Talk:Frisians

Untitled

"They have a reputation for being tall and light-haired people" Sorry but, living there myself, i can say thats completely rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.211.23 (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Roman

Where did the Frisians come from? Do we know anything about them pre-roman? Redge(Talk) 14:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe they came out of Denmark and moved along German wadden sea to friesland. but i i am not sure so dont put in article 81.69.203.77 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that before the roman times there was the Frisian realm, an ancient kingdom which was eventually conquered. it spanned from modern day North Friesland to around Zeeland. --Mike Oosting (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

---

In the second paragraph of this section, something happened in the C- and D-periods, but these periods have no introduction. When were they? Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 03:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Danish?

According to this map, a small part of Frisia is in Denmark. Do these Frisians speak Frisian or Danish or both? --Khoikhoi 07:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Upon looking at the map again, I'm not really sure if that very tiny green spot in Denmark is actually significant. --Khoikhoi 07:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge (the best of it), the tiny portion of historic Frisia that extends into Denmark has no significant ethnic Frisian (including Frisian-speaking) population. This coastal strip and adjoining islands were under Prusso-German rule from 1864 to 1920, during which time both Frisian, Danish and Low Saxon speech was fiercely discouraged in all spheres of society (see Germanization). The map shows present Frisia; historic Frisia extends from northeast of Amsterdam to northeast of Esbjerg. //Big Adamsky 16:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There is an ethnic Frisian population on both the North Sea islands of Germany and southern Jutland, however the number of Frisian speakers is unknown. Whether the peoples there speak mainly Frisian or not, it is safe to say there are peoples there who are descended from ethnic Frisians. Epf 05:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There are no frisian-speaking population in Denmark. Just a small number of towns between the german border and the town of Tønder has ethnic frisian population (around the Vidå). Bernd, 09:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any Frisian Speakers left in Jutland, but there are a small amount of ethnic Frisians, and according to the Friisk Foriiing, some of these ethnic frisians are relearning their language --Mike Oosting (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"historic Frisia extends from northeast of Amsterdam to northeast of Esbjerg." Sorry but this is just plain wrong. The boundaries of Magna Frisia as described in the Lex Frisionum of 802 AD, describes the borders running from the river Zwin just north of Brugge (Bruges) to the River Weser at Bremen. There is no mention how far north Magna Frisia went but consensus seems to be around the current German/ Danish border (ie the area still called North Friesland) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pytter (talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

German!

The tiny minority in this tiny piece of Denmark isreally irrelevant; what is relevant is the fact that Frisian people cover the whole German Bight from the western end in Holland to the northern end on the Danish border. This surely makes the 85% majority of Frisians part of Germany and Frisians part of the ethnic people inhabiting Germany - it are also mostly German politicians who promote Frisian language and culture. (the remaining 15% are Dutch with 0.2% Danish)

What is you point? Krastain 12:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I changed the Religion table to Diverse after someone changed it to "Athiest" Agnostic, et cetera. Greater Frisia covers a rather diverse area including parts of Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, et cetera, and it seems foolish to try to lump it all into one religious category. Besides, the ancient Frisian tribe would have been Norse pagan in orientation. Please provide consensus discussion. Athiest is not a religion anyway. Sandwich Eater 19:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the modern Frisians - the ancient Frisians are their ancestors. How does "Mostly Christianity" sound? Saying "diverse" is way to vague - how many Buddhist, Shinto, Rasta, and Muslim Frisians do you know? --Khoikhoi 01:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The article goes way back to Tacitus and ancient times, and lists several somewhat ancient dukes/princes. Surely the scope of the articile goes well into pre-christian times. Perhaps something like "Traditionally Christian", or Culturally Christian but Diverse? I would just delete the religion category altogether but it seems to be a permanent part of the template. Sandwich Eater 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The information in the text box is modern information - "current" population, the languages are those currently spoken in the region, etc. Therefore, I think the current "Religion" information is fine. People will just have to assume that the region was not Christian during the pre-Christian era; those users who have trouble with that should refer to the article Common sense.--Roland 17:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Frisians BC?

