Talk:Dutch Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.
After the FAC director promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ArticleHistory}} template when the FAC closes.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] earlier conversations

What a load of crap! Pardon my french. The Netherlands reigned supreme from 1600-1840? I'd say it was 1598-1702 when William III died. With the war of the spanish succession it was all over and England had taken the lead. Eastern Timor has always been Potuguese, to my knowledge. The Netherlands Antilles is still a part of the kingdom so 1986 is absolutely not correct. Maybe Aruba got status aparate in 1986, i don't know. South Africa was conceded to the british in 1806. To say that Belgium and Luxemburg were ever really part of the Dutch empire is an overstatement. They were never really effectively under Dutch rule. Belgium was a part of the Spanish-Habsburg empire and Luxemburg was a posession of the Dutch King but was never under Dutch government rule. The few years after the Vienna convention that Belgium and Luxemburg were 'Dutch' don't make them part of any dutch empire. If this is the angle from which to approach empire-theory i'd say that between 1689 and 1702 England, Ireland and Scotland would have been part of the Dutch empire as well. Swaziland and Lesotho raise question marks with me. Maybe the Boer-population settled there but they were never considered to be dutch citizens. New Zealand? Never! I don't care to check but I think the New York / Albany / Kingston years don't match.

I'm missing Ceylon and Taiwan, Brazil, goldcoast/slavecoast/ivorycoast Angola and the malabar and coromandel coasts in India.

Don't quote me on this because I don't have all the info handy but this story should be removed immediately.

A concerned dutchman with a passion for colonial history.

I've created a new, better map. --Mixcoatl 13:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Netherlands empire? I'm ready now to see United Kingdomian Empire. A scan through the standard history books might suggest the norm. --Wetman 02:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Malaya & Deshima

The map is inaccurate. The Dutch never ruled all of Malaya (now West Malaysia), just Malacca. Also, what's that spot on Japan? Is it supposed to be Deshima? If so, it's on the wrong island — Nagasaki is on Kyushu Island, not Shikoku!

Also, what are those spots on the south coast of China and on the north coast of New Zealand? I can't figure out what those are supposed to be.

-- ran (talk) 03:01, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Raction on the former

@Ran >> The fact that Malakka is coloured as a whole is no problem. The Dutch had ultimate control not just over Malakka as you state, but also a lot of other forts were built as for example in Selangor, Fort Altingburg, Fort Utrecht >> 1784 - 1824 and Tanjungpinang (Riouw) The real control stretched maybe only along the coastline, but in the end, the Dutch traded the entire Mallakka peninsula for Aceh (Sumatra) with the English. So politically, the hole peninsula was in Dutch hands for almost 200 years. That why the map IS accurate. Or maybe you want to state that the British ruled the entire Sudan or Afghanistan. Off course not, but it still is coloured as though was a fully controled area. So theres no problem here.

@Ran2 >> The spots on the southcoast of China must represent the cities of Amoy (of Xiamen), Canton (1728/1749-1803) or Hoksieu (Fuzhou), 1662-?.

@Mixcoall >> I totally agree; Belgium and Luxembourg should be removed from the map. Its nonsense. --Islanublar 16:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Colonial History

I initially got to this page because I was in favor of merging the two sections... But on reading what you guys wrote I indeed have to agree, the articles need to be changed into one and, more importantly, accurately portray the Colonial History of the Netherlands. My father is an historian and I've always been interested in my country's colonial history, but that doesn't mean I'm qualified to rewrite the article. I don't know who wrote it initially, but it isn't really an article, more like an attempt at a list of all the colonies that The United Netherlands had. I would continue complaining about the article, but I don't like ANY of it. Trade posts don't count as colonies, the Dutch had a trading post in Japan, but we never colonized it. Finally, I have never heard of the use of the term Dutch Empire, nobody inside the Netherlands considers and Empire part of our history, so I would suggest we delete those titles and replace it with a new article named Dutch Colonial History, or something along those lines. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this, especially from concerned Dutchmen.

@ Wetman; the British Empire ring a bell? United Kingdomian Empire... lol


I've just removed a fragment from this section, "I love spaghetti." Does this suggest something weird about the section? (Is this a code/test?) I'd like to see some verification for the claims about Netherlandish Aborigines in Australia, claims about which look particularly suspect when ending with "I love spaghetti."

[edit] New Zealand

Yes the Dutch came by in the form of Abel Tasman, but they didn't even land! I hardly think New Zealand can be considered a colony... So I'm taking it out..

[edit] Empire vs Factories

There is an unbelievable amount of guff in this article. 132.229.165.88 - trading factories are not imperial posessions. Most of this list belongs in the Dutch East India Company or Dutch West India Company articles. Certainly the trading posts in Thailand and Vietnam don't belong here. Gsd2000 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dutch "Empire"

To the person above who disputes the usage of the term Dutch "Empire", renowned historian Charles R. Boxer wrote a book entitled ["The Dutch Seaborne Empire"]. Searching for the term "Dutch Empire" in Google returns 26,000 hits. Gsd2000 21:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Mania

I've spent several hours of my Saturday afternoon trying to get this article cleaned up. The three things I have done are (1) add a section about the controversy relating to the term "Dutch Empire". Though I myself find this very uncontroversial, I see that others disagree. An anonymous user had added a large and far too subjective chunk of text to the beginning of this article which I have condensed into this section. (2) I moved all the Dutch company trading posts to their own page. It was getting very long, and cluttering up the article. (3) I have tried to start restructuring the bona fide Dutch possessions into more meaningful sections - Far East, New Netherland, South America, South Africa etc, such that the text can become more fleshed out, rather than simply being a list. Gsd2000 00:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map inacuracies

Whoever drew that map did not know what he was doing.

- The area showed in Indonesia was never completely held by the VOC, as the map seems to claim. Their controll did not extend much beyond Java and the Moluccas.

- To my fairly certain knowledge the Netherlands never held any part of what is today Germany, the map seems to claim otherwise. Am i mistaken? did the Netherlands hold part of Ostfriesland?

- Deshima is indeed shown on the wrong island.

- There was never a permamenent Dutch settlment, not even a trading post, in Kanton. Although some traders might have been permanently present in (Portugese) Macauo.

- When did we ever colonise New Zealand?

- I have severe doubts about the extent of the Cape Colony but i cannot check right now. Some of the other African and American bits look suspicious to me but someone more familiar then me with that part of Dutch history would have to check on that. Zotlan 21:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This map shows territories controlled by the Dutch at any time, the colour coding shows territories that originated from a particular VOC (hence the Indonesia colouring). I removed Germany, moved Deshima to the right island, removed Macao, removed New Zealand. I also fixed colouring of Malay peninsula and Formosa - Dutch control never extended outside Melaka and Fort Zeelandia respectively. Gsd2000 02:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you do the same with inland (former British-) Guyana? Delete it? The Dutch only went into the Surinam jungle. Boudewijn8 17:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
"the colour coding shows territories that originated from a particular VOC (hence the Indonesia colouring)" My point was that the VOC never controlled all of what is now Indonesia. Most of those areas did not become Dutch untill the latter half of the 19th century. The VOC was abolished on the first day of 1800.
Yes but the Netherlands did control all of Indonesia. This article is about the Dutch Empire from start to end. Not just the VOC. My point is that control of all of Indonesia originated from control of parts of it by the VOC. Gsd2000 12:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Concerning Ostfriesland; I see where this comes from. During the first half of the eighty years war, the dutch states-general and the Nassau family vied for control over this part of the Holy Roman Empire. The area may be considered as being within the dutch sphere of influence at the beginning of the seventeenth century. For Dutch speaking people, see: http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/vran006gren01_01/vran006gren01_01_0006.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.181.190 (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To the person ...

To the person who insists on adding their POV to this article about the term 'Empire', but who during the discussion luckily has abandoned anonymity

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I have never seen the debate that your edits suggest is such a matter of contention, and as I pointed out above, "renowned historian Charles R. Boxer wrote a book entitled ["The Dutch Seaborne Empire"]. Searching for the term "Dutch Empire" in Google returns 26,000 hits.". Also, try searching for "Dutch Empire" in books.google.com: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22dutch+empire%22 and see all the books that refer to this without the controversy you portray. You are quibbling over nomenclature that is pretty commonplace, and this article is not a soapbox for your views, or a staging post for an essay by you on the subject.

