Talk:Dutch people

Removal of cited material

@ToBeFree: With this edit, you reverted the restoration of cited material with this edit summary: I see links to two essays; here are policy links instead. What happened to WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN? Please gain a consensus before reinserting challenged material.

This is the citation that you removed:

• "Netherlands - International emigrant stock 2019". countryeconomy.com. 2019-12-01. Retrieved 2022-12-11.

Please explain how this presentation of data in a tabular format is an essay & why it should not be considered a reliable source. Peaceray (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peaceray, a main concern voiced in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1126209535 and Special:Diff/1126793399 is a lack of reliability of the source. This does appear to be an acceptable concern and reason for removal, as countryeconomy.com indeed doesn't make a reliable impression; the source even rejects responsibility for any errors (permalink) in the way Wikipedia's general disclaimer and other unreliable sources do. It's a tertiary source that claims to build upon the sources displayed at [2] (permalink), and I suspect this happens without editorial oversight. So why not cite the actual source or at least a known-reliable tertiary source instead?

Regarding the other part of the second edit summary, "Not a significant population", I'm afraid that may indicate that 45.8.146.215 has an illegitimate motivation for removal that goes beyond the reliability of the source. I don't judge this; all I saw is two experienced editors reinstating challenged material without providing a reliable source, and requesting "a better source before removing one", which is a clear misrepresentation of WP:BURDEN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the "essays", I was referring to WP:BRD and WP:VNT. I wish people stopped citing essays as if they were guidelines, let alone policies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your edit summary.

I usually add the verbiage As WP:BRD suggests, discuss it on the talk page before attempting again. The operative word here is suggests. WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is marked as an explanatory essay. As such, although it is neither a policy or guideline, it is a {{supplement}}. I think it is an excellent way to elucidate "yes, you may have been bold, but I have reverted you, & now you need to discuss it on the talk page". I will continue to direct editors to that essay, as it itself does cite policies & guidelines.

I feel similarly about WP:VNT, especially if there is WP:EDITCONSENSUS, although in this case, the citation had only been in place for a month.

I do a lot page patrol looking for vandalism. When I see an IP or newly registered editor removing cited material and the citation, I think it is justifiable to revert that until we know the reason why it is not reliable. Too often, such removal is arbitrary.

Indeed, I do similar removal of material, & I believe if you check my edit history in these cases, you will usually see a reference to a policy or guideline, such as WP:BLOG or an item on WP:RS/P. I think it is reasonable to ask editors, even newbies, for a fuller explanation of why they are removing material. Peaceray (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources for the countryeconomy.com citation

The countryeconomy.com site lists these sources. Perhaps someone would like to chase down the Ireland & Chile figures — I am a bit busy at the moment.

• "Sources". countryeconomy.com. Retrieved 2022-12-12.

Peaceray (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Germanic ethnic group ?

@Gandalfett: According to Germanic peoples, The Germanic peoples were historical groups of people that once occupied Central Europe and Scandinavia during antiquity and into the early Middle Ages. While nobody objects to calling Dutch a Germanic language or to claiming that Germanic groups are at the origin of the modern Dutch nation, the claim that 21st century Dutch people are a "Germanic ethnic group" doesn't make any sense to me. A recent discussion led to the deletion of the category "Germanic ethnic groups". Category:Germanic people by century only lists people up to the 12th century. The only source for the claim is Cole, who says (in the introduction, page ix) that he has a special ("inclusive") usage of the term "ethnic group" which doesn't "accord with the common usage of the term ethnic group as minority in a larger social system". On WP, we have to follow the common usage of terms.

References

Rsk6400 (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Also it is old dated statement as it ignores naturalised Dutch people. 07:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Shadow4dark (talk)

@Gandalfett: Since only two people took part in this discussion, there currently is consensus for the removal of the term "ethnic group" from the first sentence. If you disagree, you are of course free to explain your views here. Your restoration of the term is unsourced since the quote from the source uses the word "people" instead of "ethnic group". I don't see any sources supporting your point (from your edit summary) that this article should treat Dutch people exclusively as an ethnic group. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Rsk6400, this article is specifically about the ethnic group, just like other articles about Swedes, Turkish people, etc. It's not about citizens. I am sure Turkish or any other Middle Eastern naturalised citizens in the Netherlands are still considered part of the ethnic group they were born into, which are indicated in other wikipedia articles. As far as this discussion is concerned, it's about whether defining Dutch people as a Germanic ethnic group or simply an ethnic group is more appropriate. I believe that I have made my point sufficiently clear. Gandalfett (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Since I started this discussion, I think I may comment on what this discussion is about: I mentioned both "Germanic" and "ethnic group" in my first comment. You didn't reply to the problem I mentioned that the source doesn't support the claim it is attached to, nor to the problem that Cole sees an ethnic group as "minority in a larger social system." You didn't provide RS for your claim about naturalised citizens. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gandalfett: Since you didn't answer to my question about the sourcing problem, I'll assume your WP:Silent consensus. If you don't consent, please let me know your reasons soon so that we can seek dispute resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Do European nationalities speaking Germanic languages have something exceptional about them in having transcended the category of "ethnic group"?