"The people began to be a distinctive tribe in around 200 BC. They were displaced from their homeland to Flanders and Kent, England due to heavy flooding in 250s. Habitation of the area remained impossible for the next 150 years. When some of the Frisians returned in 400s there were already Saxons and Jutes settled there, and the Frisian people merged with them, maintaining the identity and traditions of the Frisian tribe." This part I think a bit strange. First, I'd like to see a source for the claim that they began to be a distinctive tribe around 200 BC. Second I'd like to know how the author knows that the people returning to Frisia were the descendants of the ones who left 150 years earlier. Third, how does he/she know that there even was something like a Frisian identity and traditions? Krastain 14:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have citations handy but my understanding is that there is an extensive archeological and linguistic record relating to the migrations back and forth between the friesland areas and the eastern UK, East Anglia, Kent et cetera. Further studies have also supported that with DNA evidence. Michael Weale and others in the UK have published their findings in peer reviewed journals (regarding the DNA) but others have published the linguistic and archeological data long before. I'll see what I can dig up on-line. Sandwich Eater 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the early Frisians moved around a bit in Western Europe, I doubt that 'they' came back to Frisia. Krastain 12:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This 200 BC sounds interesting and plausible. Please revert back towards visibility this phrase whenever you find some historical or archeological references showing indeed we are still talking about the same people. I hope you don't mind I changed the outspoken interpretation of some findings into a more generally accepted view. The theory of Frisians coming back from England to replace immigrants, or immigrants taking their name, could better be referred to as just another theory (although you could include a reference to this view) instead of unshakable scientific truth. The DNA evidence doesn't exclude Frisian participation to the Anglosaxon conquest as a possibility, it rather points out the historical sources are insufficient. We just don't know enough about this whole issue to tell anything with certaincy. Rokus01 21:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Germanic People

Why isn't the fact that Frisians are a Germanic People mentioned? I added it at the beginning of the piece. Saxons, Franks, Angles, Jutes, Bavarians, Visigoths, etc. are all noted as being Germanic People. Surely it should be added in the article about Frisians as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abu Musab al-Suri (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Sand and clay Frisians?

The article says the difference between the major and minor Frisians is the type of soil they till. In wich work does Tacitus mentions this? Krastain 12:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I fail to see why a picture of a descendant of Grutte Pier should be added to this page. This page is about an ethnic group and its contents should be restricted to that. A picture of a descendant of one of its historical figures is in my opinion not to the point. I suggest it will be removed from this page. Pmviersen 10:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Tribename

"Of the many tribes mentioned, the name 'Frisii' is the only one that is still used"

Suebi or suevi derived from the protogermanic swēbaz, where their name survives in the historic region of Schwabia. Mentioned in paragraph 38 of Tacitus' Germania.

I suppose reference is made to the survival of Frisii as an independent ethnic group. "Being used" are lots of other Germanic names, from Andalucia (Vandals) to France (Franks), and even Schwabia does not boast an independent ethnical identity derived straightforward from their "Suebi" ancestors.Rokus01 23:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it seems that only the Frisians are capable of such gullible ideas ;)Krastain (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The comment about Frisian gullibility is offensive and NOT NECESSARY. Act like an adult or don't leave comments in an adult forum. There is indeed a factual basis for claiming that the Frisians are the only Germanic people identified in Tacitus' Germania who proceeded to maintain an uninterrupted, demonstrable presence on precisely the same territory ever since. Let's look at the Suebi first as a point of comparison. The Suebi mentioned by Tacitus (who fought Caesar under their leader Ariovist) were a huge migrating tribal confederation. The NAME has certainly survived to the present in Swabia/Schwabenland, Schwaebisch, etc., but there is no reason to believe that the moderns Swabians are direct descendants of Ariovist's warriors. This part of Germania was actually occupied and colonized by Rome under the name "Agri Decumates" in the first centuries AD AFTER ARIOVIST'S DEFEAT. Only later did a Germanic tribe, the Alemanni, return to the area. That's who the modern "Swabians" are--they are descendants of THE ALEMANNI. There is a good possibility that the Suebi and Alemanni were closely related, but we don't know that for sure. We do know for sure, however, that Suebi ended up in Spain and Portugal, settling that area along with Vandals and Alans. (As I say, the Suebi were a migratory people.) I don't need to tell anyone that the modern French can hardly be considered full-blooded Franks, do I? Again, the NAME has been handed down, and, in this case, we know that the Franks were never chased from the area that they conquered and that later adopted their name. But modern French people probably are genetically more Celtic and Roman than Germanic. The English derive their name from the Angles, but the Angles were only one elements within a wave of tribes, including the Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, and probably others, who invaded Britain after the end of Roman rule. I could go on and on with arguments like this regarding every Germanic people mentioned in Tacitus which left some trace in the later names for peoples and places in Europe. The fact is that ONLY in the case of Frisia are both Tacitus and modern-day people undoubtedly talking about the same place, and the same people. As to WHY this is the case, the fact that Frisia has throughout history been somewhat of a coastal backwater goes along way towards explaining it. Frisia has been less affected by the tumultuous forces of war, mass migration, urbanization, etc., that have led to such upheaval and massive demographic change in the rest of Europe. [David Timberlake, 7 April 2009] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.49.158 (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