Answer: This is absolutely not an original thought. It is a thought based on several years of study of colonial history. For discussions on colonialism, the nature of the Dutch Empire, the tendency of Dutch historians to avoid the term "Empire", I can refer you to books written by Maarten Kuitenbrouwer, and many more (want a list?).
Actually, yes, I would be interested in a list. If possible, a few apt quotes would provide substance to your argument. Gsd2000 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
See point on Dutch language articles below. Boudewijn8 17:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Although it is nowadays more accepted to speak about the Dutch Empire, many do only so by comparing it with the other Empires with whom it shared a lot. But the Dutch seldomly referred to it as an 'Empire' (compare with article on Belgian Empire, the same idea), but as a the colonial part of the kingdom. There was no emperor, like the German Wilhelm II, the French Napoleon III, or even Queen Victoria, the Empress of India. The Dutch king was a king. I understand the pragmatic concept of using the word "Empire", but I only labelled it "problematic", also wanting to show the problematic aspect of "Dutch" before the 1800s. I want to refer to books written by Knippenberg en De Pater, Van Sas and many others.
Hold on, the British Empire predates usage of the term Empress of India, and anyway India was only part of the British Empire, and Queen Victoria was Empress of India, not Empress of the British Empire. The King and President of Portugal and the President of France were not Emporers but Portugal and France had Empires. Japan has an Emporer but is no longer an Empire. You can have one without the other. I notice that your sources are all Dutch. I fully accept that the Dutch may have never really referred to their possessions as the "Dutch Empire" and may prefer the term "Nederlandse koloniën", but I do not accept that there is a debate amongst English language historians about use of the title, or use of the term "Dutch" to describe your ancestors before a certain date (unless you can provide English language texts proving the contrary). Gsd2000 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
As I repeat, I label it "problematic". I do not say I do not want to use it. I agree that the term Empire should be maintained to describe the Dutch colonies, for the sake of making comparative history possible. In the Dutch language, indeed, I can give you a list, but I agree that this would not help you very much convincing you of a debate between "english language historians". I have added an extra work written by H. L. Wesseling in the article, with an essay about the character of Dutch imperialism. I think it is ironic in what kind of a position I am now in. In the Netherlands I would defend the use of the term Empire for the period 1800-1975, for I feel that many Dutch are too much focused (like the Americans and Belgians) to name their Empire just "colonies". But before 1800, since it was not the Dutch government governing the colonies and since Dutchness was not really something worth mentioning before the 1800s, I am seriously in doubt about using the word Empire to describe the early phase. It is benefit of hindsight-history. It is ironic, however, that one is now accusing me of dislabelling the Dutch colonial history of the term 'Empire'. I merely -I cannot stress this too much- want to say, that it is a highly problematic term. Boudewijn8 17:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Boxer wrote his book a long time ago and is considered out-dated! But I understand your comments on my piece being to much essayistic. But please consider opening the article with some sentences about the nature of Empire, or refer the reader in the opening sentences (as I had done) to the section in the end. It does not help just to censure everything I wrote. We do not want a game of articles being placed in and placed out. I expect a more generous treatment of this issue. For now I will leave it to you to do so, since you do not like others to mingle in 'your' article.
I in no way consider this to be 'my' article. It's everyone's article. I was concerned by an anonymous user injecting what I considered to be too much content devoted to arguing one side of a debate that my own reading of European colonial histories suggests is really a non-debate. Gsd2000 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
You are right about being upset by the injection of too much info by an anonymous user. That is why I have registered now. Boudewijn8 17:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
But I will "be back" soon. To keep you from spending all your saturdays to writing and censuring this article, it is wiser to give other people more space. It is not "your" article. It is not "your empire".
Thankyou for pointing out that it is not my empire. I was seriously under the impression that I owned territories abroad from the late 1500s to 1975 for a moment there. Gsd2000 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not do as if you are not familiar with irony. Boudewijn8 17:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not even "my empire", even considering that my nationality (dutch) at least might me more claim to write about it than yours (english) (but luckily it does not).
The fact that you say this worries me, for two reasons. (1) no serious academic would even hint at the possibility that nationals are better placed to write about their own nation's history than foreigners are. (2) you mention your nationality is Dutch, and that you are quibbling over usage of the term "Dutch Empire" to describe your own country's overseas possessions smacks exactly like the repeated comments on the American Empire (term) page. Go see for yourself the Americans who deny that America ever had an empire. Furthermore, have you considered that I am a native English speaker, this is the English Wikipedia, "Dutch Empire" are English terms, and therefore I might be more qualified than you to write about it? NB I am only replying in kind to illustrate the childishness of your argument - this is not a thought that I am seriously entertaining. Gsd2000 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hasn't it occurred to you that the sentence "but luckily it does not" illustrates that my 'childish' argument is not a thought I am seriously entertaining as well? So, do not let it worry you then. I agree that this is maybe the weakest point of my argument. It is an argument of "Look, I do not mean it, but I am saying it, so, still, I remind you of it". But I see, that you have done the same in your answer. But you are right on this point. I can imagine it must be hard for you that the language of your country has become a global language and therefore can be 'claimed' by many more people than just Americans, English and Commonwealth people. Euro-english has become a new language and within 100 years will develop into a literary language maybe. Boudewijn8 17:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
And stop referring to my article as being "subjective" or "POV". It is highly irritating. Your attributions are more subjective than mine; full objectivity is nonsense, but I at least tried to introduce the contemporary (!) debate.
At least I am keeping my POV to the talk page where it belongs. Yours is spilling out onto the article. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION PAGE. You are blind if you cannot see that your edits were POV. You were turning a factual article about Dutch colonial possessions into an essay arguing (ie POV) that usage of the term "Empire" is "problematic". I frankly do not care how irritated you get at me labelling your edits as POV, and I will continue to do so as long as your edits are POV. Gsd2000 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
As stated, your article is not factual as well. I do not think it is wise not to be concerned by people being irritated. Irritated people can do a lot of havoc to wikipedia and I think that being irritated should be avoided by people like me, but that the behaviour of people "guarding" certain lemmas should also be more focused on appeasing critics instead of damning them. For, example, I do not feel the need to stress my point with capitals and bold letters. That worries me! Have I irritated you? That has not been my intention. Boudewijn8 17:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Your quotation of Boxer (who is considered quite old-fashioned, at least in the Netherlands, and is not taught at university anymore) is not the end of the discussion. Facts are not simply facts. But I know, this is an encyclopedia, and not a post-modern essay. I know that, but at least acknowledge the existence of debates. Like the great Dutch historian Pieter Geyl wrote: "history is a discussion without an end."

Boudewijn8 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Boxer remains to this day an authority on the history of Portuguese activities in the Far East, especially Macao. Gsd2000 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Read again: "Portuguese". This lemma is about ...? This argument is fallacious because it suggest that books remain up-to-date as long its author is still considered an authority in other terrains. Boudewijn8 17:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, a lot of my irritation was due to the fact that, despite me before putting my reasoning on the talk page, you never contributed to it, simply reverting large chunks of the article using an anonymous IP address. I am pleased to see that you have now contributed to the debate. Gsd2000 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. As far as I can see, you were right on two points: my being anonymous at first stage, and my argument-which-was-not-an-argument about the Dutch nationality of the author of the lemma. My task is to look for a nice quote for you on the problems of the term Empire and your task is to appease the critics. It works better in the long term, I think. Within a few years many more Dutch people (it is I think the 6th language in Wikipedia, although it will not stay that way I think (other languages growing faster)) will realise that there is also an English wikipedia-site and they will feel entitled to change everything they see that is 'wrong' in the lemmas on 'their' history. Or worse, they read this site and do not change it and think the information is true and that the Dutch should be the truthful heirs to the places listed above. You know, one of the reasons that many university-based Dutch and Belgians do not like to name their colonial possessions an 'Empire', is because they feel guilty about it and do not want to claim past 'mastery' of such a large group of people or see it as an anomaly -such small countries!- . In that way they differ from the Americans who do not think of their possessions as an 'Empire' because they see themselves wrongly as champions of anticolonialism (but one should look at the history of the Philippines ;-) ). For the English and the French the aspect of Empire is much more strongly developed in the education curricula. They still are in charge of remnants of it today (forgetting the 6 small islands that are still part of the Dutch kingdom) or watered-down institutions like the Commonwealth and the Francophone. National agency in France and England have longer histories than those in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany or Italy. Well, to end the debate, I think it is therefore better if we both co-operate in writing a text which is unproblematic to both Dutch as English language readers, although that does not mean "keep out the truth if it hurts", but to make it more true than it is now, to both English and Dutch and the rest (Indonesians, Americans, Norwegians, Irish etc...) Truth and diplomacy are better bedfellows than you think. Boudewijn8 17:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
So how did the Dutch refer to their overseas possessions? Why don't you just add a simple statement in the "debate" section stating that the Dutch never referred to it as an Empire (if that is really the case), and leave it at that? It doesn't need a huge section on the subject, because it is not the main point of the article, though reflection on how the empire was viewed by inhabitants of the mother country, both past and present, is fair game. And whilst I agree with you that using the term "Dutch" can be "problematic" before a certain date, it is - for better or for worse - the way English speakers describe your countrymen. You might be interested to learn that the Japanese call the whole of the United Kingdom "igirisu", or "England". But that is what they say, and a discussion in Japanese on "igirisu" should not be clouded by a side debate aboout the fact that it is technically incorrect. Gsd2000 18:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that you come up with the Japanese. Do you know that for a long period, during the seventeenth till nineteenth centuries, the word for science in Japan was "rangaku", which means "dutch studies" or something close to that, since it were the Dutch (sometimes via German scholars) who introduced Japan to Western science and medicine, being the only nation (except for the Chinese) being allowed to trade with isolationist Japan? Indeed, it is technically incorrect, to honour the Dutch with all that has been written about science and technology in that age. Another comparison: in England and the rest of Europe everyone names the Netherlands "Holland". Holland, technically is only a small part (only two provinces) of the Netherlands. But we ourselves use Holland as well to describe the nation. Spanish people used to call this country Flanders -when the Low countries were dominated by the county of Flanders, not a part of the Netherlands (or Holland) anymore-, so, there is a lot going on with terminology. But one can conclude two things: 1) if the Japanese are 'wrong' about the UK, or we are all 'wrong' about Holland, should we use it as an excuse to be wrong about everything else as well? 2) Say, we accept that "igirisu" and "Holland" are correct now, we are dealing with history. What is correct now, might be wrong in the past. 3) In the end it is not "dutch" or even "empire" I want to make problematic, but "dutch empire". That is something different, although problematizing "dutch" can be a way of beginning to problematize "dutch empire". But, it is not very wise to do this too much. Then I should change all wiki-articles on all nations here. The same goes for many other countries. What is a nation, one can ask. What is a nation's empire? But, you are right, that should not be included in the article. Boudewijn8 19:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] on Google

One should not use google to prove that the Dutch Empire exists. First, since today there must be some 26,001 hits on "Dutch Empire", this page being the extra one. Compare this one: "Limburg Empire", 17 hits. "Cambridge Empire" 526 hits.

