User talk:Michel van der Hoek

Welcome!

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at CZ:Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list (do join!) and the blog. Please also join the workgroup mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! D. Matt Innis 19:14, 24 April 2008 (CDT)

Edit proposal for "Myth" Section on Netherlands, History

This is my proposal:

---

Earliest History and Myths

The Low Countries were inhabited by numerous Germanic tribes who had an agricultural society. By the third century, these tribes organized into larger federations and three main groups emerged: the Franks in the South, the Saxons in the East, and the Frisians in the North and West. Little is known of the pre-Christian pagan beliefs of the Germanic tribes, though it seems that Wodan and Donar were worshiped by the Germanic tribes in the Low Countries.

In earlier research of the origins of Netherlandish society, a number of myths shaped the scholarly discourse as well as the national consciousness. Many authors in the 17th and 18th centuries believed in the "Batavian myth" which posited the existence of an independent and free Batavian state and society in the Roman period after the example of the new Dutch Republic. By 1800, scholars realized the myth was false.

In the late 19th century, scholars propounded the idea that the Franks, Frisians, and Saxons were not only the oldest ancestors of the Dutch people, but also that the modern descendants reflected the original values and strengths. The idea caught on and was taught in the schools, for this theory explained why the Belgians (Franks) were Catholic and the Frisians and Saxons were Protestant. The success of this theory of origins was partly due to theories in anthropology, which were were based on a tribal paradigm. Being politically and geographically inclusive and leaving at the same time space for diversity, this historical vision filled the needs of Dutch nation-building and integration in the period 1890-1914. However, the disadvantages of this historical interpretation soon became apparent. It suggested there were no strong external borders, while allowing for the fairly clear-cut internal borders that were emerging as the society pillarized into three parts. (I do not understand this final phrase - MvdH). Especially during the Second World War, the origins myth proved to be no defense against the dangers of regional separatism and annexation to Germany. After 1945, the tribal paradigm lost its grip on anthropology; the "three-tribes-theme" was also fundamentally questioned and slowly faded away.

---

End of proposal. Michel van der Hoek 10:40, 2 May 2008 (CDT)

good job and I will incorporate it. Pillarization ("verzuiling") will get explained in a section that has not been written. It means Netherlands after 1850 became like three separate societies that live side by side in their own closed worlds, with little interaction. The pillars were based on religion, (For example each group had its own newspapers and TV stations and sports leagues). It faded away after 1970.Richard Jensen 12:48, 2 May 2008 (CDT)

Yes, now that makes sense. I wish there were a better word for "verzuiling" in English. I actually wrote the section on political parties and pillarization in the article for the Netherlands. Pillarization itself may have faded mostly, the after effects are still visible in the separate trade unions (FNV, CNV, GMV, etc.), TV stations (KRO, NCRV, VARA, AVRO, etc.), newspapers, etc. Even though they are not as strongly sectarian any more nowadays (especially the media), all traces of pillarized society have not been wiped out yet. Strongholds of socialism as well as of conservative Reformed pillars still exist. Michel van der Hoek 12:59, 2 May 2008 (CDT)

Palatalization

Check out the main page - your article is the 'new draft of the week'. :) John Stephenson 04:37, 28 May 2008 (CDT)

Wow. And I notice you seconded the nomination. Thanks! Michel van der Hoek 20:27, 28 May 2008 (CDT)

Edits for Article on "Sarah Palin"

(These bits of nonsense removed:)

She was baptized as a Roman Catholic but as a child was brought into the Assembly of God, a Pentecostal church. Ed Kalnins, senior pastor of the Wasilla Assembly of God, has spoken on various political issues from the position that opponents of Republican policy could be punished by God; Palin now worships at a related Assembly of God church in Juneau.

In 2006, Palin had stated that she supported abstinence-only sex education.

On 1 September 2008, in response to an internet rumor that Trig was actually Bristol's son, Palin announced that Bristol was five months pregnant and had decided to keep the baby and marry the father. John McCain had been informed of this matter prior to choosing Palin as his running mate.

Palin and related articles -- see David Frum as one example of what I consider responsible conservative criticism. I don't always agree with Frum, but I almost always enjoy reading him. For the record, I am a Recovering Repubican, steeped in Rand until I realized I'd never get a date with Dagny or Dominique; I consider myself more of a Realist. You will find, I hope, that in the politicomilitary histories of recent wars, I present many differing views and let them speak for themselves -- especially when one individual indirectly calls one a liar. I want to be kept honest, but I will argue my points -- and, in some cases, it's personal expertise. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I agree

Hi Michel, just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that I agree with your comment here and I am not worried that you abused the revert process. In fact, I appreciate your patience and tone while working on this article, so I wouldn't want to interfere with the creative process (that is why I am writing here). Sometimes reverting is the only way and I wouldn't want to reserve it only for editors. All I ask is that everyone (authors and editors) just make sure that there isn't a rewriting option first. For instance, cutting it from the article and pasting it in the talk page for further discussion is an alternative that could be considered as well. Again, though, you are doing fine, so keep up the good work. D. Matt Innis 23:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)