Or should we also erase the term "ethnic group" from articles about Ukrainians, Greeks, Somalis and Vietnamese? Knoterification (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

In many cases, there have been extensive discussions among the members of a nation on the subject of "How do we understand ourselves?" I sincerely doubt that those discussions among the Dutch people led to the result, "We are an ethnic group". At least I don't have a source for that and the only source I know of (and referenced above) explicitly says that the majority is normally not called an "ethnic group." Other articles are not considered RS. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if a group of people no longer percieve themselves as an ethnic group (and in the case of the Dutch reserve that lable for recent immigrants) one could still argue that they still constitute one according to their characteristics. When sources about ethnicitiy in the Netherlands mention "ethnic minorities" they are poiting to the fact that there is also an "ethnic majority".

Ethnicity is a porous concept, and may expand and retract throughout history. Knoterification (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello all,

I would advise removing the word "Germanic" from the lead and instead simply state that the Dutch are an ethnic group. The concept of "Germanic peoples" is very much tied to antiquity and while it might be possible to use "Germanic" in a linguistic sense here, it isn't really that common. I don't think many Dutch people (or English, or Germans, or Danes, etc. for that matter) would readily identify themselves as being "Germanic".

I would also oppose this edit by Rsk6400, in which he removed a source from the article and changed the wording from "the Dutch are an ethnic group native to the Netherlands" to "the Dutch are the people of the Netherlands." Not only because it has no source, but mainly because it would require the entire scope of the article to change from one focused on ethnicity to one based essentially exclusively on nationality or even residence; which is already covered under Dutch nationality law and (I would imagine) Culture of the Netherlands. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The Germans page is much better written which include the citizenship law in lede but this is is ignored on this page. Acr Statistics Netherlands [[3]] people with dutch nationality are count as dutch which should be included on lede. If you dont want put this edits on lede you should do self revert as your edits has no consensus. Shadow4dark (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind this article having a section on the Dutch nation at all, but as you already remarked yourself: it doesn't have one at the moment and the lede should not contain any information which isn't further referenced in the article. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

it is included on paragraph 3 Shadow4dark (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shadow4dark, could you be more specific? Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

infobox, Ethnic identity, and statics. Only not yet in lede. Shadow4dark (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shadow4dark, I would consider that to be wholly insufficient for a prominent mention in the lede. A separate paragraph specifically focused on the Dutch as a national entity is needed. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, that change contradicted the body of the article, specially this sentence:

"Today, despite other ethnicities making up 19.6% of the Netherlands' population, this obscurity continues in colloquial use, in which Nederlander sometimes refers to the ethnic Dutch, sometimes to anyone possessing Dutch citizenship." Knoterification (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That phrase is unsourced. There is a ref claiming "Figures based on a publication by the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment" and then a working link to the website of that institute. But the 19.6 % are the only figure given there, the linked page of the website has no such figure nor anything else about ethnicity. Also, I don't see a reason why that institute should specialize in ethnicity. Furthermore talking about "obscurity" and "colloquial use" is WP:EDITORIALIZING. So, I deleted that paragraph. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I just removed the reference that was given to "ethnic group native to the Netherlands", because the ref (Cole) said "Germanic people". People (in Dutch: volk) is not the same as "ethnic group" (the Dutch article has "etniciteit"), and there seems to be consensus that "Germanic" is not correct. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, you removed a little more than that and it is clear that a consensus has not been reached yet. It's a potentially vague subject matter, for example "volk" can certainly mean ethnic group in Dutch in many contexts and if an author (like perhaps Cole) uses "Germanic" in a linguistical sense, then this material might still prove useful as Dutch is, quite undeniably a Germanic language. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Vlaemink, I made two comments in a short time, and it seems you didn't read the one of 08:49. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vlaemink: I removed the reference to "ethnic group" that should support the claim that Dutch people are an "ethnic group", but in reality supports the claim that Dutch people are "Germanic". That ref was originally there to support "Germanic ethnic group", not to support that Dutch people speak Dutch. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources

According to Merriam-Webster, a "Dutchman" is a "native or inhabitant of the Netherlands" or "a person of Dutch descent"[4]. My ODE (3rd edition 2010) has nearly the same, only restricting the use to men. They also have a similar definition for "Dutchwoman". nl:Nederlanders (not a RS, of course, but at least we can assume that they know what they are talking about) has "Nederlanders ... zijn de inwoners van Nederland. Zij zijn een Europees volk ..." (Dutch people are the inhabitants of the Netherlands. They are a European people). It then goes on to distinguish between various meanings of the word, i.e. nationality, ethnicity and others.

Vlaemink, if the dictionaries tell us that Dutch people are the "natives or inhabitants", we cannot give a different definition in this article. On the other hand, I don't see why the change I am proposing would require the entire scope of the article to change from one focused on ethnicity to one based essentially exclusively on nationality or even residence as you fear. History, culture, genetics, diaspora and all the other topics covered by the article are normally called "Dutch history, Dutch culture, ..." in RS, so why should we change anything ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, this (The ideologies associated with (Romantic) Nationalism of the 19th and 20th centuries never really caught on in the Netherlands) seems a rather bizarre and brazen claim, which should only be added to the article with very good and reliable sourcing. Since the source which had been added (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, anyway I suppose this institute is meant), apparently doesn't seem to fit, which other supporting source(s) could be provided instead? Otherwise I agree with others here that this should be left out. De Wikischim (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Colloquial use ?

