org)

Dear sir / madam,

Thank you for your message concerning Belarus.

In the Dutch speaking countries (the Netherlands and Belgium / Flanders) we nowadays use, most of the time, 'Belarus' as well. The trend is therefore the same one as in Germany. On our website: www.taalunieversum.org you can find in the section 'taal' > 'aardrijkskundige namen' a list with all the geographical entities.

sincerely, Jacqueline Balteau Secretary working group on geographical names in Dutch / werkgroep buitenlandse aardrijkskundige namen in het Nederlands

I suggest you use "Belarus" and use "Wit-Rusland" as a redirect. --Rydel 16 nov 2004 19:10 (CET)

You can suggest what you want but it will be the other way around, as no Dutch source is using Belawhatever. All are using Wit-Rusland. Also the official site of the taalunie states Wit-Rusland so that is what it will be. Please stop telling us how to use OUR language. Wae®th^tm©2004 17 nov 2004 09:56 (CET)

I am sorry to see this kind of attitude, dear "White German" Waerth. I think your comment actually contradicts to what werkgroep buitenlandse aardrijkskundige namen in het Nederlands has answered. --Rydel 17 nov 2004 21:06 (CET)

Hey, Waerth, can you explain the meaning of your comment "Hallo meiner freunde" in the German Wikipedia? Am I hiding or what? Yes, I am an advocate of this in German, and thank God, there is a very positive tendency among German speakers and German media. Which has nothing to do with me. One person (no matter how outspoken) can not change how one hundred million people speak their language. I definetely have nothing to do with the fact that Germans use "Weissrussland" less, and use "Belarus" more. I just don't get the point of your comment there. What did you want? What's that supposed to mean??? --Rydel 18 nov 2004 18:55 (CET)

With all due respect, Mr. Katkouski, I have to agree with Waerth. On Overleg:Wit-Rusland I wrote, and I repeat it here: "The name Wit-Rusland has little or no political connotations in Dutch, and the Belarussian name Беларусь is simply not in use here. I don't know where Ms. Balteau got her information, but I have néver seen it used in any Dutch publication. Now, I am aware that Беларусь does not literally mean the same as White Russia, but that is only because we don't make distinctions between Russian русский vs. российский or Polish ruski vs. rosyjski. And even then, the country was called Białoruś in Polish both before and after the fall of the USSR." In other words: much as I sympathise with your cause, in Dutch it simply won't work... By the way, the comparison with Germany ("White German") would rather apply to the Low Saxon language, which is more often than not referred to as "Niederdeutsch" or "Plattdeutsch". Best regards, Jan van Steenbergen 17 nov 2004 21:19 (CET).

Dear Mr. van Steenbergen, I understand that. And I am really sorry about that. Now imagine, if Germans killed millions of Dutch people, and if Germans exploited and harrassed your nation for several centuries, and when finally you escape the German empire and become independent, the rest of the world starts calling you by the name "White Germany". That's how it is for many of us. That's how many of us feel. We finally escaped the evil Russian empire, and yet the Germanic-speaking countries call us by the name of our most bitter enemy. Sorry, I have to write it here. This has no place in Wikipedia. But since you seem not to understand, I have to be as clear and as direct as possible. I am sorry your language "works" this way against the millions of people of another nation. --Rydel 18 nov 2004 18:55 (CET)

Yes. Yes!! :) That's about what happened in the second world war. The Germans were not so nice against us during that war. Now a third language, the Brittish, still call us Dutch. They are at least two centuries late. Do we feel offended? No, we are not. Danielm 18 nov 2004 19:26 (CET)

Daniel, the parallel would be acceptable if in addition to "Dutch", English language also refered to Germans as "Green/Yellow/Purple Dutch" not "German". ;)

P.s. We are using, and will continue to use both names in the article. Danielm 18 nov 2004 19:32 (CET)

Klar. ;) --Rydel 19 nov 2004 13:33 (CET)