David, although my province may be a "backwater" tit was one of the wealthiest provinces of the United Seven Provinces of The Netherlands and as such attracted many immigrants to the cities and to the country side for peat-digging: Besides peoples from bordering provinces which may haven been of Frisian or Saxon stock, there were many immigrants from Holland, East Frisia, Flanders, French Hugenots, Jews, Germans and so on. Speaking Frisian and belonging to the community is enough to make you Frisian although some will insist that you need to be of Frisian descent as well. I would challneg any Firsian to prove a direct ancestral connection with the Frisii! --Pytter (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Proving the ancestral connection may be difficult with humans, but it is easier with livestock. The Friesian cow, for example, has been in existence since 100 BC - if there was an interruption, who herded Friesian cattle in the intervening period? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.23.127.25 (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Description

"They are mostly tall, light-haired people, women as well as men, and they have a rich history and folklore." Is that a proper description on the looks of ordinary Frisian folks? 82.73.79.82 14:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say. Though I can tell from my own travels to various parts of Europe, Frisians in general are taller than most people in other countries.

SietseM (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

These types of sweeping generalisations about looks have little basis in fact and have no place in this article. Yes there are plenty of Frisians that are blond and tall but there are plenty of dark haired Frisians of average height.--Pytter (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

religion

User:Bloodofox put in this

rels= Indigenously Germanic paganism, later forcefully Christianized into Protestant Christian

This is too much detail for the info box, and they were probably converted into catholicism not Protestantism, only later changing, not necessarily by force! Graeme Bartlett 23:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats right. Btw, thanks for refering the statement, whoever might have done that. -The Bold Guy- 12:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Coon reference

Some people here want to cite a book (published 1939) by Carleton Coon as a valid source. He may have been a reputable anthropologist for some while, but was very much proven wrong on every point in his later day. (see his article) With that in mind and given that the source is over 65 years old, yet wants to portray the claim as fully up to date ... I really think we should drop it.Rex (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't just drop sourced information. You could try to prove a statement wrong by finding sources that forward another view, for instance saying Frisians have always been predominantly short of statue and dark. Or you could try to find other research to support the statement. Whatever the current anthropological status of Coon, he was contemporary to Frisians and as such counts as a historical source. The source was inserted because somebody once contested the Frisians to be of this specific physical description, and whether or not you might agree this was a silly thing to do, please don't invalidate the statement by recurring to a personal point of view concerning the validity of this particular observation of Coon. He might have been wrong in other approaches, this is a far way though from the invalidity of his empirical observations. The description of Frisians being tall and blond go back to Roman times. You might come forward with superior modern sources, or dedicate a new seccion to contrary views, however, I repeat, there is no reason to drop sourced information. Morover, this would be vandalism. Rokus01 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"The man who wrote it also said the 'white race' was a mix of neantherthals and Homo sapients" This discussion is not at all out of date. Please discuss this in the Neanderthal article. Rokus01 (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How am I dropping sourced information? I don't think the information is sourced at all. Nor do I see, in any way, how this is vandalism. The book is far to out of date to be presented as fact today. Also, linking the Roman 'Frisii' to today is also quite daring don't you think?Rex (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to push your personal point of view. Coon is a reputable anthropologists and his work is valuable, no matter what your POV would be. This is getting very boring. If you want to make a statement, please come up with sourced evidence. To start with, anybody that know Frisia would know the statement does not have to be sourced at all. Obviously you don't know Frisia and still you don't bother sources to refresh your opinions. Rokus01 (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. Coon is dead, and on many fronts discredited. Recap for a moment. A reference from 1939. Get real.Rex (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to get that all of this is your personal view. Please check WP:NPOV and WP:Verify before we go any further on this. Rokus01 (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not me who discredited Coon. You seem so obsesses with NPOV, but really, with this source I wonder who's most trustworthy. Antropology in the early 20th century isn't generally counted among the most objective literature of the field. (That's sarcasm btw). Anyway, if you are unwilling to comply in any way, then I see no other option then to take this matter to other wikipedia institutions.Rex (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

According to my research you are on probation concerning Germanic issues: Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive14#Rex_Germanus.C2.A0 Rokus01 (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rex Germanus that Coon might not be a good scientific source for the statement that Frisians are often tall and blond. Better, newer and more scientific evidence on this (obviously true) statement might be around. Krastain (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the statement needs to be sourced and there's nothing wrong with Coon, just removing the sourced reference is no option. It would be very interesting to know some more references, though, and very constructive to find them for us before doing anything else.Rokus01 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this page and was also surprised to see a reference from 1939 in the introduction. It may be a source, but it is a poor one. I agree that one should try to find a more up-to-date source that makes the same point. Rokus01 seems to be a very vocal minority here.88.74.198.130 (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur - I find it very odd to see this quote from Coon - I presume from the "The Races of Europe, The White Race and the New World (1939)" Also Rokus01 stating that Coon was a contemporary of the Frisians is no argument at all - so are you and I as the Frisians still exist. Racial stereotyping is totally out of date and has no place in a serious article. --Pytter (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick-failed "good article" nomination

Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA process, any article with cleanup or expansion banners - such as the one in Friesland in the Middle Ages - must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please address any issues brought up by such banners and remove them before renominating. There also seems to be an on-going content dispute (above thread). Please note that instability is also a quick-fail issue. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky ^Talk 18:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction with Old Frisian

This article says,

Tacitus wrote a treatise about the Germanic peoples in 69, describing the habits of the Germanic people, as well as listing numerous tribes by name. ^[8] Of the many tribes he mentioned, the name 'Frisii' is the only one still in use to refer unequivocally to the same ethnic group. ^[9]

But [[Old Frisian]] says,

Their ancient homes were originally North Germany and Denmark. The language of the earlier inhabitants of the region (the Frisians famously mentioned by Tacitus) is not attested.

This should be sorted out.
—Ruakh_TALK 14:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Both references point to i-friesland.com. I don't know how reliable that website is, but I doubt that it can support an extraordinary claim like "the only one still in use to refer unequivocally to the same ethnic group" by itself. It only means that Andrea Mouloud or Punzy Press believe that it is true, perhaps for good reasons, but in that case it would be better to cite those good reasons. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What do the Frisians call themselves?

What do the Frisians call themselves in their language? 76.119.245.141 (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Depends on language and dialect, e.g. Friezen, Fresen, Fräisen, Frasche, Freske, Friiske... Frisia (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Frisian Law

Sorry but wasn't the Frisian rights supposedly given by Charlemagne to the Frisian people a hoax staged by the ones who wrote the Frisian Law in the 12th Century? Not unlike the 'Gift of Constantine'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.36.113 (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And your source for this statement is? --Pytter (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he doesn't need to source his statement, the statement that Charlemagne gave the Frisians rights should be sourced.Krastain (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure but I think Charles the Fat seems to be the real one, who gave the privileges to the Frisians. But in legend it was Charlemagne. But I don't have any sources nearby, I just remember reading it somewehre. Frisia (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Source of a Source

Not sure what Wikipedia says about this, but I was intrigued enough by the "Frisian being the closest living language to English" statement (as I heard it long ago and always remembered it) to check the source. The source however isn't about language, but using DNA markers to track ancient migration. The statement about languages is a passing reference, sourced itself to

Nielsen H. F., 1985 Old English and the continental Germanic languages: a survey of morphological and phonological interrelations 2nd edition. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck

Should we be using this direct source instead for the statement in the article? I've made no changes. 217.166.94.1 (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the people, but certainly the source used for a statement should support the statement. And the language similarity should have a ref. Although is this the best ref? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the current source is fine for any statement re migration of Frisians in the history section. But I don't have access to the sourced source (Nielsen re language) so I can't check it to verify that the DNA-article writer didn't make a mistake. If anyone can get an online copy of that source I think we could switch that for the other (and find a place for the current source, it can be citation for plenty other facts in the article). 217.166.94.1 (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed Frisian is part of the same Germanic language branch as English but this does not necessarily equate to a genetic closeness. After all The French, Spanish all Portuguese all speak a language based on Latin but are in most cases not a genetic close match to peoples currently living in Rome! However, there is evidence of a genetic closeness between Frisians and East/ Middle England - for example see "Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration" Michael E. Weale,1, Deborah A. Weiss,1, Rolf F. Jager, Neil Bradman and Mark G. Thomas However, I would like to point out that the current section on Y-DNA is of very poor standard, not citing any sources, making erroneous, sweeping genetic statements (there is no one DNA type for Frisian ancestry there has been too much historic immigration prior to the birth record for there to be clarity on this) and includes a reference to a commercial DNA testing site that has no link to the point being made.--Pytter (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter Stuyvesant

Was he really Frisian? He was born in Peperga. The dialect spoken there is a Low Saxon one. (Pindanl (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

Notable Frisians

I think it is time we made a separate List of notable Frisians out of that. The current listing only clutters this article and there are some names that may need further reference to proof any Frisian origin. Judging from the names of emigrants to the Americas is close to OR, even though West Frisian family names are quite unique and will be recognized by those in the know. Therefore I suggest to split this section off to a new list article with references and keep only, say, two or three notables per century over here. De728631 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

South Frisian

Why there is no such way for South Frisian--68.185.9.3 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Because there are no South Frisian people there is also no such language group. There were no permanent settlements of Frisian people further south than modern (West) Friesland and East Frisia or Saterland, so the distinction between West, East and North Frisian languages was apparently always sufficient. Geographically one could arguably group East and West Frisian into a southern group as opposed to North Frisian but to my knowledge this has never been done by linguists. De728631 (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Image gallery in infobox