In addition to what I said above (08:49, 22 June 2023), the phrase "this obscurity continues in colloquial use" seems to criticize the explanation of the term "Dutch" given by the dictionaries (see above, subsection "Sources") - criticizing the sources (w/o other sources) is even worse than WP:OR. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Common Ancestry

Dutch people do not share a common ancestry. Many of them may falsely believe they share a common ancestry, many of them may claim common ancestry is a prerequisite for Dutchness. However any genetic analysis will show you they absolutely do not share common ancestry on either the paternal or maternal lines. However this is a problem for many of the ethnic group articles on Wikipedia. I suggest altering all ethnic group articles to mirror the Norwegian one, which simply states Norwegians share a common culture and identity. That’s basically every ethnic group, none of them have “common ancestry” anymore than they have with every other human on Earth. 2A00:23EE:1750:4254:C44A:3213:506A:8761 (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. What would be the common ancestry of the Dutch? Given the federal state it was until the late 18th century, given the many migration waves making that ancestry already very much confused (e.g. Spinoza, the most important Dutch philosopher was a Portuguese jew whose family migrated through France to the Netherlands; let alone the Dutch royal family which originated from Germany and hardly ever married a Dutch national (I think once or twice since 1580(!)). Also in the federal era the ethnicity of individuals in today's European Netherlands area, would be much more Lower Saxon (which also covers wester German regions), Limburgian (also German and Belgium), Brabantic (also Belgium). So talking about ancestry prior to a unified Netherlands rapidly becomes nonsensical. If we adopt ethnicity in a united Netherlands as yardstick we immediately create new problems as by the time modern Netherlands as a unified state consolidated (post Belgium revolt), Indonesia, Surinam, the Netherlands Antilles and parts of (now) Ghana were part of the Netherlands. So that would make all those people automatically Dutch. If we adopt (the rather arbitrary but also neutral) definition of the Dutch Census Agency (CBS) "Anyone born from two parents who were both born themselves in the Netherlands" ancestry is still there but of extremely short duration (and the definition has some oddities, e.g. if a person is born during a holiday of their parents in e.g. France that person is ethnically Dutch, but their children would not be (one parent born in France)). Arnoutf (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Spinoza was not an ethnic Dutch, and did not percieve himself as such. He was a Sephardic Jew. His native language was Portuguese. The Sephardic Jews in Holland literally called themselves "Jews of the Portuguese Nation" (Judeus da Nação Portuguesa) Knoterification (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That is simply not true. There are ethnic groups that do absolutely share common ancestries according to genetic studies. Ex. Ashkenazi Jews, Romani, and many traditional indigenous societies

Also, even though it is obviously incorrect to claim the Dutch specifically share a common ancestry not shared with other neighbouring groups. It is quite obvious that any ethnic Dutch is closer genetically to other ethnic Dutch than he is to an Australian Aboriginal, a Nuer, an Ainu etcKnoterification (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and a Dutch brother and sister are closer genetically than they are to other Dutch people, are they their own separate people of no relation to those surrounding them then? This is incoherent nonsense. There is no ancestral or genetic basis for Dutchness, or any other ethnic group.

As for Ashkenazi Jews sharing “common ancestry”, that’s absolutely hysterical. 2A00:23EE:1738:49F0:6C88:42F5:66C0:6A37 (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What I meant by sharing a common ancestry, is that Ashkenazi Jews can find common ancestors in the last hundred of years which they do not share with non-Ashkenazi Jews. Ashkenazi Jews have remained endogomous since the Middle Ages. An Ashkenazi Jew from Lithuania is closer genetically to an Ashkenazi Jew from Alsace than he is to an ethnic Lithuanian.

So unlike the Ashkenazi Jews, the Dutch were not endogamous. Dutch people did not simply stop marrying their neighbours. In non-endogamous groups, genetic distance is destermined by geography. But for that exact reason all ethnic Dutch have common ancestors in the last 1000 years they do not share with the Zulu, Yanomami or Kalash. But those common ancestors are certainly also shared with Germans and French. Knoterification (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Interstingly your claim that there is no ancestral basis for any ethnic group, goes against the claim of most traditional and indigenous societies, specially those clan and lineage based. Perhaps a westerncentric cosmpolitan progressive view? Knoterification (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know what you meant, I already explained to you what you meant, and it wasn't common ancestry. Genetic endogamy is a very separate thing, but like you already acknowledge Dutch people have not become genetically endogamous anyway so I don't see your point bringing it up on an article about Dutch people that falsely claims Dutch people share common ancestry.

Yes. Traditionally indigenous societies believed and continue to believe in a great many things that don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny in a factual, scientific way. This is an encyclopedia. This is not a place for parroting tribal false beliefs as if they are fact. We can acknowledge ethnic origin myths and common perceptions of qualification for ethnic groups while also pointing out that these are not factual beliefs.

I've already acknowledge that many Dutch people falsely believe Dutch people share common ancestry and that only those with this 'common Dutch ancestry' are Dutch. We can acknowledge that in the article while also pointing out that Dutch people do not share common ancestry and never have. 2.99.83.92 (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews have some of the most mixed Y-DNA and mtDNA of any ethnic group in the world. You can also literally convert into them. And people do and have done historically, regardless of how prevalent it was.

Which means they objectively do not share common ancestry. The fact that they have become genetically endogamous throughout their existence does not mean they share common ancestry. That is not how it works. You are conflating 2 VERY DIFFERENT things here.

If you take a random group of Americans today and put them on an island for 500 years, they will become genetically endogamous and closer to each other than they are to other human groups by virtue of only exchanging genetics with one another.