Well, I beg to differ. I hardly consider 17 or even 526 hits on the whole internet to be a substantial number. It's hard to argue with 26,000 though. I also suggest you read Google_test. But anyway, now that Google has scanned in the text of many books in books.google.com, you can do a very rapid search yourself and see the huge number of books that use this term without the anxiety it so obviously causes you. Gsd2000 23:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. But there is no Cambridge Empire. Why 526 hits? If there is a debate on the usage of the term "Dutch Empire", I would understand that there are 26.000 hits. You also would get al the hits "there is no Dutch Empire" with your search. SO, it is no proof. I cannot falsify your statement with the counter search "no Dutch Empire", since "no Cambridge Empire" would also result in less or no hits.Boudewijn8 17:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I do agree with your logic there, if you only go by the number of hits. But if you read some of the text of the hits (particularly in books.google.com) you will see that the context in which the term is used is as a way of describing the Dutch overseas colonial possessions, in the same manner that this article does. I could not find any reference to a English language debate around usage of the term. Gsd2000 17:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
And I have read the article on google. Clever article, pointing out that to use google can be higly problematic, and it certainly does not devaluate my critical assessment of your google-supported evidence. ;-) Boudewijn8 17:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
What about books.google.com, where one is searching published books? That is no different to going into a library and reading the books themselves, except it is a million times faster and far easier to accomplish from the comfort of one's living room. Gsd2000 17:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of the fast growing online library of books.google and its immense opening-up capacities, but still, one needs to balance it with "real libraries". In that (or one should be able to browse through the online books only possible when permitted by the publishers (not often is this the case)) one is able to use the so-called "snowball method": browsing pages of a book, looking at footnotes, sources, references, looking up the book referred to, browse through the pages of another book. Searching with keywords should not be the only thing to do. Also, sometimes you never know that there is a debate going on, even in the English language, on another page, in another article in the same book in which you have found the "proof"! Imagine, I am writing an essay in which I state: "In contrary to the Cambridge scholar Gsd2000, I do not believe that the Dutch had an Empire from the 1600s till recent.", tell me, how are you going to find this in google? Your answer has not challenged this basic assumption of my paragraphs above. Boudewijn8
Fair points. I agree that I cannot prove that no English language book exists that criticises this term for the reasons you mentioned above, unless we both sit down together and read every single word of every single book ever published in English! The onus is on you to find and cite one :) NB I realise that there are Nederlands authors who debate this term who you have cited above, but we're talking about authors writing in Engels here. I do have a couple of shelves worth of books on European empires, and I have never seen this mentioned. Gsd2000 01:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] on Amsterdam and The Hague

Amsterdam is the ceremonial capital and the largest city of the Netherlands. The government seat is in The Hague, however. When using cities to describe the actions of the government, The Hague is always used.

[edit] Belgium

I think it's ridiculous to add Belgium in an article about the Dutch empire. The United Kingdom of the Netherlands was a merger of the Kingdom of the Netherlands with the Southern Netherlands (present day Belgium). The Belgian population was larger than the Dutch one, half of the time the capital was in Brussels, the parliament spoke French etc etc. It was the start of a new country.

[edit] Borneo

Maybe I'm being blind, but there doesn't appear to be any mention of Dutch Borneo (now Kalimantan) here. Or have I got it massively wrong? 86.133.246.224 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronological theme

I'm surverying various states and empires across global history, and I've just got to remark on the structure of this article. As it stands, it's difficult to easily find sections describing the origin, high water marks, and dissolution of the various organizations that collectively equal the Dutch Empire. Rather, overall presentation is of a geographic nature, which is awkward given the French colonial empires, Russian Empire, and others, but I think the Italian Empire might offer the most parallels for the Dutch Empire.

And rather than leave this talk page as my only edit, I'll just be bold and rearrange some stuff and see where it leads.... I'd put a short chrono-summary of events at the Colonies section stub, but I'm not familiar, eloquent, or sourceful enough. Xaxafrad 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It was actually a lot lot worse, about a year ago. The article was essentially a list [1]. Gsd2000 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Empire Infobox

It has a typo: Artic instead of Arctic. Not sure who created the box and I'm not sure how to edit it either. ArchonMeld 22:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "colonialvoyage" website

Use of "colonialvoyage" website as a reference and changes to the Dutch Empire map - message for Red4tribe

This message is directed at User:Red4tribe who has been making some changes recently. This article is already severely lacking in sources. Use of this website [2] is not an acceptable source. Who is Marco Ramerini? Where did he get his information from? Who peer reviewed it? All you need to put information on the internet is a computer and a web hosting service. However, Wikipedia has more stringent controls than that, so any unsourced additions to this article without sources will be reverted immediately by me as per WP:NOR.

The same applies to the map. Unless reputable sources can be provided for the changes that confirm that they are accurate (which I sincerely doubt - the Dutch did not ever rule half of southern Iran or the area covered by French Guiana) they are not permitted per WP:NOR.

Finally, let's be clear that whilst some trading factories may have led to the establishment of colonies, they are not the same thing as a colony: rather, they are the 1600 equivalent of an American company opening up an outlet in, say, China. The Dutch did not have colonies or an empire in Vietnam (to choose that as an example from the latest map change). Any map or text which shows otherwise is misleading, and again - unless a reputable source can be provided showing a map of the "Dutch Empire" with it coloured in, the map will be reverted.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


The references for Iran and the Persian Gulf are listed underneath. This is a reliable source. Yes, many of these places were trading posts, but why should they not be listed on the map? The Dutch had French Guiana from 1652-1660 I believe. Could be a little off but it was around that time period. The site does list sources. You missed them. Also, there are seperate pages on the Dutch were he lists where he got all of his information from. This is 1000% reliable. http://www.colonialvoyage.com/NlpoAsArabia.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAmerica.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAsia.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDOceania.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAfrica.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioD.html
(Red4tribe (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

That is still not acceptable to the standards of Wikipedia. Who validated the references he cites, or the fact that he has cited them correctly? I have reverted again, and will be extremely stubborn about this, I can promise you. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not acceptable to the standards of wikipedia? That makes absolutley no sense. He has every reference, for every fact that he listed, how is that not acceptable? Explain yourself. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

Have you gone through each reference and checked it yourself? If not, you are assuming that he has read them correctly and interpreted them correctly. If you have, then for each change you make, list the reference and the page so it can be verified by others (including me). Putting as a reference an unverified and non-peer reviewed website that lists other references is not acceptable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That is absolutley ridiculous. It is impossible to go through and read every reference that everyone has ever made. You are pretty much saying that no reference on the internet is reliable because they may have interperated something incorrectly. This is a reliable reference. Leave it the way it is. If you are so worried about it possibly being wrong, go through and read them yourself. You have still yet to give me a good reason why you are reverting the page. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

The onus is on the person adding information to cite sources - ie the onus is on YOU not me. As I have now exceeded the WP:3RR rule, I am not going to revert again for now. However, this is not the last of this matter, I will attempt to engage the views of others active in the colonialism space. I can assure you that "It is impossible to go through and read every reference that everyone has ever made." is not how Wikipedia works. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If that is honestly how you believe wikipedia works, you have no idea how it works. Anyways this is done for now, until we get the view of others. (Red4tribe (talk))

[edit] Request For Comment: Map

Red4tribe has made numerous alterations to the long-standing Dutch Empire map on this article. Original version [3]; his new version [4]. His "source" for this is the http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ website, which I view to be an unacceptable source because it has not been peer reviewed - user himself says that he "does not have time" to read all the sources. His highly dubious changes are in:

  • Vietnam
  • Iran
  • Burma
  • Thailand
  • Present-day borders of French Guiana
  • Nova Scotia
  • Macau

and a few more. I put it to other editors that Red4tribe needs to provide sources that specifically say that the "Dutch Empire" contained these territories. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Here is where my information has come from.

1. www.colonialvoyage.com/

A self-published website, not in accordance with WP:V The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 05:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Here is acadia or Nova Scotia, whatever you wish to call it. http://www.blupete.com/Hist/NovaScotiaBk1/Part1/Ch10.htm

Again, self-published website, not in accordance with WP:V Need to produce a map or text saying that Nova Scotia or Acadia ever had a "Dutch colony". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 05:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

3. I don't know if any of you know dutch but if you do here is a good site. http://www.voc-kenniscentrum.nl/

4. It states here on wikipedia that French Guiana was briefly dutch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_French_Guiana and here http://www.iexplore.com/dmap/French+Guiana/History

Cannot use another WP page as a reference, as per WP:V. Author and their credentials are unknown for "iexplore.com", which is not a reputable source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 05:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

5. Talks about Dutch trading posts in Vietnam http://www.tanap.net/content/universities/main_asia.cfm

Dutch had trading posts in Vietnam, but what is the source for the size and location of the areas that you have coloured on the map? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 05:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

6. The dutch never owned macau, but they did own something in that area so you may have misread it. Here is something on them in China and Singapore http://countrystudies.us/singapore/4.htm

That reference makes absolutely no statement about Dutch colonies in China. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 05:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

7. The rest should be listed on the colonial voyage site, the first link. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