Evil Russian Empire? That's surely not how most of your compatriots feel... But let's not turn this into a political discussion. For what it is worth: I sympathise with your views and I do believe that you are being honest. But what you fail to understand is that (at least in Dutch) the name "Wit-Rusland" is not at all considered a modification of "Russia"; it the translation of Belarus, nothing else. In my view, the similarity in names between Belarus/White Russia and Russia proper is simply a historic fact. Just like there is a similarity between Romanian, Rumantsch and Roman. Or a similarity between Slovenia, Slovakia, Slavic, etc. Or Serbian and Sorbian... Why do we call the Cymrians/Cambrians "Welsh", which is both cognate to Valachia and to Polish "Włochy" (Italy)? But have you ever heard a Slovenian, Sorbian or Welshman complain about that? No! Just like Russia and Belarus are both, equally important, descendents of ancient Rus'. That's what the name "Wit-Rusland" is about: it refers to common ancestry, not political domination. Please, don't try to change our language, and be satisfied with the fact that Wit-Rusland and Belarus are considered equal, which is really the best result you can get. Best regards, Jan van Steenbergen 18 nov 2004 21:26 (CET).

> Evil Russian Empire? That's surely not how most of your compatriots feel...

You are right. Maybe only several millions of us. (If no one else, for sure, 1.5. million of us who voted for Zianon Pazniak back in 1994 ;)).

PS. And a small addition. When did you see Russian empire let some people go peacefully? Do you read news from Chechnya? Well, we had our own Chechnya in 1831 and in 1863. So finally we get free, just to be called by the name of our opressor. Ironic, isn't it? --Rydel 20 nov 2004 01:51 (CET)

> Or a similarity between Slovenia, Slovakia, Slavic

Btw, Slovenia and Slovakia do get confused a lot by people, who are not very knowledgeable about Eastern Europe.

> Just like Russia and Belarus are both, equally important, descendents of ancient Rus'.

Not really. That's what many Russian historians have been yelling about for centuries, but is it the case? Just take ancient Rus' and project the map of it unto the modern map of Eastern Europe. Where will be modern Russia and where will be old Rus? Compare the maps. What will you see?

You will see that Ruthenia covers all of Belarus, a bit of Eastern Poland (that's where ethnic Belarusans are), almost all of Ukraine, and just a very-very small chunk of Russia - Novgorod oblast, Pskov oblast, Briansk oblast, and Smolensk oblast. That's all. And should I also note that in Briansk and Smolensk there used to be Belarusan/Ukrainian population until they got totally russified after many centuries under Russian empire.

That's how it is geographically.

Russians needed to claim Rus' history so that they could justify their "liberation" wars against the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

And thanks for participating in this discussion. You made very insightful remarks. --Rydel 19 nov 2004 13:33 (CET)

I am terribly sorry Rydell, but insulting me will not help. I have placed my comment on the de: wikipedia under my own name, so I cannot see how I am hiding. I have also read about your action on Hungarian wikipedia were you unilaterally changed a pagename and changed an article and put comments on the page in English . If you want to change the language people in another country speak, Wikipedia is NOT the way to do it though. Try other channels. As soon as the majority of Dutch media and native speakers start using Belarus instead of Wit-Rusland we will immediately change it. Rus in Belarus seems to refer to Russia as well to me as a simple person. I wanna make a bet that even in BelloRussian you are using some wrong translations of Dutch citynames as well. As they do in every language. Do we complain about it. I just see your actions as the symptoms of a young nation trying to create an identity and a history where they have none. Wae®th^tm©2004 19 nov 2004 02:27 (CET)

---

This statement of yours is true in many respects: "I just see your actions as the symptoms of a young nation trying to create an identity and a history where they have none." Russians obliterated our history to the point when we had almost zero identity. And the word Belarusian is somewhat artificial itself. We historically called ourselves Litvins (Lithuanians). Here is a good primer into our history:

• http://www.pravapis.org/art_belarus_nation.asp

As for Hungarian situation, dear Waerth:

I did this on Hungarian Wikipedia because I know some Hungarian and I lived in Hungary for a year, so I knew which word people used to refer to my country (in the office, on the streets, on the official documents such as visas and passport), and I knew that the Hungarian Wikipedians were wrong (or simply didn't care). Because in my experience in 99% of the cases Hungarian speakers that I've met used the word "Belarusz" and virtually never "Fehéroroszország", so I had knowledge and Hungarian experience which allowed me to make the claim.