They still will not share common ancestry. They will still be a mixed ethnic group.

That is the case for every single ethnic group in the world. 2A00:23EE:1738:49F0:6C88:42F5:66C0:6A37 (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, re-read your own argument: the descendants of that random group of Americans 500 years on the future will absolutely share a common ancestry: exactly that random group of Americans 500 years before. If they stayed 500 years genetically isolated (without out-group marriages) than it means they share ancestors for the last 500 years which they do not share with any out-group. It is quite logical and simple.

You are also very confused when you talk about Y-DNA and mtDNA, those markers only trace two specific lines of descent. So yes, Ashkenazi Jews were formed by a diverse group of remote ancestors, Middle-Easterns men and European women who had many deep ancestries (mtDNA and Y-DNA). But since around some time in the Middle-Ages a couple hundred of Jews (https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/2014-09-10/ty-article/.premium/ashkenazim-derive-from-350-people/0000017f-e175-d75c-a7ff-fdfd58830000) remained endogamous and than had an explosion of descandants which formed the millions of pre-Holocaust Ashkenazi population. All those millions of Ashkenazi Jews had fairly recent common ancestors.

Conversions were virtually non existant. Firstly because they were forbidden by Christian authorities (frequently by death penalty), also strongly discoureged by Jews (still are by the Orthodox) who viewed gentiles with suspision. Knoterification (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Still doubting where all of this is going. As far as I know only Island has been sufficiently isolated to be relevant to DNA research. A global trade oriented, colonial (at least from 16th century onwards and before talking of Dutch was meaningless anyway), small country bordering several other countries with long land and sea border is likely to have a very mixed genetic profile - which in my view makes the entire ancestry rather tricky (the Dutch Royal Family (German in origin to start with) has not married into anyone with Dutch ancestry in the last few centuries (and as far as I recall only once before) leading to the far fetching conclusion that the Dutch head of state is not ethnically Dutch based on ancestry definition). Arnoutf (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Even Icelanders are mixed though. Heavily. Their Y-DNA and mtDNA is all over the place, just as the groups they descended from was. They have become somewhat genetically endogamous through historical isolation and lack of geneflow from outside of Iceland since the inital colonizations. This does not stop them from being of mixed ancestry. Which they were and still are. 2.99.83.92 (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

As I have said before Y-DNA and mtDNA trace only two specific lines of descents. No one is claiming a new haplogroup arises whenever ethnogenesis happens. Today researchers put much more importance to autosomal DNA, which can actually point to genetic proximity between groups Knoterification (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't need to reread my comment. I know what I said and you're not even disagreeing with me. You're just trying to warp it to hamfist some bizarre racial narrative about ethnic biological entities. Genetic endogamy is not common ancestry. I am not the one who seems to have trouble understanding the archaeogenetics you're trying to base ethnic identities around.

You only have 2 lines of descent. You only have 2 parents. It takes 2 people to make a baby. That's your Y-DNA and mtDNA. Combined it's your autosomal DNA which only ever serves to make ethnic groups even MORE mixed than they originally looked since almost all ethnic groups tend to have far more mixed mtDNA than they do Y-DNA.

Conversions absolutely were not non-existent. They were rare, absolutely, but they 100% happened. As you already alluded to their mtDNA is largely European. Those European women had to convert when they married Jewish men (and vice versa, even though it was rarer). Some of the most famous Jews of the Middle Ages were either converts themselves, or descended from converts. Accepting sincere converts is literally enshrined in Halakha. It is a mandate of Orthodox Jews to accept and welcome sincere converts as Jews. This has been Halkha since the earliest time of the Israelites. King David himself was maternally descended from a convert, Ruth.

It is quite logical and simple and still you seem to be desperately struggling here. The article does not claim Dutch people have become genetically endogamous (which they haven't anyway), it claims they share common ancestry, which they don't. At least not anymore than they do with surrounding humans and ultimately all humans on Earth if you go back far enough.

Like I said. A Dutch brother and a Dutch sister have more recent common ancestors than they do with other Dutch people. That does not make them a separate ethnic biological entity, even though are genetically distinct from those surrounding Dutch people, and indeed are genetically distinct even from one another.

Having more recent common ancestry with a person isn't how ethnic groups function. It's how families function.

Dutch people neither share common ancestry nor are they genetically endogamous. Whether they believe they are or not, on average, is irrelevant to a factual encyclopedic article. We can and should acknowledge that the false belief in common ancestry is an important aspect of Dutchness to many Dutch people. 2.99.83.92 (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The anonymous editors comment is all a bit lengthy, but I large agree. In short ancestry should really not matter in any case, and particularly not for a well-connected country like the Netherlands. My family line from mothers side runs back to the 17th century (in part Dutch) from my father's sides to 1933 (when my grandparent migrated from Germany). There are many, many Bonaire (black) descendants of those made slave in Africa in the 16th century, who have a much, much better claim to Dutch ancestry than me (or the Dutch royal family). Can we please ditch this revealed racist (which even ignores that the entire idea that the human species is genetically diverse enough to even speak about races is absurd in itself) take on Dutch ethnicity. There is a good reason we ditched Wien Neêrlands Bloed in de aders vloeit, Van vreemde smetten vrij, (Whoever has Dutch blood flowing in their veins, Free of foreign blemishes;) in 1932Arnoutf (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

For the record, it's 100% a problem on the vast majority of Wikipedia ethnic group articles. I am not singling out Dutch people here for this. I've raised this issue on a LOT of ethnic group articles that state 'X people share common ancestry'. 2.99.83.92 (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I am here because of Dutch topic, not because ethnic group in general so I don't know how it goes for other ethnic group articles. But I sympathise with you here, the racist idea that DNA and ancestry of human is sufficiently isolated to make sense is sadly widespread. Arnoutf (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, you have no idea how relieving it is to meet another sane individual in this world. It oddly seems like false beliefs in race and 'biological ethnic entities' has only gotten worse and worse in the past few decades, despite archaeogenetics effectively shattering the traditional notions and beliefs and myths.