@Graeme Bartlett:: If you look closer at the result of the long RfC discussion here, I am sure you will agree that the consensus also is valid for this page. The scope of the decision is removal of image galleries from infoboxes, so there is no restrictions on putting them elsewhere in the article, if considered relevant by local consensus. In this case it would probably be best to create a subsection "Notable Frisians" or similar and then present some or all of the pictures there, separately or as a gallery. But they have to go from the infobox per central consensus. Regards! --T*U (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You can probably guess that I do not agree with the RFC as applied to this article, and I think that the article looks worse without the pictures. I suspect that there will be much opposition to the edits resulting from the RFC. Nine of the most famous people would be the most that is suitable, and if you put more it would be overdoing it, and not making anything clearer. However I think there would be a gallery not in the infobox, as a compromise. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES - it's not just about being in the infobox, but on having any ethnic galleries at all:

"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members, because selecting them is normally original research, and often contentious (see the corresponding discussion)."

Scr★pIron^IV 13:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I support restoring the gallery and believe it improves this specific article to have it. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What format would you like? Is the grid of 3×3 on the side OK, or would a row across the bottom be better? Are you satisified with the images used in the earlier gallery? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The grid of 3x3 is fine by me and works fine for the page. I was satisfied with the pictures used earlier, as they are a good mixture of historical figures and current prominent people of Frisian heritage. I would like for it to be restored, if you and other editors of the page have no objections to this. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Firmly object per policy. Ethnicity, particularly of living people, is far to contentious to pick and choose individuals to label them. I do believe it goes too far, and that well documented historical figures should be permitted - but that would have to be a new RFC. Any local consensus here would not override policy, so it is a moot question until WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES is modified. Scr★pIron^IV 14:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The policy only says no gallery in the infobox. It does permit galleries elsewhere in the page. For living people if i is clear that they are a member of the group, then they could be included. It depends more on what the consensus is here whether they should be in or out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Numbers

The number of Frisian speakers in Germany has been increased to as many as 220,000 based on a combined count from three numbers in one source. I find this number implausible and wonder if we are double counting. Can we find a WP:RS for this number? Or at least clarify what we are counting if we must use 3 sources. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I found the error. The editor was attempting to count the number of Frisian speakers by adding West Frisian, Saterland Frisian and East Frisian Low Saxon (instead of East Frisian, which would in any case add nothing beyond the Saterland numbers). East Frisian Low Saxon is not a dialect of Frisian, it is Northern Low Saxon but happens to be spoken in the East Frisian peninsula. It should not be added into the number of Frisian speakers. I have deleted the erroneous numbers. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The numbers are first of all from a valid source - Ethnologue. Secondly, the numbers are a combination of East Frisians, Saterland Frisians and North Frisians in Germany. Native speakers of East Frisian Low Saxon indeed are ethnic Frisians, and they identify as such. Their language is one of the Friso-Saxon dialects which have a major Frisian linguistic substratum, being essentially a mixed language of East Frisian-Low Saxon. Culturally, East Frisians are very similar to Saterland Frisians and North Frisians, and less so to West Frisians in Friesland and Groningen. Gronings is another Friso-Saxon dialect, and much of the inhabitants are ethnic Frisians who adopted Low Saxon in past centuries with a Frisian language substratum, forming again a highly mixed Frisian-Low Saxon dialect. Human Taxonomist (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

East Frisian Low Saxon is a North Low Saxon language, not a Frisian language. As you say, it has a substratum of Frisian, but this does not make it Frisian. Indeed, when you say a language has a substratum of another language, you explicitly say it is not the other language. It is a language that may have replaced the other language in the area it is spoken, but it is not the other language - it has merely been influenced by it. So it is illegitimate to include this here. Moreover it is against Wikipedia policy to do so. This is an example of WP:SYNTHESIS and thus cannot stand.

Now there is a related question: are Frisians only denoted by language? Are non Frisian speakers in East Frisia not Frisian? What are we trying to count here? The labels should perhaps be clearer on that box. If you want linguistic reckoning you cannot include East Frisian Low Saxon, but if you want population, just use the population numbers of people living in Frisia and make that clear in the labeling. You cannot mix and match though. It must be one or the other. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