Again, a self-published website, not in accordance with WP:V The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 05:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have three problems with what you have done here.
First, your sources are a bunch of websites, which have not been peer reviewed, and many of which do not even list where they got their information from. Who wrote the travel website "iexplore.com"? Who is "blupete"? What is their area of expertise and what are their credentials? What sources did they use, if any? Did they misinterpret them? If you had provided a reference from C. R. Boxer, that would be reputable, because he was an established and respected historian, but who the hell is "Blu Pete" and why should I or anyone else believe him?
Second, this is an article on The Dutch Empire. Europeans were present in a lot of places during the age of imperialism. However, that does not mean that the academic consensus or rule is to define empires and colonies as including those places where Europeans were. For example, the English had trading factories in present-day Indonesia, and indeed, the British administered the Dutch East Indies during the Napoleonic wars. Many nations had factories in Canton, and concessions in Shanghai. However, you do not see maps of British imperial possessions showing these places as British, or maps of the Belgian Empire showing part of Shanghai as Belgian. Unless you can produce (again, reputable) sources or maps that explicitly say or show in a map that "X was part of the Dutch Empire", you should not be adding them to a map of "the Dutch Empire", because you are engaging in original research and synthesis if you conclude from "the Dutch occupied place X" that "X was part of the Dutch Empire".
Third, the Dutch did have some factories in present-day Thailand, Vietnam, Iran. Even if for the sake of argument we accept that these factories formed part of "the Dutch Empire" (however, as per point 2 - you need to provide evidence that they are considered by historians to), on what basis did you shade those exact areas on the map? On what basis did you shade several thousand square miles of Persia with those specific areas as Dutch? Why didn't you shade a little bit more, or less? You have taken words that you have read, and you have arbitrarily and unilaterally turned them into maps. That is pure original research on your part.
I would also like to deal with one of your "sources" specifcally. You gave this page [5] as a reference for you shading the coastline of China, in the vicinity of Hong Kong or Macau, and you wrote "The dutch never owned macau, but they did own something in that area so you may have misread it.". Now, I know full well that your shading of this region of China is factually incorrect, but I would like to know from you exactly what sentence in this article you think justifies you in shading the coast of China?

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the macau this is where I got the area to shade in from. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Nederlandsekoloni%C3%ABn.PNG You seem to be ignoring the fact that Colonial Voyage does list lis where they got every single piece of information from? What is wrong with that? Why do references need to have references, references to satisfy you? These other sites, while not as detailed, why do you continue to ignore them? Becuase the person who wrote them is not well known? Maybe this is a news flash, but you don't have to be well known to have knowledge, or look in a book. My main point here is, how can you honestly expect me to buy 150 books, fly to musuems in foriegen countries, trace back newspaper articles from the 1600's, all just to put a few paragraphs and a map up on a website? I'd be willing to bet(not that I'm going to go back and look) that at some point since you joined wikipedia you have used a regular old website as a reference. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Please read the Wikpiedia policy (ie it is not optional) at WP:NOR. Here is the most important section, and I have emphasised the most important bits of it:
Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material. However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research; see below.
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable."
These websites that you have provided are self published, which is why I say that they are not a reputable source. Also, you should know that you cannot use material on Wikipedia as a reference, because that is circular. Oh, and the only websites I have used as references have been those of newspapers (as per the policy above). I do actually have an extensive personal library on European colonialism, which is what I use for my contributions to WP. But FYI, you can find a lot of scanned books online at books.google.com or amazon.com.
Finally, until this is resolved, I really think that you should cease adding your map to the various articles on Dutch colonialism. Remember that the previous map was around for a long time. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 04:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the map altogether until this is resolved - I suggest that is the best solution at the moment. In the meantime, I suggest you have a good, long hard read of WP:V because none of the personally published websites that you have provided meet Wikpiedia's policy criteria for reputable sources. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 04:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that got immediately reverted. So I have now added a totall-disputed tag to the map box. Hopefully others will soon contribute their thoughts. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 05:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to make a new map. As for why I made a new one here are my reasons:

The map misses New York, it shades in south of New York, which was in their control too, but it misses New Amsterdam.

French Guiania, briefly the Dutch held the colony

South Africa, I have looked at other maps of the Dutch colony in South Africa and what was there was no where near what it was.

Nova Scotia, the dutch had a colony there in 1673 and 1674, the map misses that

The map misses many forts and trading posts that they had as well.

(Red4tribe (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Red4tribe, overall I have to agree with the The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick! Your sources are not credible, and, not denying your good faith, you map seem just like one more attempt, as we have seen in other empire maps, to, artificially and without proper credible sources, enhance the areas of the Dutch Empire. Please, stop these futile attemps, unless heavely backed up by several proper academic sources. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Red4tribe, we need to work something out here between ourselves as this is getting ridiculous, on both sides. I propose the following compromise:

1. Until we get this resolved, remove the map altogether.

2. In the same way that there are British Empire and French Empire (textual accounts of the history of the empire, which does not attempt to exhaustively list every single territory held) and Evolution of the British Empire and Evolution of the French Empire (chronological lists which do), I propose we do the same for the Dutch. Much of what you are doing would belong at Evolution of the Dutch Empire, whilst I am in the middle of preparing an account of the Dutch Empire more akin with the other empire articles.

3. Distinguish "trading factories" (of which the Dutch had many) and "colonies", and do not show at all territories only fleetingly held or captured during war. To suggest that Nova Scotia was ever a "Dutch colony" is misleading in the extreme. Perhaps trading factories could be displayed with a marker such as a square, circle or a triangle.

4. For every addition to the map, provide a reputable source. I can help you with that, I do have a large collection of books at home. However, you really cannot use those personally published websites as references, even if they list references. You cannot use a map uploaded to the Dutch Wikipedia as a reference. which you admitted that you did above. Finally, you cannot say your reason for inclusion is that "a map I saw had such and such". There are stringent rules about this at WP:V.

Whilst I hope that we can work this out amicably, even if we have gotten off to a very bad start, I am not prepared to have a misleading map on the page that you have drawn based on your own original research or self-published, personal websites. I hope Ogre's contribution also makes you see that this is not just "me", it is how Wikipedia works.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Red4tribe. Let us try and resolve this issue in a civilized manner, and not go into an edit war. By the way, you have now uploaded 2 maps: Image:Dutch Empire 4.png and Image:Dutch Empire new.PNG. There is no need for that, as you can upload a new version of a previously uploaded file. Please, do not multiply the number of maps. The Ogre (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at the new map I made? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG (Red4tribe (talk))

By the way also, the reason your source is not credible is at at WP:SPS. The Ogre (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Red4tribe, the original issue still stands: (a) it is misleading (your map suggests that the Dutch had "colonies" in Chile, Canada, China, the middle of Iran, Nicaragua? Then why does C.R. Boxer, in the Dutch Seaborne Empire in [6] make no mention of them?) and (b) you are engaging in WP:OR by deciding yourself what the "Dutch Empire" constituted, based on your reading of sources which I have already pointed out do not meet the criteria of WP:RSS. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

They are not colonies. The square=trading post or factory. If you have not noticed the site has every reference listed where they got their information from. (Red4tribe (talk))

Uggggghhhh! Wikipedia does not work this way. You cannot delegate the responsibility of fact checking to an external individual, whose credibility has not been established. You are making the very big assumption that he has (a) read the sources (b) read them correctly (c) read enough of them to determine that what he is saying is the consensus. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

well, then how can I go back and find out if they read everything correctly without having to buy 200 books? (Red4tribe (talk))

[edit] Acadia

As far as I can tell the only support for Acadia (Nova Scotia) being part of the Dutch Empire is this from the bluepete site.

...a Dutch force under Captain Juriaen Aernouts [captured], the fort at Penobscot [...]; the Dutch raider then continued up the coast and ... put an end to the French operations at Jemseg which was under the command of Joibert. Aernouts declared all that he had conquered to be New Holland, and, promptly sailed away with his French prisoners. [...] When Captain Aernouts sailed away from Acadia he left no Dutchman behind. [...] In 1676, Castin reoccupied Pentagoet.

So a raiding captain arrives, conquers a fort and sails away leaving nobody behind. That certainly does not make Nova Scotia a part of the Dutch Empire. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In 1674 during the 3rd-Anglo-Dutch war the dutch very briefly established a colony on Acadia. At the end of the war it was taken away in the treaty. (Red4tribe (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

look at the bottom of this page. http://www.colonialvoyage.com/NLpoAmNord.html

It was in New Brunswick. (Red4tribe (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

The Dutch never held any land in Nova Scotia, which would have consisted of New Bruswick, PEI, and Modern Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia was solely a British and French battlefield. Dutch ships may have landed, citizens may have lived there but in no way was it in the Dutch Empire. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Here bottom right side

http://books.google.com/books?id=TNWKZBRZEwAC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=dutch+acadia&source=web&ots=a_XAaL79VQ&sig=tfAeUav1XabhbGHfmBDNVUjbGUw&hl=en (Red4tribe (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Well done for looking up reputable sources and providing them when challenged: this is how WP is supposed to work and now we can have a proper discussion. Here is another that confirms the Dutch captured Acadia briefly in 1674 [7]. I don't think anyone would dispute this. However, I agree with DJ Clayworth that this is a long, long way from saying that "Acadia was part of the Dutch Empire". I think you are engaging in synthesis by claiming it to be so. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Some additional sources do exist, although the captain's name appears to have been Jurriaen Aernoutsz (or at least that's the spelling under which he's listed in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography.) But the situation is complicated and doesn't really support actually adding Acadia to the Dutch Empire map — Aernoutsz captured a couple of forts in Acadia (specifically Pentagoët and Jemseg) and declared the whole of the territory to be "New Holland", but after he sailed away in search of new Dutch settlers the forts were almost immediately sacked again by New Englanders who were leery of Dutch colonial expansion. The Dutch certainly appeared to consider Acadia part of the Dutch Empire for a few more years, but they never made any attempt to formally reassert Dutch control or rule over the region. They did appoint a colonial governor, Cornelius Van Steenwyk, but this was essentially a hollow designation as the Dutch still didn't actually have effective control over the territory. In practice, the French still had actual sovereignty and day-to-day control of the region the whole time. So it was certainly part of the Dutch Empire on paper, but they never actually managed to take possession of it. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. On paper, Spain claimed the whole of the Americas. You don't see maps of the Spanish Empire with Canada coloured in though. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That is true, however, the Spanish never occupied ,lets say Quebec. the Dutch did occupy Acadia. (Red4tribe (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC))


http://books.google.com/books?id=w4IBAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA242&dq=Dutch+empire+Conquest+of+Acadie&ei=YYUTSOjWMI3ssQPDgcmXCA#PPA127,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=DL8MAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA330&dq=Cornelis+Steenwyck,+Dutch+Governor+of+Acadie&ei=vIUTSL38FJu4sgP-8u2hCA