It's almost like these people have totally forgotten what these kinds of false beliefs led to less than 100 years ago. 2.98.194.48 (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Those women who married jewish men did so before the ethnogenesis of the Ashkenazi Jews. Afterwards they remained endogamic.

Who were those very famous Ashkenazi Jews in the Middle Ages who were converts? Can you give some examples?

Ruth and King David are irrelevant. Pre-Mishna, pre-Talmud times. Maternal descent in Judaism was implemented by the Sanhedrin during the Second Temple Period. Knoterification (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"Having more recent common ancestry with a person isn't how ethnic groups function. It's how families function"

I agree the Dutch ethnic group does not function that way.

But many traditional ethnic groups do function that way. Lineanges and clans are simply an extension of families in many societies Knoterification (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You don't have only two lines of descent. You have thousands. You don't have only two ancestors at any given moment of time. Y-DNA and mtDNA are researched simply because Y chromosomes and the genetic codes of Mitochondria are transmitted through a direct paternal or maternal line, but thats it.

Autosomal DNA is not mtDNA and Y-DNA combined. That doesn't even make any sense genetically.

To quote Wikipedia itself:

Autosomal DNA tests look at chromosome pairs 1–22 and the X part of the 23rd chromosome. The autosomes (chromosome pairs 1–22) are inherited from both parents and all recent ancestors. The X-chromosome follows a special inheritance pattern, because females (XX) inherit an X-chromosome from each of their parents, while males (XY) inherit an X-chromosome from their mother and a Y-chromosome from their father (XY). Ethnicity estimates are often included with this sort of testing.

Y-DNA looks at the Y-chromosome, which is passed down from father to son. Thus, the Y-DNA test can only be taken by males to explore their direct paternal line.

mtDNA looks at the mitochondria, which is passed down from mother to child. Thus, the mtDNA test can be taken by both males and females, and it explores one's direct maternal line

Two people having common ancestry doesn't mean they share the same Y-DNA or mtDNA. That is quite obvious. A direct paternal and maternal line are only two possible lines of descent. If your maternal grandfather and mine were brothers we would have very recent common ancestors (a great grand-mother and great-grandfather) but we would share neither direct paternal (Y-DNA) neither direct maternal (mtDNA) ancestries.

Knoterification (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Every living human being shares common ancestry. And yes, you literally have 2 lines of ancestry, paternal (which we trace through Y-DNA) and maternal (which we trace through mtDNA) ancestry. You do not have thousands of lines of ancestry. You have thousands of ancestors, tens of thousands, more even. Every human does and they all go back to the same man and same woman in the same place, it’s merely a matter of how far back you go.

An Ashkenazi brother and sister have a more recent common ancestry with each other than they do other Ashkenazi Jews. By your own logic they are now their own separate biological ethnic identity because they share a more recent common ancestry with each other than they do other Askhenazi Jews.

This is the incoherent drivel you are spouting here. That is not how ethnic groups function. That is now how they work or ever have. If they did, ethnic groups would not be as mixed as they are today, because people who had distant common ancestries would not mix with other people of distant common ancestries to form new ethnic groups through ethnogenesis.

I am genuinely sick of discussing this with you. You seem mentally unwell. 2A00:23EE:1738:49F0:80A2:75CE:D310:5B20 (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

“Autosomal DNA tests look at chromosome pairs 1–22 and the X part of the 23rd chromosome.”

Yes, which you inherit from your 2 parents. Only 2 people are involved in the process of making a baby. Basic biology. Your Y-DNA is inherited from your father. Your mtDNA is inherited from your mother.

Autosomal ancestry is combining those 2 lines of descent and the combined genes you inherited from both of them.

What the hell are you even trying to argue here, exactly.

No ethnic group works the way you seem to think it does. Lineages and clans are not ethnic groups. They are social subdivisions within ethnic groups. 2A00:23EE:1738:49F0:80A2:75CE:D310:5B20 (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyway I’m done discussing this with you. 2A00:23EE:1738:49F0:80A2:75CE:D310:5B20 (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Now it is getting too complex and muddled. Do we really need DNA profiles to distinguish ethnic groups and if so, how do we get hold of all 8 Billion DNA profiles of all living humans (and who will reliably compare them to pick up the odd ethnic Dutch (according to DNA profile) who has been living and was born in New Zealand). Arnoutf (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you.

But I never once claimed DNA profiles define ethnic groups.