Of course, I do not have experience with Dutch. But there is a clear similarity (like in all other Germanic languages with the exception of English). So I thought you ought to be informed. Of course, I don't know as much about Dutch, as I know about Hungarian. But at least I can tell you about the issue, can I not?

PS. And I'll paste here my answers to you from en.wikipedia.org, because it belongs here:

---

Hello I was looking at user:Rydell's talkpage and saw that he is trying to do the same in the Hungarian wikipedia as he is trying to do in the Dutch. Change his country's name. Waerth 09:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suspect so. His reasons are good, and we voted about it, and got an ambiguous result... yet to be decided. --grin ✎ 21:30, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Relax, my dear "White German" Wearth. ;) I am not hiding my actions. I am not hiding my reasoning. I am not hiding my sources. I am not hiding my opinions. I am totally open. Maybe you should just stop jumping around Wikipedia "reporting" on me (whatever it is that you are reporting on). And hear me. In German language I have nothing to do with the tendency. Indeed, Germans in the last 10 years use "Weissrussland" less and less, and they use "Belarus" much more often these days (Just check Google). That's a trend which I have nothing to do with. And even if I wanted, I couldn't do anything. One person, a foreigner, can not change the way one hundred million people speak. It is simply not possible. Take it easy, White German friend. ;) --rydel 18:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please stop calling me white german it is an insult and thus against wikipedia policy to do so. Yes I checked it, I read the German talkpage and it seems that all media are using weissrussland. Anyway, I am not interested in what the Germans say. What I am saying and trying to get through your belorussian head is that we speak a language .... Dutch .... the name of which has been "mistranslated" for over 200 years so have been many of our citynames and even the name of our country. You do not hear us complaining about that. There is no history of the usage of the word Belorussia in our language as we have always referred to it as Wit-Rusland. If the tendency in my language changes than lucky for you. But as long as 99% of the Dutch (again the dreaded word) people say wit-rusland and all the publications say so I think you should rest your case at least in the Dutch wikipedia. As you can see your case has 0% support in the reactions sofar. Waerth 05:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::Please stop calling me white german it is an insult

Oh, Really? So sorry, man! Did Germans kill millions of White Germans too? Anyway, at least you got the parallel finally. You know, knowledge and wisdom never make one happy. It's always a burden. And the more you learn about the world outside the sadder you'll be, my White German friend.

:: I read the German talkpage and it seems that all media are using weissrussland

Beg to disagree. Here are today's Google results:

• Weissrussland site:.de — 131,000
• Belarus — 348,000

Although that includes certain number of English pages in ".de" domain, but still, "Belarus" outnumbers "Weissrussland" by a factor of 3. And I remember the first time I checked (I think sometime back in 1999-2000, I should have it on backup discs somewhere), the word "Weissrussland" was used 10 times more than "Belarus". So it means in the last four-five years the proportion Belarus/Weissrussland on German sites changed 30 (thirty!) times in advantage for "Belarus". If you deny there is a strong trend there, then I'm sorry, it just tells something about your mental capacity. (And, again, I have nothing to do with it. I wrote the article http://www.pravapis.org/art_weissrussland.asp like 5-6 months ago, and maybe a couple hundred people read it, that's all).

::I think you should rest your case at least in the Dutch wikipedia

I just informed Dutch Wikipedia about the situation. Now you know. My task is accomplished. What you will do afterwards, is totally up to you, of course. Sure. If a user came in to http://be.wikipedia.org/ from http://nl.wikipedia.org/ and informed us about some linguistic/translation issue, of course people would be interested to know, but he would have no chance and no voice in terms of any decision making or changes in the language. But, yes, his information would be taken into account, my dear White German friend.

:::Dutch (again the dreaded word)

It's not such a good parallel. Now if Americans and Brits and all other English speaking people on this planet called you "Dutch" and Germans "White/Blue/Yellow/Purple Dutch" or vice versa, then it'd be a very nice parallel indeed. Otherwise, it's only obvious for people who are interested in language studies and now "Dutch"-"Deutsch" etymology, while "Wit-f...ing-Rusland" is right there for anyone to see and to be misled.