East Frisian Low Saxon is a highly mixed language or a type of creole language even, if not simply a highly distinctive dialect. It is NOT simply "Low Saxon". It has a major Frisian substratum. It is this Frisian character which makes it so highly distinguished from all other Low Saxon dialects, which is why it is classified as Friso-Saxon. Would you say Maghrebi Arabic is simply just Arabic?? Of course not. It has a major Berber admixture, just as East Frisian Low Saxon has a major Frisian admixture. The speakers of Maghrebi Arabic by and large are ethnically Berber or Arab-Berber. The speakers themselves call it "Oostfreesk" (East Frisian), and the speakers identify ethnically as East Frisians. East Frisian Low Saxon is entirely confined to the East Frisian ethnic and cultural area. These East Frisian Low Saxon native speakers form a distinct ethnic community - the East Frisians - which is mentioned in both sources. Most areas where East Frisian Low Saxon is spoken were East Frisian speaking prior to the 17th - 18th centuries, and some (especially the islands) were Frisian-speaking until the early 20th century. The ethnologue numbers are simply a larger account - and the source from ethnologue specifically counts both the ETHNIC population (i.e. East Frisians) and the native speakers of East Frisian Low Saxon who are nearly all ethnically East Frisian, either of full or partial Frisian ancestry. Unlike the Gronings-speakers, East Frisians clearly identify as Frisian, and are labelled as such by others as well (and are labelled as an ethnic minority in Germany).

Furthermore, Frisians of course are not only denoted by language. Who would think that?? They had little to do with the Dutch for most of their history prior to the 16th century, and fought failed wars of independence against them. They have a fairly distinctive culture from their Dutch and German neighbours (equal to that between Welsh, Scots and English), and also have a different ancestry (including genetically) and a distinct history which again was mostly separate, independent or autonomous from neighbouring Dutch (i.e. Low Franconian) and Low German political entities. Human Taxonomist (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You have now reverted my changes again without reaching consensus. this is not how WP:BRD works. This is edit warring. Please stop. I ask that you self revert that last change. I won't at this point as that would be edit warring by myself. However, you need to follow WP:BRD. Please discuss here. You cannot use those figures because you are engaging in [WP:SYNTHESIS] - you are reaching a conclusion based on three numbers that is not reached by the source nor any other source. You are conflating two different language groups to arrive at a number that is not recognised by any source. The number is wrong.

While I wrote the above you wrote the above justification. But now you are justifying [WP:SYNTHESIS] by adding in original research. We don't do that on Wikipedia. Go with what the sources say. These sources do not say what you say they say, because they are quite clear that you are conflating a Low Saxon languag with Frisian. OR (original research) is not allowed on Wikipedia. So again, I am asking that you de-escalate this edit war by self reverting your change and awaiting consensus. Thank you. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Providing sourced numbers from a reliable source like ethnologue is not "original research". The source specifically says 'ethnic population', in reference to East Frisians. East Frisian Low Saxon IS a highly distinctive Friso-Saxon dialect. Is Scots and Scottish English not Scottish? Is Hiberno-English not Irish? Is Egyptian Arabic not Egyptian and Coptic (see Copts)?

"just use the population numbers of people living in Frisia" - NO, this is an article about Frisians as an ethnic group, who share a common ancestry, history, culture and language. Native language speakers is a criteria, as are numbers about 'ethnic population' or ancestry. The source from ethnologue has numbers for native speakers - the linguistic community - and the 'ethnic population'. East Frisia, and rural Groningen as well, was populated largely or entirely by Frisians before the shift to Low Saxon in recent centuries. The populations are still mostly of Frisian ancestry, and in the case of East Frisia, clearly keep a distinct Frisian culture and identity. This is similar to how Arabized Berbers are still Berber or Maghrebi, and not 'Arab', or how Irish people who have switched to Hiberno-English from Gaelic are still Irish people, and not English. Are English-speaking Irish people not Irish? Well Friso-Saxon-speaking East Frisians are still Frisian. Human Taxonomist (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I would lastly point out that the revision you were arguing for, with the sole 60,000 figure, has a source (in German) clearly mentioning the East Frisians - who all natively speak "Oostfreesk" East Frisian Low Saxon, a unique Friso-Saxon lect. The numbers from ethnologue are simply larger, but ethnologue specifically refers to a count of 'ethnic population' as well, in addition to native speakers. Human Taxonomist (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Taken from the website of the Interfrisian Council:"The Frisians were never part of the Saxon tribal area...The East-Frisians never agreed to give the magistrate of Emden this authority, and he was never democratically elected. Through the centuries, the population always felt itself to be Frisian...We, Frisians from East-Frisia, believe that systematically imposing a nonexistent identity on us has lasted long enough... We hope our brothers from the Ommelaander Fraislaand will follow this example and free themselves from their imposed Saxon identity. Even if Frisia is nowadays divided over two states, the Frisian territories are not foreign to each other. They must have a special relationship." Human Taxonomist (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

Human Taxonomist has deleted the Flemish people from related people but left in Afrikaners, Dutch and English. I challenged the removal but had my challenge reverted. WP:BRD applies. The removal of the long standing information has been challenged and should now be placed back in the text until there is consensus. My reason for challenge are that the Flemish People are largely the same as the Dutch - separated politically more than ethnically, and that they are at least as closely related as Afrikaners and the English. However the whole section is unsourced, so an alternative solution is simply to delete all related groups. My preference is to put the Flemish back though. It makes no sense to take them out and leave the much less closely related English in (although I presume some linguistic point may be intended? ) -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with putting the Flemish back in, but I would appreciate the same good faith with the numbers for East Frisians using the population figures from ethnologue. Human Taxonomist (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