It was the anonymous editor who understood the general and complex concept of ancestry as meaning Y-DNA and mt-DNA exclusively. Knoterification (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Now you're just being blatantly disingenuous. The Y-DNA and mtDNA merely shows these groups that YOU claim go by common ancestry in fact don't have common ancestry and never did (even at their ethnogenesis they were very mixed and have only mixed further since then). YOU were the one who confused becoming genetically endogamous with common ancestry. YOU were the one who repeatedly stressed that people having a more recent common ancestor with each other = distinct ethnic group. I merely pointed out to you that by the same logic an Ashkenazi Jewish brother and sister are a separate ethnic group from other Ashkenazi Jews because they share more recent common ancestors with each other than they do other Askenazi Jews and are genetically closer to each other than they are to other Ashkenazi Jews. That is YOUR logic. Do not try and backtrack on it now. Your words are literally archived right here in this discussion thread.

Go grind your axe somewhere else, you don't belong on an encyclopedia. 2.98.194.48 (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You claimed you were having adverse phyisical reactions by engaging in this disucssion, so I don't see why you continue to respond.

But, anyway, I have already explained that two people may share very recent common ancestors without sharing the same haplogroups, since haplogroups are based on only two lines of descent, one transmitted by the Y-chromosome in a direct male line, and one by mithochondrial DNA in a direct female line. The autosmal DNA on the other hand deals with all other pairs of chromosomes, which are inherited equally from both parents and from all grand-parents and great-grand-parents.

According to Wikipedia's article Genealogical DNA test on the section about autosomal DNA testing:

"Autosomal DNA is contained in the 22 pairs of chromosomes not involved in determining a person's sex. Autosomal DNA recombines in each generation, and new offspring receive one set of chromosomes from each parent. These are inherited exactly equally from both parents and roughly equally from grandparents to about 3x great-grandparents. Therefore, the number of markers (one of two or more known variants in the genome at a particular location – known as Single-nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs) inherited from a specific ancestor decreases by about half with each successive generation; that is, an individual receives half of their markers from each parent, about a quarter of those markers from each grandparent; about an eighth of those markers from each great-grandparent, etc. Inheritance is more random and unequal from more distant ancestors"

That is very distinct from Y-DNA and mit-DNA where a person recieves markers exclusively from their father, one grandfather, one great-grandfather etc. or their mother, one grandmother, one grandmother, one great-grandmother

To give a concrete example: my mt-DNA haplogroup is C, from an amerindian ancestor. But in my autosomal DNA I only have around 4% amerindian ancestry, not 50%. Why is that? Because the mt-DNA is transmitted in one single continous line of women. I got it from my mother, my mother from her mother, my grandmother from her mother etc. My autosomal DNA deals with much broader genetic panorama, genes derived from many ancetors, not only from one great-grandparent, but from all of them.

I also never claimed ethnic groups are defined exclusively or necessarily by having common ancestors, but that it may be a factor in some groups, but not all of them. I never said once that "having a more recent common ancestor with each other = distinct ethnic group". Knoterification (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

And I sorry to point to you, but no. Ashkenazi Jews have not gotten more diverse with time. It is actually the exact opposite. That is a clear effect of bottleneck and endogamy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/30/science/ashkenazi-jews-genetic-history.html

A group of relatively diverse people start only marrying with themselsves for hundreds of years, after some time, all of them become somewhat closely related. That is the reason Ashkenazi Jews have a strong predisposition for certain diseases.

According to wikipedia:

"Because of centuries of endogamy, today's 10 million Ashkenazi Jews descend from a population of 350 who lived about 600–800 years ago. That population derived from both Europe and the Middle East. Some evidence shows that the population bottleneck may have allowed deleterious alleles to increase in the population by genetic drift."

That 350 people are the common ancestors of all Ashkenazi Jews. Knoterification (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the case for this extremely closed-in small community. But can you also point at a similar tight bottleneck in ancestry for the Dutch. If not, the above argument seems rather moot. Especially for an open country like the Netherlands where we had a federal state that was a section of the holy roman empire until the peace of Munster (less than 500 years ago), such a narrow bottleneck in ancestry seems unlikely. So yes, there may be some ethnic groups for whom common ancestry (and genetics) have meaning, but to me that seems a minority consisting of isolated ingroups rather than the rule. We also do not make claims about all bird based on the weirdness of specific birds like penguins or kiwibirds. Likewise we should not try to impose the specifics of a unique ethnic group on all groups. Arnoutf (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, and that was my claim from the very beggining. What applies to one ethnic group may not apply to another. Endogamy is certainly not the norm. But neither is states preciding and forming ethnic groups, such as the case of the Dutch Knoterification (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You do realize an Ashkenazi Jew with R1b has a more recent common paternal ancestor with a Sub-Saharan African carrying R1b-V88 than he does a 'fellow Ashkenazi Jew' carrying any of the non-R1b Y-DNA that accounts for over 90% of Ashkenazi Jewish males, right? You do realize that's how Y-DNA works? Yes, he's still autosomally genetically closer to other Ashkenazi Jews. I'm aware of this before you idiotically try to explain things I already know to me again.

But he literally has a more recent common paternal ancestor with that Sub-Saharan African tribesman from Chad carrying R1b-V88 by tens upon tens, in some cases hundreds, of thousands of years than he does another Ashkenazi Jewish male carrying anything but R1b Y-DNA (which is the vast majority of them).

This happens because humans mix. This happens because Ashkenazi Jews do not have unique, distinct common ancestry with each other that they do not share with other humans on Earth.