--rydel 11:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your answer to the "Dutch" question is typical after all why should others have similar problems. Calling me a white German is unjustfully provoking as is your comment about my perceived mental capacities. Wae®th^tm©2004 19 nov 2004 14:26 (CET)

---

I passed your message to the Kroeg where the discussion is going on regarding this subject. So I expect that somebody will answer you. O E P 16 nov 2004 20:46 (CET)

To Waerth, for the last time

Dear Waerth, read carefully this time, because I think I'm writing this and then I'm going to give up on you, if you don't get it. Just three simple bullet points in quasi-PowerPoint format:

1) You see, you called me "fucking asshole" just because I called you "White German" several times. That only goes to show how such names (such as "White Russian" or "White German") can be rather offensive. But during this discussion, for me this was merely a harmless little joke. I am sorry that it distracted you from the actual content of my messages. And the content is very simple:

2) I do not argue about Dutch usage, because I don't know Dutch, and I don't know anything about Dutch philology, linguistics and geographical conventions. I merely attempted to inform and explain to Dutch Wikipedians how this name is a kind of bad translation that causes some unpleasant feelings and also might lead to misunderstanding.

3) I never argued about Dutch, I only argued with you about German and Hungarian, because you made some statements about German usage of "Weissrussland" and Hungarian usage of "Fehéroroszország" that were simply false, and I explained to you what's the situation. I repeat again, the German trend not to use "Weissrussland" and to use "Belarus" instead is there for several years already. I have nothing to do with it. And even if I wanted, I could not possibly change how hundred million German speakers use their language. No one can! And note, my article http://www.pravapis.org/art_weissrussland.asp was written only several months ago. I do recommend that you re-read my comments again. And if you have any further questions, I am happy to answer your questions. And I also expect an apology for the "fucking asshole."

Regards, --Rydel 20 nov 2004 00:18 (CET)

You won't get one. Wae®th^tm©2004 20 nov 2004 06:30 (CET)

Mr. Katkouski, I strongly recommend you to drop your case. We have heard your arguments, you have heard ours. We still disagree. Well, there's nothing wrong with that, but there is no point in repeating the same thing all over again. As you say, you don't know Dutch, and I don't know Belarusian (although I do know Polish, Russian and a fair amount of Ukrainian). You have made some interesting remarks, but insuffient for us to change the Dutch language. Mind you, this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are supposed to deal with the truth as it exists, not the truth as we would like it to exist.

About Googling on the German equivalent: you come to a result of 131,000 for "Weißrußland" and 348,000 for "Belarus" on German sites. Well, I did some googling too, for sites in the German language this time, and this is what I came up with: ca. 625,000 for "Weißrußland" and "Weiß-Rußland" together, and 550,000 for "Belarus". Not that it matters much to this discussion anyway, I thought I'd let you know.

Please, let's leave it at that.

Regards, Jan van Steenbergen 20 nov 2004 08:29 (CET).

True. That's pretty much the situation. I was not planning to make it into a flame war, I just wanted to inform Dutch Wikipedians about the issue. I guess I have to work on my presentation skills. ;)

Danke fuer "Weißrußland" tip. For some strange reason I assumed that Google searches for both "ss" and "ß" automatically. Indeed, then we get 635,000 as the total of three spellings - "(Weissrussland|Weißrussland|Weißrußland)" . --Rydel 20 nov 2004 19:34 (CET)

Okay, let's conclude that you have successfully managed to inform us. Except for the White German and asshole thing, it hasn't really turned into a flamewar yet, and let's not go any further in that direction.

About Googling: actually, there is indeed no distinction between _ss_ and _ß_. However, there is a distinction between _Weißrußland_ written as one word and _Weiß-Rußland_ separate by a hyphen.

Regards, Jan van Steenbergen 20 nov 2004 21:58 (CET).

WARNING

rydel, this is a formal warning! stop your insults NOW. oscar 20 nov 2004 00:24 (CET)

Are you refering to my last comment, oscar? --Rydel 20 nov 2004 01:49 (CET)

POV pushing

We are not interested in POV pushing Wae®th^tm©2005 27 jan 2005 19:43 (CET)

Do you understand what is relevant and what is not? This is an very relevant link to English Wikipedia that explains the difference between two quite different terms - en:White Russia and en:Belarus?