(Red4tribe (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

The Dutch occupied Acadia for only a couple of months, and even then Aernoutsz never really had control of the capital of Acadia, or of most of its territory — so in reality, by declaring Dutch possession of Acadia as a whole he was kind of overplaying his actual hand. He had two forts. That's all. Acadia was never really part of the Dutch Empire in any significant way — it was really just a quirky little footnote, worth noting in the article but never a Dutch possession in enough of a meaningful way to actually be coloured as such on the map. Our article on the History of the Acadians, in fact, didn't even mention the Aernoutsz occupation until I added it just now. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I believe those forts should be shaded in on the map. The map is what was held by the Dutch at various times in history,and no matter how brief, it was at one time held by the Dutch. Of course they did not own all of Acadia or really have control of much outside a few forts, you are correct in saying that. (Red4tribe (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

In a different colour than core possessions of the empire, sure. But not in the same colour. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

On the Dutch wikipedia they have a whole article on it.http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlands_Acadi%C3%AB (Red4tribe (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

That is an idea. Maybe we should label different colors for core possessions, and another for trading posts, and another for major possessions(Indonesia, Suriname, etc. (Red4tribe (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

I am going to repeat this. Nova Scotia was never under serious dutch rule. I am Nova Scotian and I can tell you this on great authority. The Spainish and Portugese had settlements in Eastren Canada for fishing, neither of these empires claim any part of Canada as their former empire. British Columbia is believed to have been discovered by a Spainish sailor, yet not an empire possession. I actually think it is somewhat ridiculous to assert the claim furhter because even the sources you have cite that any occupation was limited at best. As a member of the Nova Scotia Wikipedia project, I will have to ask you to remove Nova Scotia from the map as soon as possible. Thank you. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that Dutch Acadie should not be included on the map since it was never effectively held, there should be at least some mention of it (which is currently lacking) in this article and in “Dutch colonization of the Americas”, in its appropriate circumstance and context, to provide information to readers. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Puerto Rico

In a similar vein, San Juan in Puerto Rico was besieged by the Dutch West India Company for five weeks in 1625 (A Brief History of the Caribbean: From the Arawak and the Carib to the Present (Paperback), by Jan Rogozinski ([8], p63) yet it is coloured on the proposed map. To suggest that it was a Dutch colony because of this is preposterous. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] French Guiana

This states that French guiana was captured by the Dutch.

http://books.google.com/books?id=gWdDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA63&dq=French+guiana+captured+dutch&ei=IGcTSKCCKIjgsQO5ufWUCA#PPA71,M1

Again, a very brief military occupation. Noone would dispute this. However, what is disputed is labelling it as a "Dutch colony" or part of the "Dutch Empire". The source you have listed does not make this claim - it would be WP:SYN for you to do so. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If the territory is occupied by the Dutch, that would make it part of the dutch empire. As the book is about the British French and Dutch empires. I am going to continue to look but I believe this is enough evidence to shade it in on the map as well as acadia. (Red4tribe (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/219071/French-Guiana

This says that the dutch occupied Cayenne from 1664-1676.

(Red4tribe (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

OK, but you shaded the whole of present-day French Guiana. On what basis did you draw a map saying that the Dutch occupied nothing more, and nothing less, than the exact area covered by present-day French Guiana, when the borders were not finalised until two hundred and fifty years later? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chile

It is true that the Spanish enclave of Valdivia was briefly dutch in 1643. About Chiloé Island im not sure but the site colonialvoyage.com [9] mentions Chiloé as being occupated by WIC and VOC. See Valdivia, Chile#History for more info.
About the new map Image:DutchEmpire7.png and the article Evolution of the Dutch Empire I would like to know the diference between a trading post and a colony.

[edit] Corrections to the map

In the map Image:DutchEmpire7.png:

  • Valdivia, Chile should coloured a blue point as it was only briefly under Duch occupation (less than one year).
  • Chiloé Archipelago should not be coloured green or blue because it was only pillaged by Duch. Castro in Chiloe was destroyed in 1600 by the Duch corsair Sebastian de Cordes, the Spilberg visited Chiloe and destroyed Carelmapu in 1615, and then at last Hendrick Brouwers expedition that pillaged Chiloé.
  • There wasnt any Duch trading post in Patagonia or in Chile. Dentren | Talk 15:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] China

Dutch trading posts in China http://books.google.com/books?id=PF8O7SBnd4sC&pg=PA20&dq=dutch+trading+posts+asia&ei=aWgTSLeWFo-AswOHk_meCA&sig=TZKVeaugJ5rd7F1qblcVYXTzy_Y

I'm sorry, I don't follow. The Dutch had a trading post on the island of Formosa, Fort Zeelandia. On what basis have you shaded those three dots on the coast of the Chinese mainland? [10] This reference certainly does not support that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iran

http://books.google.com/books?id=O4FFQjh-gr8C&pg=PA126&dq=dutch+trading+posts+persia&ei=vGgTSMzhKYKKswPp15iYCA&sig=fTILFrUxC6eUBIE5AVkJVuNwxDA

OK, so that establishes that the Dutch had a trading post at Isfahan. The reference does not say that Isfahan was part of the Dutch Empire. If the map clearly labels trading posts as trading posts, and not as colonies, that is fine by me, not sure what others think. Also, there are five more Iranian dots requiring sources - this reference only covers one of them. I presume you are withdrawing your claim that a large swathe of Iran should be coloured in as you drew here - [11] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my claim that the southern coast of Iran was Dutch. However, on the new map I made, there are trading posts shown as squares which I think would be a good solution. (Red4tribe (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

http://books.google.com/books?id=CdzFJIE7f5oC&pg=PA131&dq=dutch+qeshm&ei=7HsTSIHCFoPMsQOnnOSQCA&sig=NH3R0L10apr59cmLfiQ2vyp3pyE

http://books.google.com/books?id=B2iGAAAACAAJ&dq=dutch+qeshm&ei=7HsTSIHCFoPMsQOnnOSQCA

http://books.google.com/books?id=ivEPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA211&dq=Fort+Mosselstein&ei=Q3wTSKK1CoTitgOVosGYCA (in dutch) (Red4tribe (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

http://books.google.com/books?id=HQ5KbXYhEB8C&pg=PA95&dq=dutch+trading+posts+persia&ei=xXwTSKrkHZnstAOh_PidCA&sig=uhdW31zuYqH7vA7YwtWV4ZjjSs0 (Red4tribe (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

About a battle on an island off the coast of Iran http://books.google.com/books?id=5U0yECMV--wC&pg=PA155&dq=Het+Nederlands-Iraanse+Conflict+van+1645&ei=CYcTSLuGO43itAOG-qygCA&sig=4lBSFDq8Vw5gXGu5WFIM5fRjUUs (Red4tribe (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

This relates it to the empire http://books.google.com/books?id=dmDYLxcPDPoC&pg=PA21&dq=dutch+empire+persia&ei=6n0TSJnZL4HksQOwndCdCA&sig=7c1kL545Ck46ROiuQA_zdVZRMXk (Red4tribe (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

That last reference is a Lonely Planet book on Indonesia. Not only is it tenuous in the extreme to suggest that it supports your view that trading posts in Iran were part of the empire (nowhere does it say this), we do not need to stoop so low as to use a Lonely Planet book as a reference, let alone a Lonely Planet book that is about an entirely different country. Besides, one has to wonder about the quality of their writers when they get their information from "chicks" they were "dating" [12]. It would actually help if you could, as well as pasting the link, type in the text that you think supports your claim. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My point there is that it says "Dutch Empire" and "Persia". I'm not talking about Indonesia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red4tribe (talk • contribs)

(Let's assume for the moment that the history section of a Lonely Planet book on Indonesia is an acceptable source for a statement about Iran...) the writer mentions "Persia" in the context of Coen's grandiose plans for a trade (note, doesn't say empire), stretching from Japan to Persia. If you turn over the page, it then says "the grandiose plans failed". On the subject of failing, I fail to see how this supports you claiming that the Dutch Empire extended into Persia? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thailand

Talks about the effect of the dutch trading post had on smoking http://books.google.com/books?id=mM5bYb_uVcwC&pg=PA78&dq=dutch+trading+posts+thailand&ei=dGkTSLnbE5TQtgPOlcyPCA&sig=TpuMOtS0gjat7Q6-RShA_3gKYtg