They are a result of historical admixture events. And while they have endured many periods of endogamy (not by their own choice), they are today mixing more than they ever have. 2.99.80.154 (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I do realize that. But you are to fixated in Y-DNA and mt-DNA for some reason. Due to endogamy all Ashkenazi Jews, doesn't matter their Y-DNA haplogroup, also very likely descend from Ashkenazi men carrying R1b-V88, but simply not on their direct paternal line. It is not hard to understand. I have already explained that. An Ashkenazi Jew whose paternal haplogroup is J, may have a maternal grandfather whose haplogroup is R1b-V88, and most certainly has a male ancestor with that haplogroup in the last 600-800 years. When dealing with autosomal DNA the direct paternal line becomes only one in hundreds or thousands. Knoterification (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes it isn't hard to understand that an R1b Ashkenazi Jew has a more recent common paternal ancestor with a Sub-Saharan African tribesman from Chad than he does 90% of his fellow Ashkenazi Jews. Him having more recent general common ancestry with other Ashkenazi Jews through his maternal ancestry merely attests to the heterogeneous nature of the Ashkenazi Jewish genepool. Which you seem incapable of accepting.

The fact that they have rarely, or even never, mixed for the past several centuries doesn't 'unmix' their genepool. It merely makes them genetically endogamous. Which is very rapidly being undone today through mass exogamy among Ashkenazi Jews.

So what point are you trying to make? That the heavily mixed genepool of Ashkenzi Jews underwent a period of little to no outside admixture in Europe for several centuries before undergoing major admixture in the past several decades?

Who is denying this? What relevance does it have to anything we're discussing? How does that prove Ashkenazi Jews go by common ancestry? Clearly they don't. In fact they obviously gives less of a damn about it than most other people considering how heavily they mix today and considering they are bound by halakha to accept sincere converts. Which you seem to think is an 'irrelevance'. Hysterically. Halakha is an 'irrelevance' to Jewish identity according to you.

I'm assuming you're some identitarian that identifies as some ethnic group(s) through ancestry, right? despite being completely detached from them in every conceivable cultural and societal way. Am I on the mark here? 2.99.80.154 (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews currently have one of the highest rates of exogamy of any groups in America. They are absolutely far more mixed today than they were when they were confined to ghettos by Christian authorities terrified of them “polluting their Christian blood”.

Endogamy was forced on Jews by circumstance and authorities in lands they migrated through. Conversion was ALWAYS open to the sincere, but the social penalties involving on the converter made them very rare, albeit not unheard of.

I don’t know why you’re giving me a lecture on basic archeogenetics. I understand archaeogenetics just fine. You do not just inherit Y-DNA and mtDNA from your father and mother. You inherit 50% of your autosomal ancestry from both of them (although it is even more complex than that.

Those are your 2 lines of descent. Their ancestors become your ancestors. You do not have more than 2 lines of descent. You have a mother and a father, this is a basic biological reality.

Y-DNA and mtDNA shows us that these ethnic groups who often claim common ancestry came about through mixing and mixed further since their ethnogenesis.

Whether a group has become genetically endogamous is ANOTHER ISSUE ENTIRELY. The discussion is about whether Dutch people SHARE COMMON ANCESTRY, not whether they have become genetically endogamous. And the answer to that is no, they do not share common ancestry anymore than they do with surrounding European peoples and ultimately all humans on Earth depending on how far back in the human ancestral timeline you go.

And all humans have the same ancestors. You picking an arbitrary point in a human’s ancestral line and saying “only ancestry from this point in time matters” is incoherent and absurd.

Whether ethnic groups claim they go by this or not is irrelevant, they don’t in practice. I have already acknowledged many groups, including Dutch, think common ancestry is a prerequisite for ethnic qualification, this is a false belief and we should stipulate that on their articles. 2A00:23EE:1738:5D1C:BCA7:DC84:AA89:3D4F (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Obviously when scientists research Ashekenazi gentic history they do so in people that all known ancestors are Ashkenazi Jews. My father is 100% Ashkenazi, but my mother is not Jewish. Of course I wouldn't be fit as a target for such study.

Yes, secular and reform American Ashkenazi Jews have very high rates of exogamy, on an unprecedented scale on Ashkenazi History. But before secularism and the Haskalah, all Jews were Orthodox.

Orthodox Jews still only marry Jews, and many Haredi Ashkenazi even oppose marrying Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews. Have you ever met any Haredi Jew? I can affirm 100% they are not that open towards converts as you think they are. Most people who that I know of who tried to convert failed, and eventually gave up. Do you think Jews living in Eastern European Shtetls were really fine with their daughters marrying non-Jews, even if they were willing to convert? Have you ever read Scholem Aleichem? Knoterification (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Jews living in Eastern European shtetls would have had all different opinions on their daughters marrying converts. Just like any other large group of people. Jews do not function as a single biological entity or hivemind. You echo the words of the people who tried to annihilate Jews out of this very same belief less than 100 years ago in Central Europe. Because they believed Jews operated as a single biological entity and not merely a large group of diverse, distinct individuals who happened to identify as Jewish, follow the Jewish faith and follow Jewish customs (varied as they always have been).

Jews have all different personalities and opinions and behaviors. Like any other group of people. Even the smallest, most tightknit of Jewish communities would have contained individuals with different opinions on conversion and all other matters. But regardless of their opinions, halakha remains halakha. And ANY observant Jew must follow halakha, whether they like that or not.

Jews in practice of course would have had all different levels of observances of halakha and enthusiasm for it. But ultimately as observant Jews they would be bound to follow halakha. For it is literally Jewish law. If they did not, they would have been in violation of halakha. And there were serious penalties for breaking halakha in Medieval Jewish societies, as I'm sure you're aware. 2.99.80.154 (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I doubt that you don't understand what I mean about having more than 2 lines of descent. In the first generation you have two ancestors, in the second four, in the third eight and so on.