And one more point - the English (especially from East Anglia, due to the Anglo-Saxons and later trade ties in the Hanseatic League) are more closely related to the East and North Frisians than the Flemish are. Eastern English dialects are the closest language to the Frisian languages, and English ancestry (Angles, Saxons and Frisians) is also shared with the Frisians, especially the East Frisians and North Frisians. Flemish may be closer culturally to the West Frisians, but even then, the English are closer in terms of language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Human Taxonomist (talk • contribs) 11:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Even then, the English are closer in terms of language." Really, just no! I don't admit to it on my page, but I speak some Frisian. Only to A2 level, and I gave it up as I was finding that it was confusing my Dutch. Nevertheless, anyone who knows Frisian and Flemish (which despite dialect differences, is essentially standard Dutch), will see that Dutch and Frisian are very close, and although Frisian lies between English and Dutch on the dialect/language continuum of the west germanic languages, it lies closer to Dutch. Moreover, although there clearly were trading links with East Anglia and some cross cultural fertilisation and language, it was my experience that Frisian seems closer to Scots than to any other English variants. A study of Anglo Saxon (note, I do admit to A2 knowledge of that one) will show common roots with Frisian, but those roots are old, and English is almost a creole language now. It is simply not true to say that the English language is closer to modern Frisian than Flemish. Neither would it be true to say the same about ethnicity. The story of England is a story of waves of immigration and settlers. Some brought their languages, some did not, and no one who was there already just went away. I don't know what point you are trying to make, but it won't fly.

But back to the information you have removed: it is not a quid pro quo. What matters is having information that is correct and verifiable. Yes, you should put this back, because its removal is unjustified. No, I won't then agree to leaving the numbers you have also put back remain there unchallenged. Those numbers are not correct. I am not certain how they are not correct because we have not said whether we are talking about population (in which case we need to quote population figures), language (in which case quote only the Frisian language figures) or those who feel culturally Frisian (in which case you need to find some figures - a census maybe? Yet that one might be impossible). But the figure that is there now is wrong. It is a clear example of WP:SYNTHESIS and cannot stand unchallenged. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"the story of England is a story of waves of immigration and settlers." No, the origins of the English is in the Anglo-Saxons specifically, including Frisians, who settled and immigration to Britain to merge with the Celtic Britons. The Frisian languages are the closest living languages to English, which can be seen the commonalities of the Anglo-Frisian languages. I'm not sure where you are studying Frisian from, but it is very close to English. Flemish, and especially West Flemish, are Low Franconian languages. West Frisian language is as close to English today as it is to Flemish or other Dutch dialects, but Old Frisian and Old English were almost identical. North Frisian and Saterland Frisian are certainly both closer to English than to Dutch, especially the distant Flemish Dutch.

In terms of the numbers, the source is a completely valid and reliable source. You have not explained why it is not. The numbers are given specifically for the 'ethnic population' in East Frisia (East Frisians). That is sufficient to include then for the number of ethnic Frisians. In terms of language, I already explained why Frisian languages are not the only ones to be included as ethnic languages for Frisians. East Frisians identify as such, until fairly recently were speaking East Frisian, and have since shifted to a very specific Low Saxon dialect (East Frisian Low Saxon - which they call East Frisian) that is heavily mixed with East Frisian, and is almost exclusive to their ethnic community in the East Frisian peninsula. You would not deny the cultural status of Welsh English, Hiberno-English, Highland English and Anglo-Cornish among the Welsh, Irish, Gaelic Scots and Cornish respectively, despite their original native languages being Celtic languages. Human Taxonomist (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

" we have not said whether we are talking about population (in which case we need to quote population figures), language (in which case quote only the Frisian language figures) or those who feel culturally Frisian". This is incorrect. The article is clear that it is describing a Frisian ethnic group, which has a shared ancestry (including genetic ancestry), culture, language, history (Frisia, Magna Frisia, History of Friesland, Friso-Hollandic wars, etc.) and other traits. Frisians have a distinct common ancestry that distinguishes them from ethnic Dutch (Low Franconian Dutch) or other groups. The native and cultural language is also part of their shared identity, so such numbers are also useful (we do not need to simply have only one figure). These distinct cultural languages are not just Frisian languages, but also Friso-Saxon languages, and specifically the East Frisian Low Saxon dialect that is heavily mixed with Frisian lexicon, morphology, etc. and is a cultural and native language of largely restricted to the people who identify as East Frisians in the East Frisian peninsula. Human Taxonomist (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