For an excellent source for the Dutch (Dutch East India Company) Trading Post(!) in Ayutthaya Kingdom in 17th century see:
  • David K.Wyatt, Chris Baker, Dhiravat na Pombejra, Alfon van der Kraan: Van Vliet's Siam. Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai 2005, ISBN 974-9575-81-4 (Translation of 4 of Van Vliet's books with commentaries by the professors)
For Van Vliet see de:Jeremias Van Vliet. Also of interest:
  • Dirk Van Der Cruysse (Michael Smithies Transl.): Siam And The West - 1500-1700. Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai 2002, ISBN 974-7551-57-8 (Siam as seen by Portugese, Dutch, French diplomats and merchants)
--hdamm (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Trade of the Dutch at Siam http://books.google.com/books?id=Qqw1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA197&dq=Siam+And+The+West+dutch&ei=MXsTSKeyC6istAOnjuSPCA (Red4tribe (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Burma

Dutch merchants may have been there to Burma but there were never a military or administrative presence of Dutch in Burma. No historical or documented Dutch significance in the Burmese history have been observed. It's a strange map. --Kyaw 2003 (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


There were dutch trading posts in Burma. That is what I have shaded. (Red4tribe (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Dutch trading post in Burma http://books.google.com/books?id=GAXkISRinXkC&pg=PA45&dq=dutch+burmah+trading+post&ei=QnoTSMOtFZLAsQOxgqycCA&sig=mzY1nZGB9S36mj2bYn3GFw8c6U8#PPA45,M1

More http://books.google.com/books?id=GAXkISRinXkC&pg=PA45&dq=dutch+burmah+trading+post&ei=QnoTSMOtFZLAsQOxgqycCA&sig=mzY1nZGB9S36mj2bYn3GFw8c6U8#PPA50,M1 (Red4tribe (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

A Trading Post does not an empire make. (Does the presence of a Burmese embassy in Washington D.C. make that city a part of the Burmese empire?)--RegentsPark (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Honduraus

I dug up an old book of mine. Goslinga "The Dutch in the Caribbean and on the Wild Coast 1580 - 1680"

It talks about the Dutch in Trujillo in 1633.

It also says the Dutch were in control of the following from 1664-1676 in French Guinia

Post aan de Aprowaco, Post aan de Aprouak
Post aan de Wacogenive river
Mecoria Island
Cayenne
Post aan de Wiapoco

(Red4tribe (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

The Dutch were not in Trujillo. They "attacked and burned" it in 1643, according to the Historical Dictionary of European Imperialism [13] Big difference. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Angola

Talks about the Dutch stations and control on the coast of Angola http://books.google.com/books?id=dzI8C0Vka7IC&pg=PA57&dq=dutch+in+angola&ei=9okTSPKFJJ6OtgPn0JWbCA&sig=Yw00sBtRUjJZrKOcEVMd2l9n_ys

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZlEbAAAAIAAJ&q=Salvador+de+Sa+and+the+struggle+for+Brazil+and+Angola+1602-1686+dutch&dq=Salvador+de+Sa+and+the+struggle+for+Brazil+and+Angola+1602-1686+dutch&ei=V4oTSIzTHI78sgOttoyhCA&pgis=1 (Red4tribe (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Vietnam

Lists some trading posts in Vietnam http://www.en.nationaalarchief.nl/webviews/summary.webview?eadid=NL-HaNA_4.VELH&searchText=vietnam%20handelpost (Red4tribe (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Come on. Let's try to be serious here.--RegentsPark (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan

Brief description of the Dutch trading post in Pakistan. Look under the first result. http://books.google.com/books?ei=9okTSPKFJJ6OtgPn0JWbCA&q=pakistan+dutch+trading+post+sindh (Red4tribe (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

The first result says "The Dutch established a trading post at Makasar (now Ujung Pandang) in 1609". Makasar is in Indonesia, not Pakistan. I think you are being a bit over-eager with your googling. When you see books with "snippet views" like that, you can get two snippets from entirely different parts of the book, as your search here has returned. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yemen

http://books.google.com/books?id=GAXkISRinXkC&pg=PA45&dq=dutch+burmah+trading+post&ei=QnoTSMOtFZLAsQOxgqycCA&sig=mzY1nZGB9S36mj2bYn3GFw8c6U8#PPA50,M1 (Red4tribe (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Madagascar

Colonies Lost: God, Hunger, and Conflict in Anosy (Madagascar) to 1674 (Red4tribe (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] A suggestion

Since most of the territories under dispute here seem to have been places which were briefly occupied by the Dutch but, for one reason or another, never actually got integrated into the Dutch Empire proper, I'd like to suggest a compromise solution that would probably resolve both concerns: a different colour for territories of this type, so that they can still be marked on the map but not in a way that makes them look like they were ever integrally part of the empire. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


I think this would be an excellent compromise. (Red4tribe (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

I am happy with this too, if (a) trading posts and forts are marked as shapes, not shaded areas (b) forts that were briefly occupied during wars are a different colour and shape to trading posts (c) San Juan, Puerto Rico is not added, because this was a five week siege in 1625 that was unsuccessful in ousting the Spanish (reference provided above) (d) other dots - China, Chile etc - are not added until they have been discussed on this talk page like the ones above.
Also, again Red4tribe, I encourage you to do more than just search for some terms in books.google.com and then, if the terms appear together on the same page, post the link here. Although it takes time, typing in the title of the book, author, and text of the reference that you think supports your claim would help everyone quickly understand why you believe it should be added. There have been several cases above where you have posted some links that I can only assume you did not read properly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

3 is clearly the correct.
I'm unsure on this suggestion of shading areas temporarily occupied by the Dutch though...For that on the British empire map you'd have to shade in parts of Germany, France and Spain which Britain occupied for short periods during various wars. Though the Dutch areas here aren't in Europe the same standard should apply.--Him and a dog 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a poor suggestion actually. I think places that were unambigiously part of the Dutch empire should be shaded, and any colouring should reflect periods in which they were part of the empire. Places where no signifcant military were present or settlement was founded should simply not be listed. As stated, the British empire would likely spread out over almost the entire globe if you use your standard. Also, just as a note, the Chinese emperiors used to style themselves "Emperior of everything". I think we can conclude that South America was not a Chinese possession, regardless of the "Everything" claim. So any "claims" should also be disregarded. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cambridge Modern History

I would reccomend the Cambridge Modern History as a source for your page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.129.255 (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Empire and Evolution of the Dutch Empire - two works in progress

It's high time that Wikipedia had a proper encyclopaedia entry on the Dutch Empire, like it does for the British, French, Spanish and Portuguese. Therefore, I have split off the list to Evolution of the Dutch Empire (sister to the British and French versions), and have begun the process of writing a chronological, textual account of the Dutch Empire. All additions have been sourced, but if anyone would like to query my sources or any statements in the article, please post here. This is, of course, a work in progress, to which I hope others will join in on. Hopefully we can get a good article going here. Oh, and this does not detract from the list of Dutch colonies, trading posts and forts etc - that should be a parallel project. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


I have created a new map, it will probably not be the final draft but tell me what you think of it. Square=Trading Post, Factory etc... and Circle=fort. I also support you decision to start upthis article. It was a mess. Do you take this site to be reliable? It appears to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DutchEmpire5.png
http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/AMH/main.aspx?lang=en (Red4tribe (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

I think this map is a big improvement on your previous creations. However, I thought we all agreed above that the trading posts and temporary areas of occupation need to be a different colour to each other and to the lands that were indisputably "settled" or "colonised" by the Dutch? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added in blue for temporary(less that 5 years) occupation. Circle=Fort and Square=Trading Post

(Red4tribe (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

What about the different color for colony (Dutch ruled an actual area, e.g. Surinam) vs trading post (Dutch had a building or buildings at the pleasure of the local ruler, e.g. Deshima, Hirado)? The problem with having it the same colour is that it is difficult to see the difference on the smaller version of the map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is a separate "Evolution" article needed? What's the intended difference? --Merbabu (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The intended difference is that for those who want to read, in a flowing text, about the history of the Dutch Empire they can come to this article. For those that want to see (and, also it must be said, for those that want to compile) an exhaustive list of every single territory or trading factory ever held for any length of time by the Dutch companies or state, that can be done at Evolution of the Dutch Empire (that page could probably be turned into more of a table like the British Empire one). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the map should be a bit clearer then just shading various areas certain colours. Distinctions should be made between in which period the empire existed (ala the main French Empire page). I think quite a line can be drawn between the pre-napoleonic empire and the 'classic' Dutch empire which was under the Dutch all the time until its independance. Also- surely the colour should be orange? :) --Him and a dog 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


How could we distinguish between each company? (Red4tribe (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

This site lists all dutch trading posts and forts in the world on a map. Take a look at it. http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/AMH/main.aspx?lang=en(Red4tribe (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Level of detail

I'm just looking through the "Rivalry with England and France (1652-1815)" section and I'm questioning the level of detail concerning all the battles listed. Does it really need to be so? Wouldn't this article be better served with a more broader "helicopter" view, discussing reasons, motivations, consequences, etc? A lot of work as be going into the article of late which is most commendable, but it appears to be more a list of battles than anything else. Eg, note the Indonesian section I added - if I had written it like the rest of the article, then I would have listed all the battles and politics of the Indonesian National Revolution - but this is unnecessary. Ie, i just got to the main points, reasons and consequences.