These links are not relevant, it is only meant for pov pushing. Wae®th^tm©2005 27 jan 2005 20:31 (CET)

(1) They are very relevant articles about the topic. (2) They are links to English Wikipedia. (3) They are of special importance for speakers of some Germanic languages, such as Dutch. (4) They are not POV. If you don't disprove my points (1), (2), (3), (4) in a logical and convincing way, then I'll put the links back. --Rydel 27 jan 2005 20:37 (CET)

1) The topic is the country of Wit-Rusland it is not an article in which we discuss about naming conventions and otherwise you should reread Jan van Steenbergen his comments. So no it is not relevant. 2)We already have interwikilinks to the relevant article on en.wikipedia, we have refused other extra links to en: in the past. Simply because they allow you to push your POV on en: doesn't mean you should do it here. 3) Why to win souls for you POV, simply because they allow it on en: doesn't mean we allow it here. Start your own website .... oh wait you have one, but it is so full of nationalistic drivel and racist comments .... 4) Maybe not maybe they are. So the answer is no Wae®th^tm©2005 27 jan 2005 20:45 (CET)

1) OK. But if the name is an issue, then it's worth mentioning. 2) OK. 3) You did NOT prove that it is POV. And I know why, because it is NPOV. And you have no arguments. And one morething, look at the history at that page and see the different versions. I did NOT create that page, and I did NOT write it. I contributed maximum 10-15% of the content of the en:White Russia. And you are wrong again. But OK, whatever. It's your Wikipedia. You Germans are all the same (white, blue, Dutch, Dutsch, Deutsch or whatever). Bye. --Rydel 27 jan 2005 20:55 (CET)

Second and last warning

Rydel, you have already received a warning for your insults. Your last insult http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_gebruiker%3AWaerth&diff=0&oldid=770908 is in my opinion the last insult you can express on nl-wikipedia. Saying you wonder if someone is not a nazi?!?! What were you thinking? It doesn't help anything or anyone! Next time you will be blocked. If any of the moderators plans to block you right away I can understand that. Ch®is 27 jan 2005 22:01 (CET)

In the pump a majority was in favour of blocking you because of your insults towards Waerth. Therefor I have blocked you for a period of 5 days. Please try to behave when you return. You will notice that good behaviour will help you to get your point across. Ch®is 27 jan 2005 23:01 (CET)

History facts

You are trying so hard to make a point here, but you seem nothing to know about the history of The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany... If you would like to persuade us about something, you should adjust your tone. With insults you achieve nothing... - Puck 27 jan 2005 22:19 (CET)

A word of support for Rydel

Although it cannot be denied that Rydel has been going too far lately, I cannot help feeling some sympathy for his position. Clearly, this issue is of deep emotional importance for him, which may explain his recent outbursts. I am sure that if he comes to his senses again he will admit he has been misbehaving and thereby damaging his own case.

Having said that, I think he has also been treatly unfairly in this discussion and his points have not been met with an open mind or taken seriously enough. I for one do not buy the argument "this is how we call a country in our language and there is nothing a foreigner can change about that". A language is not an isolated island and should at all times be able to adapt to new political sensitivities. If people of African descent do not want to be called negro, well, most reasonable people will respect that wish. I am certain that we have a Belarus minority integrated in Dutch society that has the right like all Dutch citiziens to have a say about the language-society they are part of.

Another dumb argument that has been used against Rydel is that "you don't hear any people from the Netherlands complaining about being called 'Dutch'" Why do some people then complain about being called "White-German" by Rydel? A lot of Dutch take offense in at being considered coming from "Holland" instead of "The Netherlands". I myself have been facing the same problem at the Danish wikipedia, where a lot of people have been very pig-headed as to accept that "Holland" is an incorrect designation of our country in Danish as opposed to "Nederlandene" that is used only very rarely by Danes. This is where I can greatly sympathize with Rydel's position, although I think he should be more diplomatic and rational about it. But the same must be said about some of his opponents.

Furthermore, both the English wikipedia and the Nederlandse Taalunie support his views and this is actually very strong support. The failure to acknowledge this can IMHO only be attributed to narrow-mindedness. Something I would not expect from the Dutch.