When you say "The Frisian languages are the closest living languages to English" I understand you are repeating a widely held meme, and I also understand that there is some truth in the claim, but it is also demonstrably false. The closest language to English is probably Scots. Yota might be a candidate too, but is extinct. Various creole languages also are much much closer to English than Frisian. I think it would be true to say that Frisian is the closest language to English that is not derived from Anglo-Saxon. And there is the problem of course. You are going all the way back to about the 5th century to find the branch point from Anglo-Frisian - and the branch was marked. Almost as soon as the Angles, Saxons, Jutes (whichever Jutes they were) and yes, Frisians came to settle in England, Anglo Saxon emerged as a distinct dialect with some interesting innovations and sound changes. The development of the languages beyond that point were significant and today Frisian is really not as close to English as you think it is.

The numbers: These are wrong. No amount of telling me they are reliable will help because I do not doubt that the source accurately describes the number of East Frisian Low Saxon speakers. The point I have made and the reason these are wrong is that East Frisian Low Saxon is not a Frisian language. That is what the sources all say. You argue as though it is, and as though it is legitimate to include the speakers of this language as Frisian speakers, but no one else argues that. Frisians do not. The Interfrisian council does not include them. All linguists agree it is not Frisian, and you have provided no sources to say otherwise.So what you are doing is taking a number, and adding it to another number and arriving at a conclusion that is not in the source, nor any source. This is a classic case of WP:SYNTHESIS. Do you understand why this is illegitimate?

Even the source you do provide (Groep fan Auwerk, not the Interfrisian council. Groep fan Auwerk is a political pressure group and would probably not be a reliable source) says the opposite of what you are trying to say. I don't think they would be very pleased that you are saying that East Frisian Low Saxon is their cultural language when their whole argument is that they are not part of Lower Saxony. The Interfrisian council itself is clear that Frisians are defined by their Frisian languages. That is helpful actually. It means that we can indeed use the language speaker figures on this page. But only the speakers of Frisian languages. Note that the Interfrisan council do not list East Frisian Low Saxon as a Frisian language. So the numbers are wrong. You should now remove them as per my edit that you reverted. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Have you read the sources? They do, specifically, included East Frisians as a Frisian group. I also never said East Frisian Low Saxon was one of the Frisian languages, but simply that it is a cultural language spoken natively by East Frisians specifically. Other Friso-Saxon dialects are associated with other ethnic Frisians in Frisia, just like Scots language is in Scotland, Welsh English in Wales and Hiberno-English in Ireland. Look at the ethnologue source and the other source. North Frisian and Saterland Frisian only have, combined, 12,000 speakers. Where do the other 48,000 Frisians come from? Those are East Frisians and North Frisians who speak mostly Friso-Saxon dialects. The East Frisians ARE part of the [Interfrisian Council] (those regions, like Aurich, and that red, blue and black flag are for East Frisia and the East Frisian peninsula; Friso-Saxon-speaking East Frisians are also, sadly, the butt of pejorative East Frisian jokes from Germans.
• "The Interfrisian council itself is clear that Frisians are defined by their Frisian languages." No it isn't, and it doesn't state anywhere that is the sole defining feature of their ethnic identity.
• "their whole argument is that they are not part of Lower Saxony". Exactly, and they are speaking specifically about East Frisians here, not just the 2,000 or less Saterland Frisians. East Frisians speak East Frisian Low Saxon as their native and distinct cultural language. They are still part of the council and 'Groep fan Auwerk'.

References

Human Taxonomist (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Frisians in North America

I have removed the number of Frisians in the USA from the table of significant Frisian populations. I believe it is [WP:UNDUE]. Here are my reasons:

1. Why single out the US? The Dutch population in Canada is also huge. I suspect only the US was listed as there were only figures for the US, but if we had the US we should be listing other countries with large Frisian populations.
2. The numbers were generously interpreted. The source lists first and second ancestry, and the combined figure was listed. However, second ancestry should probably not be included, so the number is just of over 2,000
3. So the number 2,000 is not that significant across the whole US or compared to the other numbers. It is an order of magnitude lower, and disappears in the rounding.
4. There is no evidence presented that there is any kind of Frisian community in the US. This appears to be people just spread out across the whole (huge) country. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Was it from a valid source? If they state specifically 'Frisian' ancestry, there is nothing wrong with even including a small number. Human Taxonomist (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer any of points 1-4. Was it valid? Yes. It was a survey that people had answered. It was probably not comparable to other figures though. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Human Taxonomist has been CU blocked. Meters (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

English, Frisian and Germanic links

There is a discussion about whether there is a linkage between Germanic, Frisian and English peoples and languages at Talk:English people#Germanic and Frisian links. It would be helpful if editors could hold fire on making edits related to this topic until a consensus has been reached. Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)