I'm not saying we need to do anything about it now, but I'd like to see less lists of dates, fleets, and battles, and more context and consequences. Remember, all these details seem to be listed in the individual battle and war articles (if not, they should be), so as long as the linking is good, trimming them out will make the article more readable. If people want all the fleets, dates, etc, of each war, they can go to the articles. Just a thought - keep up the good work everyone! :-) --Merbabu (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I do agree. I was intending to do some work on this section soon. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. But I don't mean to force it quickly, or to criticise what is excellent work. In my own article development, I've often started long and detailed, and then condensed. regards. --Merbabu (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Likewise! :) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't really too sure how detailed to make the sections. Anyways here is the new map using details from the National Archive.
(Red4tribe (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
It appears my suggestions or comments are being ignored or simply overlooked. Nova Scotia was not in the Dutch empire. Period. It does not need to be on the map at all, and quite frankly, putting it on there is a mark of ignorance in my option. The Dutch did not have a long running occupation or even any sort of actual settlement mainly they came and they left within the span of either a few weeks to a year. Claims that Acadia/Nova Scotia were in the Empire by the Empire are fruitless in that they could not, and did not, exert any influence. Also, a legend should be employed on the map so that people tell which is which that is highlighted. I would suggest that different colours should be for different eras of Dutch rule, as opposed to the different kinds of dutch rule as something is usually in the empire or not. Ports, forts, small battles of little historical and practical significance should not be counted. If that were the case, the globe would basically have been the British empire at one point or another, and clearly by looking at the map
we can see that is not the case. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, the Dutch Empire was a trading empire, not to say they did not own land around the globe but their main impact on the world were their trading posts. That is what contributited to the wealth of the empire. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

I agree with you that the Dutch Empire was a trading empire. However, it's important not to go overboard, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If what is probably the most notable historian of Dutch colonial history (C. R. Boxer) finds that it's not necessary to mention Acadia in his seminal work on the Dutch, it's probably not necessary to either in the context of the Dutch Empire (but sure, mention it at the Acadia article). In fact, I agree with Kirkoconnell that we should do away with these "attacked and held for a few weeks" markers altogether.
Also please explain the following:
  • the dots in the Caribbean. This is where the Dutch had real colonies, and still have territory to this day, yet the dots don't seem to reflect this.
  • the colony in Chile.
  • the colony in Mozambique
  • the colonies in the Gulf
  • the colony in Thailand
Until we have reached a consensus on this page, please do not upload the map to the main article. If you want to post it here for discussion, that's fine. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Well I am not disputing that the Dutch Empire was more trading then anything but the fact remains they did not have legitimate settlements. I can go to England, plant a flag and claim that land for Canada, it doesn't mean that it will be part of the great Canadian Empire. More then likely some police will come by and arrest me. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was agreeing with you. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that was not directed at you. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the website which I recieved information from, the national database for the west and east companies. Apparently no one has bothered to look at it yet but I suggest someone does. http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/AMH/main.aspx?lang=en( (Red4tribe (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Can you please answer my questions above about why you have denoted various places "colonies"? Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the National Archives, they had a fort in Chile, Mozambique, Thailand, and two forts on islands in the gulf. The circle is a fort, not a colony. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Taking Chile, they were there for a few months in 1643. This is kind of the point of Evolution of the Dutch Empire, for this kind of thing - an exhaustive list of places that the Dutch were. I think it is misleading to put on a map of the Dutch Empire though. I strongly believe that the original map [14] should be returned to this article, and you can create the map that you want to at the evolution page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


I have a number of problems with the old map.

1. It completley misses New York and the Hudson Valley

2. It misses French Guiania

3. It misses much of the colony in Formosa

4. It forgets many of the Dutch Forts

5. The extent of the Capetown Colony was greater than on the map

The Dutch were a massive trading empire, and a minor Empire, Empire, which is why I believe this last map I proposed should be kept on this page. Obviously I would have to change the color of the fort on Chile, and look at the others but this map is the most telling of the true Dutch Empire. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

1, 2 and 5 are easily fixable. 3 is actually shown (Fort Zeelandia (Taiwan)). 4 is what we are discussing here. Everyone except you so far feels that it is important not to unduly elevate the status of temporarily occupied, minor forts on the headline map of "the Dutch Empire". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


I have a few things I insist before this map is put up.

1. We allow a few more votes(although I'm sure your map will win)

2. The older edited map be used as the Dutch Colonial Empire, and the one I made be marked as the Dutch Trading&Colonial Empire.

Anyways this is what the edited old map would look like.

(Red4tribe (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a democracy. If you cannot source valid information and give examples through precedent, it should be removed. I see that you have a few points with the disputes with the old map, but I think clearly you've overstepped the accepted defination of an empire with most of the new additions. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've citied every addition I made on that map. Take a look. (Red4tribe (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
Some of your citations were strange. You referred to two web links from Colonial Voyage [15] and [16]- linking Dutch and Burma in this discussion [17]. When I go there, I can only find the connection between Portugal and Burma. No facts about Dutch there but you referenced them as your Dutch-Burma source. I agree Dutch merchants were there (as trading posts? as in your Google Book links?) but no Dutch military or administrative presence were in Burma according to mainstream historical sources regarding Burma. Thank you for your hard works but I suggest you to take great care in putting Burma on your map. Maybe like the other guys are saying, shade or different colors to mark the significant difference between these ambiguous entities in the Dutch trading empire. --Kyaw 2003 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll admit you cited every source, but the sources are not particularly valid to me, especially when you consider the fact I am talking on this article is because you proposed to put Nova Scotia as a Dutch Empire member, when that is clearly mistaken under any sort of investigation. Also, the legend has not been address. There should probably be a in picture legend to decribe what is being shown, as with most empire maps I've seen. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok I'll add in a legend then. And actually nothing is in Nova Scotia. The two forts are in Maine, and New Brunswick. I know you do not want any part of Canada in the Empire but the fact is they were there, even if only very, very briefly, which is why I have different colors.(Red4tribe (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
Nova Scotia in the historical context encomposes modren day New brunswick and PEI, they were only seperated in the 1700's. I just want to make it clear, I'm a big fan of the Dutch people. I don't hate the Dutch. I just think it is excredibly irresponisble to propose this verison of History. There were no major Dutch settlements in that area for Canada for sure. It was a bloody conflict between the Natives, French, and English to the point where the English won by trading a claim to Caribean islands to the French to claim the area. Of course the Natives faired out less in the whole ordeal. So Basically my objection is that I do not want the Dutch painted with the brush from the crimes (and the glories to an extent) of the French and English. They were not there nor where they part of that history to any significant excent. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


The Dutch probably played little to no role in the situation with the French in English there. But, they were there. Thus, I colored in the two forts blue. If the reader reads why they are in blue s/he will understand what you are saying. (Red4tribe (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry, it appears no matter how hard to throw, you do not catch the point. They should not be added. Please state a precident if you wish to include it. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You are yet to list a good point why they should not be listed. I've told you a few times above they should be listed because, even if it was brief, it was part of the Dutch Empire. They shouldn't be added is your opinion, they should be added is my opinion. I don't have a problem with that. But, the map is places undert dutch control at different points in history. Those two forts should be included. (Red4tribe (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

You show me any precident where a location is held for a minor period of time and included in the map if the empire, and you can include it. It is not my responiblity to provide evidence that it should be not included, any disputed material does not get included as per WP policy. The flimsy at best claim that they were held fort under Dutch control and therefore should be added seems to be clearly biased toward the Dutch Empire expansion. My one bias is accurancy. Again I retort with precident. The Spanish empire had forts all along the east coast of Canada for fishing, and it is claimed a spainish explorer discovered BC. Note that neither of these areas are shaded on this map because they were clearly not in control of the Spanish, they just held minor fishing ports.

Now that I have shown a precident AGAINST including your argument, please counter with either a precident we can discuss or remove disputed locations with ambigious (at best) claims.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


If the Spanish helf forts on the Coast of Canda, go ahead and include them. You will get no argument from me.

Anyways

http://www.colonialvoyage.com/newnether.html (look at the Bottom) http://www.blupete.com/Hist/NovaScotiaBk1/Part1/Ch10.htm http://www.acadian-cajun.com/acadia3.htm http://books.google.com/books?id=w4IBAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=dutch+acadie&ei=YI4XSMiIOYTitgOVosGYCA http://books.google.com/books?id=9sLDM9xujP0C&q=dutch+acadie&dq=dutch+acadie&ei=YI4XSMiIOYTitgOVosGYCA&pgis=1 http://books.google.com/books?id=n71jGQAACAAJ&dq=dutch+acadie&ei=YI4XSMiIOYTitgOVosGYCA http://books.google.com/books?id=SkpCw3vLHwQC&pg=PA222&dq=dutch+acadie&ei=YI4XSMiIOYTitgOVosGYCA http://doucetfamily.org/heritage/Dates.htm http://doucetfamily.org/heritage/Treaty.htm http://books.google.com/books?id=DL8MAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA328&dq=dutch+acadia&ei=_I4XSK_yCIP6sQPS7uGeCA

Anyway, these sources all say the same thing. They were conquered, stayed a month, left claiming acadia for the Dutch leaving no one behined. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC))