On the other hand, I would be surprised if Rus' (Ruthenian) and Russian do not share a common etymological root. So, as opposed to the question Netherlands-Holland, which clearly denote two different areas, I think it will be harder to argue that Ruthenians and Russians have nothing to do with each other. Compared it with (Great) Britain and Britanny (France). Both names are indicative of a common ancestry, hence the name is the same in French: (Grande) Bretagne.

Regards, Fedor 27 jan 2005 23:10 (CET)

Interesting choosing of words: A language is not an isolated island and should at all times be able to adapt to new political sensitivities

The Dutch language is (as far as I know) unique in the world, because there is an official institute (the Nederlandse Taalunie) that says what the language rules and guidelines are... This is not only about grammar or spelling, but also about the choosing of country- or citynames...

Furthermore when Wikipedia adapts new political sensitivities because of a ruler (or dictator) of a (random) country says something is true, how can Wikipedia be NPOV?

The discussion about how a country is called or what the litteral translation of a countryname means are (in my opinion) two totally distinct discussions. When the meaning (or intention of the speaker) of "Holland" and "The Netherlands" is the same, it should not matter which of these two is being used... Simply saying "Holland" and "The Netherlands" are the same is however also a mistake.

In The Netherlands there are twelve provinces, but there is a South-Holland and a North-Holland. Some habitants of the other ten provinces don't like it when The Netherlands is called Holland, but when a foreign country desides calling The Netherlands Holland, a Dutch person only could say it is actually not correct and give arguments why...

Puck 27 jan 2005 23:51 (CET)

The Netherlands uses Holland as its official name in several languages. But you are right, it is weird that the Netherlands decides how its population should talk and spell and that the population accepts any dictates. "Alle neuzen dezelfde kant op". Untranslatable... gidonb 27 jan 2005 23:59 (CET)

The Nederlandse Taalunie is not unique because we have at least the same in Denmark (Dansk Sprognævn). NTU actually supports Rydel's views. Funnily enough, however, DSN does not support my view that 'Holland' is incorrect as opposed to 'Nederlandene'. If we can adapt ourselves to the fact that dictators in African countries want their countries to be designated as e.g. 'Democratic Republic of Congo' instead of 'Zaire' then it is unreasonable to not even want to consider this for European countries. Fedor 28 jan 2005 09:12 (CET)

Fedor (and Rydel), this is nonsense. There is not any legislative body to prescribe which words and designations a language community should use, at least not in my country, which is a free one. Even less do speakers have to obey to such laws of any other country (if they want they can so do, but they don't have to, and we should just follow the majority here). Your crusade towards the Danish is as narrow-minded (let me use your favourite designation) as the 'Belarus'-crusade over here. The narrowness in this is the fiction that a political or national idea can direct a language community (and if the stubborn language does not obey: just shout and repeat, and be very angry). It's the scourge of political correctness. Fransvannes 28 jan 2005 11:40 (CET)

Fransvannes: There is not any legislative body to prescribe which words and designations a language community should use Yes, there is. It is called the 'European Union'. Although Belarus/White-Russia falls outside its realm, Denmark does not. However, the members of a language community can still in everyday life use whatever terms they want to. No official institution can in principle enforce anything here, and should not. But they can accept certain designations as the only correct and central ones and have these used preferentially in public, state-owned media. That in itself will bring about change by means of people gradually getting used to the idea. Most peoples, the Dutch especially, are usually quick to adapt to new political realities, as the DR Congo case shows. There is nothing narrow-minded about this, let alone dictatorial. It is just the setting of standards and doing whatever is possible to keep things politically correct, which in my ears at least is not necessarily a dirty word. Fedor 31 jan 2005 22:37 (CET)

Rydel's unacceptable behaviour

What you (Rydel) said about Wae®th on his discussionpage was absolutely not acceptable! No matter what is discussed here, you have no right to call him a Nazi. Firefox 28 jan 2005 00:06 (CET)

I agree. - Puck 28 jan 2005 00:08 (CET)

Same here. Your sick use of language damages the case you represent. I think you should be banned for some time from participating here. gidonb 28 jan 2005 01:11 (CET)