In any given generation Y-DNA and mt-DNA deals with genetic information transmitted by only one ancestor. While autosomal DNA deals with multiple ancestors at any given time, (with the exception of the first generation obviously).

Take a look at this diagram of ancestry.com:

https://www.ancestrycdn.com/support/us/2017/02/autosomal-3small.png

The dark blue is your Y-DNA, the dark pink your mt-DNA, while your autosomal DNA is dark and light blue and dark and light pink. Knoterification (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes and if you go back far enough everybody has the same ancestors. Every single living man and every single living woman descend from the same human male and the same human female, IF you go back far enough. That's where ancestry gets us all. That is genetic fact. Are you denying this genetic fact? That every human ultimately has the same ancestors if you go back far enough?

Stop trying to lecture me on archaeogenetics. I understand it perfectly well, I just refuse to cherrypick from it as you do in order to desperately advance a narrative. I know what human genetic history shows. And it is relentless mixing. Relentless, from populations all ultimately descended from the same small population of humans in the same small region of the world. That is genetic reality. That is human genetic history.

As for the rest of your drivel, you've now resorted to propping that up with the extreme example of Ultraorthodox Jews (a tiny minority of the Jewish population). Who often don't even allow marriage with other Ultraorthodox Jews let alone non-Ultraorthodox Jews as you've already alluded to. You have gone so far down the purityspiralling rabbithole that you have, unbeknownst to you, effectively destroyed your entire argument. You've now acknowledged that genetic research on Ashkeanzi Jews is heavily biased in favor of Ashkenazi Jews that DON'T engage in exogamy, which makes Jews look even less mixed than they already are, and they're already heavily mixed by those studies.

I knew you were some identitarian. Some ancestry LARPer. You're not a Jew by halakha. This is clearly why you consider halakha an 'obsolete irrelevance'. I guarantee you, those Haredi Jews you mention absolutely do not consider halakha an 'irrelevance'. You are so absolutely detached and disconnected from the identity you're trying to attach yourself to it is pitiful.

You go to those Haredi Jews and tell them you're a Jew. Tell them your father is a Jew but you're mother isn't.

See how they respond to this. Judaism is inherited SOLELY through the maternal line. SOLELY through maternal descent and conversion. That is HALAKHA which Ultraorthodox Jews consider BINDING.

The only Jews in the world who would consider you Jewish are, ironically, Karaites, who aren't even considered Jews by Haredi, and much of the rest of the Jewish world. Other than that you'd be looking at secular/humanist Jews and other identitarians who think Judaism is defined through a testtube.

Your mother is not a Jew. You could literally convert to Orthodox Judaism (not that it'll be easy, even if it's not Haredi) and the vast majority of Jews would now consider you a Jew.

But you'd rather simply pretend to be something you're not through borderline schizophrenic interpretations of human genetic ancestry.

My God. 2.99.80.154 (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This will be my final reply to you. I no longer wish to engage with you in any capacity. I have said all there needs to be said here. 2.99.80.154 (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This thread has gone completely off topic. We started out discussing whether common ancestry (1) can be established for the Dutch (and it seems we all agree that is hard given the heterogeneity of the Dutch) (2) whether that is relevant at all (opinations seem to differ). However - the vast majority of this thread is now discussing American Ashkenazi Jews and their genetic profiles. Please stop this here, as it is has lost meaning for improving this article long ago. Arnoutf (talk)

Brazil?

The map indicates Brazil is in the highest tier for Dutch descendants, but doesn't actually have the number of Dutch people living there Ac2127 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

The Slavs, such as the Russians, are allowed the designation as a "West/East/South Slavic" ethnic group but the Germanic-speaking ethnic groups are forbidden from this? What a load of baloney.

Is this because the Slavs have historically been viewed as an inferior people and, thus, are allowed special privileges as a result of being a minority? Because I notice this trend:

The higher the social class of an ethnic group/race (i.e. Germanic), the less "privileged" they are, so to speak. 199.7.157.42 (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

See #Germanic_ethnic_group_? above. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Ethnicity seems to be of relatively minor interest in the Netherlands, even among xenophobic, anti immigration groups. Notably far right leader Geert Wilders is from mixed Dutch-Indonesian descent - a fact neither denied, nor mentioned in the public debate. Dutch census bureau (CBS) has abolished ethnicity as term in 2022 (and before that had a rather technical and complex definition). CBS now only records people that were born outside of the Netherlands, and those born in the Netherlands with 1 or both parents born abroad (which includes people born while their parents were temporarily abroad etc). So even if you want to include ethnicity it will be nigh impossible to find a reliable source for any numbers etc. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Far right group FVD does care about this (even though its leader is also part Indonesian). Anyway, I think the most straightforward distinction that can be made is Dutch citizens vs Dutch ancestry (i.e. perceived descent from the 'indigenous' population that lived in the area now called the Netherlands since the middle ages). But I agree we don't have to call the ethnic Dutch 'Germanic'. If that's based on language, we'd have to call Americans 'Germanic' too. And if it's based on being of Germanic descent, then it wrongfully assume the native Dutch don't also descent from Celtic tribes for example. The same way the English people page doesn't say 'Germanic' either. Machinarium (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)