Of course, I agree too. Rydel, I hope you use the time to think about your misbehaviour and try to be more rational and respectful to other users the next time, no matter what! Fedor 28 jan 2005 09:12 (CET)

Besides the White Russia/Belarus discussion and the unacceptable insults, I also oppose against non-Dutch-speakers who are trying to force their opinion on this Dutch-language-Wikipedia. The same happened on Overleg:Scots and I didn't liked it there, the same as here. The person on 'Scots' was smart enough to stop pushing his/her opinion and I hope Rydel will do that also after he/she is unblocked. Cheers, --jeroenvrp 28 jan 2005 17:35 (CET)

I strongly oppose the idea that we should not be open to opinions expressed by persons, in this case registered users, just because they do not speak Dutch. There is a lot to be said for using Belarus rather than White Russia, only that Rydel - through his abusive use of language - damages his arguments. As a consequence of his misbehavior, I believe that Rydel should be banned from logging in here for a while. After things cool down, we can continue the discussion in a proper manner, without excommunicating persons for not speaking Dutch. gidonb 28 jan 2005 18:47 (CET)

I wrote "force their opinion", I did not wrote "that we should not be open to opinions expressed by non-Dutch speakers". --jeroenvrp 28 jan 2005 19:23 (CET)

User Rydel is banned for calling people names just because they don't share his point of view. I don't regard this as a good starting point for a discussion. Quistnix 28 jan 2005 18:54 (CET)

It is actually a very bad starting point and his banning is totally justified. However, snobbism seems a bad reponse. I believe we should stick to our democratic principles. gidonb 28 jan 2005 18:59 (CET)

One other question to all readers, including Rydel:

• Why is the white rhinoceros called "white"?

Quistnix 28 jan 2005 19:09 (CET)

Uw gebruikersnaam wordt gewijzigd

Hallo,

Het ontwikkelteam van Wikimedia brengt een aantal wijzigingen aan in de manier waarop gebruikersnamen werken. Dit is een onderdeel van onze voortdurende inspanningen om nieuwe en betere hulpmiddelen beschikbaar te stellen aan onze gebruikers (zoals meldingen tussen wiki's). De wijzigingen houden in dat gebruikers overal dezelfde gebruikersnaam hebben. Dit geeft nieuwe mogelijkheden die u helpen bij het bewerken en overleggen, en maakt meer flexibele rechten voor nieuwe functies mogelijk. Een van de voorwaarden hiervoor is dat gebruikersnamen uniek zijn op alle 900 wiki's van Wikimedia.

Uw gebruikersnaam Rydel wordt helaas ook gebruikt door een andere Wikimediagebruiker op een ander gedeelte van Wikimedia. Om er zeker van te zijn dat u beiden gebruik kunt blijven maken van alle wiki's van Wikimedia, wordt uw gebruikersnaam gewijzigd naar Rydel~nlwiki. Deze wijziging gaat in april 2015 gebeuren, tegelijk met soortgelijke wijzigingen bij andere gebruikers.

Uw gebruikersaccount blijft werken zoals voorheen en alle bewerkingen die u tot op heden hebt gemaakt, blijven de uwe. U dient zich echter uw nieuwe gebruikersnaam te gebruiken bij het aanmelden. Als u zich niet kunt vinden in uw nieuwe gebruikersnaam, dan kunt een verzoek tot hernoemen indienen via dit formulier.

Excuses voor het ongemak.

Met vriendelijke groet,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

18 mrt 2015 05:41 (CET)

Gebruikersnaam gewijzigd

Gebruikers hebben voortaan slechts één gebruikersnaam en wachtwoord nodig om in te kunnen loggen op alle Wikimedia-projecten. Bij de invoering van deze mogelijkheid bleek het noodzakelijk dat dit account werd hernoemd. Bent u de eigenaar van dit account, dan kunt u inloggen met uw oude gebruikersnaam en wachtwoord om meer informatie te verkrijgen. Stelt u de nieuwe naam van uw account niet op prijs, dan kunt u, nadat u ingelogd bent, een andere naam kiezen met dit formulier: Speciaal:GlobaalHernoemingsverzoek. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

21 apr 2015 23:34 (CEST)