"In 1676 the Dutch Government in a "foolish attack" named Cornelis Steenwyck Governor of the Coasts and Countries of Nova Scotia and Acadia, but at that time he had only the title and not the land." Your article even states it was a foolish claim. Why is it any more foolish then than now?
"The forts, from what I can determine, at both Jemseg and Penobscot, were left to stand unoccupied for the next couple of years." This is opinion, "from what I can determine, and therefore original research to some extent. That is beside the fact that HE ADMITS THAT THEY FELT THE FORTS ALONE. Hardly a standard for conquest. Excuse me, bugger off, now we are leaving before anyone attacks us, oh and Acadia is now Dutch, Go Bye! This is no better then the Chinese Emperors agrument that he was emperior of the world.
"For more information on the Dutch "period" of Acadia" In the next article the author mocks the Dutch presence in Acadia. THE AUTHOR. Obviously he does not accept the Acadia in the Dutch empire claim.
I cannot read the google books links, they seem to link to a general page, hardy research worthy material. Linked to the Title of the Book, well thats proof positive evidence there. Open and shut.
"The French and Dutch begin fighting in Europe. This time, the British allies with France. For a brief time, the Dutch claim title to Acadie. Acadian settlements begin at Beaubassin." Claim title again. Claiming is not the same as being in the empire.
"In 1673, Grandfontaine was replaced as governor by Jacques de Chambly, who had a misfortune of becoming victim of a ship captian who claimed Acadie for Holland. " ~ ~ "In 1676, the Dutch named Cornelius Steenwyck governor of the "coasts and countries of Nova Scotia and Acadie," but nothing ever came of it. " - The last link almost confirms my point, this author calls the "governor" a victim for claiming Acadia for Holland and the further claim is completely dismissed altogther.
You still haven't addressed my point, you in fact reenforced it but agreeing the Spanish had forts in Eastren Canada that are not claimed (and the various over links you put forward). I really am failing to appreicate your points right now. Just because it is sourced does not mean it is gospel. By the way, I am still waiting on the precident you wish to use to defend your case. As of yet you have produced nothing. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, Acadia WAS Dutch. Briefly. There is an entire book written on the colony if you looked at the links. The forts were Dutch. Period. We are not going to get anywhere arguing this. My finaly point is they were Dutch. The dutch took them from the French. It doesn't matter if it was a "foolish attack", or if they left the forts alone. They occupied the forts for 1 month. Long enough. There is no set time period to be included in an Empire. If you noticed, I didn't shade in all of Acadia. I shaded in the two forts of which 1 was in Nova Scotia. You can't argue the fact that they weren't Dutch. Maybe they weren't that important, but you know as well as I do, they were Dutch in August in 1674. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Agreed, this is ridiculous. Please state your precident for including Forts that were barely occupied in an Empire Map. If you do not have a precident you can set, then you do not have an agruement. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because it is true doesn't make it worthy of inclusion on a map of the Dutch Empire. The British administered the Dutch East Indies during the Napoleonic War and parts of Germany/Austria after WW2 which is of far more significance than the Dutch capturing a few huts and leaving a couple of months later, but you don't see that on British Empire maps. This is going to sound rude, Red4tribe, and I apologise in advance but it needs to be said: you must have not read very many books on European empires, because if you had, you would know that the history of them does not consist of an exhaustive list of wars and battles, or every single place that nationals of the colonising country captured or declared that country's territory, which is what you seem to be adding to this article. I am 100% opposed to these "hung onto for a few months" places appearing on the Dutch Empire map at all, and I am yet to see someone reply here who holds the same view on this as you. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Map

Obviously no one is going to agree with me on this. However, I don't see why these should not be labled on a map that isn't even going to end up on this page. Anyways, What do you think of the other edited old map on this page? (Red4tribe (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Here is the map on the better newer world map

(Red4tribe (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

What/where is that dot in Japan supposed to be? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Empire, not a History of Wars!

Red4tribe, this is not a military history of wars! Please stop adding the nitty gritty details of wars that Holland was involved in. That is not what an overview history of the empire is about. You don't seem to have taken on board what someone wrote to you above, in "Level of Detail". The battle of this and the battle of that is not an important fact for this article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


The dot in Japan is Deshima, it was on the other map. What do you want to be added? This is about colonies, and usually colonies one way or another result in war. It will be added eventually one way or another. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Deshima (in Nagasaki) is here [18]. Sometimes it pays not to regurgitate info from Wikipedia! As for "what I want to be added" - I sincerely encourage you to go out and read a book on empire. You will see what kind of things are discussed. If you can't do that, read Portuguese Empire or British Empire, and if you can't do that, just read the sections either side of your handiwork here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I have read books on empires before. But what you two seem to be unable to understand is the fact that the Dutch were a trading empire. Sure they were a colonial empire too, but their main legacy are their trading posts. (Red4tribe (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

The words "unable to understand" are a bit rich to hear coming from you. I've asked four times for precidents and you've failed to produce anything, to the point that you've never acknowledged my challange at all. So the Dutch were a colonial AND a trading empire. I'll buy that. If you want to include two maps, one for trading posts and one for the colonial empire, I can see that as being important (instead of both mixed into the same Map to avoid confusion). Although with that I would like to note that by the admission of all the text you have in front of you, the posts in Canada do not qualify for either, espeically trading, given they left the forts almost directly after taking them over. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have listed my defense over, and over again but you have convienently ignored it. (Red4tribe (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Which defence is that? The one I blew holes into a few days ago or the colonal trade empire defence, which I just addressed and not ignored? Please, now you are just talking non-sense. I've addressed you at every turn, and all I asked for is one example that supports you. One empire map that shows the kinds of things you want. Then you post ten google books links and say thats your reasoning. You seem to have an inability to understand when you are proven wrong or at least you are unable to have honest discussion and address issues. Your defence is always "well these websites/google books say it so it must be true" but when I reviewed them, the links seemed to support our side. After that you accuse me of not knowing the difference between a trading and colonial empire. That is not really a defence as to why these should be on a map of the dutch empire. I've challage you to make two maps, one for known trading posts and one for actual colonys, what did you do? You told me I ignored your defence. Who's ignoring who?-Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the Belgian Empire map, what is that in China? I have listed my defense, if I was proven wrong this disscussion would be over now. My defence is always that? Look at the facts. The forts were Dutch. You can't deny that. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Okay, now you are getting into a discussion, although I think that you may have picked the worst possible example. 1) Belgian colonial empire: As per the article, Belgium actually was not an empire and so that almost makes this a moot point. Also they only have the one major coloy, the Congo, I think Rwanda was there too but they are so tiny who cares. 2) Now for the Chinese part. Well that is a concession. Kirk, what does that have to do with this agrument? well Red4tribe, if you conceed something to someone, there is no dispute over the territory. You gave it to them. Also it was China, everyone was doing it. I think most countries with empires, expect the Netherlands actually, had concession states in China. England for example had Hong Kong for several years. Great job on versing yourself on Sino-Asian history after the Boxer Rebellion though.
I like this quote: "if I was proven wrong this disscussion would be over now" obviously not. You've yet to make a valid point beyond "The forts were Dutch" and even then most of the "forts" were "Trading posts" under you own admission, which hardy qualify as a empire colony and if you count the Canadian ones, they were FRENCH forts the Dutch attacked, took over for a month, then abandoned, I assume under the idea that they couldn't defend them. Hardly the makings of an empire.
Now with that example and explaination thoroughly torn to pieces and set on fire, I ask again for a valid, I repeat, valid example of what you propose. Also, I again propose that you make two maps, one for colonies and one for trading posts/forts (likely ones that were not abandoned completely within, lets say, 2 years). Also you may want to start structuring your responses with the proper indention, it is really getting bothersome to read and hard for people to follow I would imagine. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The stupidest thing about arguments is arguing who won them which you have taken up to doing, over something that never happened. They were Dutch forts for 31 days. Yes they were. It doesn't matter how brief, they were Dutch. "Everyone was doing it" Well, I guess everyone wasn't establishing trading posts over the world or taking other nations forts either. That must have all been an illussion. "Who Cares" Well, I'm going to take a wild guess that the Africans who had their hands cut off and were hung probably care. The forts were Dutch. Yes, you may want to take those 31 days and try to throw them out of your mind but they were Dutch. Make a valid point instead of gloating and acting like you've won something.(Red4tribe (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
The Dutch fort agrument is settled as far as I am concerned. You have yet to produce a precident to include it and therefore have no basis to. Obviously you have taken some of my comments out of context. When I stated who cares it was in reference to the Belgium colony argument. Given that Rwanda is under 50 times less the size of the Congo, I felt it was safe to say that their overall influence as a colony was not worth commenting on. As for the everyone was doing it in terms of the consession of land in China after the Boxer Rebellion, well I think that actually speaks for itself. This is not gloating. I am just trying to make you understand that you are required to have defendable positions when you wish to produce something that other people will read and assume is gospel. I'm not going to let you produce a map that is obviously flawed without rigorus investigation.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

People - please try and focus on content, rather than editors and your perceptions on their style. In fact, this should insisted on. One’s ego might be important to oneself, but not to the rest of us - we don't notice. Stick to content and quit the one-upmanship – and then others might be interested on commenting. (if you really have to talk on more than content, please do it on user talk pages). Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this should be focused on the content. Unfortunately the comments tend to move toward how my "ignorance" to the situation is causing me to disagree as oppose to actually addressing my points. I thought a thorough disection of his positions would force a valid argument stream or a concession. I have yet to see either, hopefully soon.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language of Instruction in the Dutch West Indies

Just to state the situation in long form so that people stop changing phrasing. Here on Bonaire, early education is in Papiamentu, but by the time a child is 12 years or so, his education is predominantly in Dutch. My understanding is that Aruba is the same as Bonaire. On Curacao, the educational system is predominately Dutch from an earlier age.Kww (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rubbish

To claim that Indonesian language gained grammatical influence from Dutch is problematic to say the least and should be examined for its potential as a misleading statement. Vocabulary maybe - but please if you dont know the language - please do not put it in! SatuSuro 01:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It was argued in that paper, which Red4tribe added as though it was a "fact", which is why I reworded it. It would be good to get other sources on this before adding it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I have talked to Indonesians who even say Dutch has influenced their language. Granted, they did not say 20% but they showed me words that were very clearly of Dutch origin. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

That may be vocabulary - but you better dig deep to find a ref on the influence on grammar otherwise leave that out - anecdotal conversation does not suffice as evidence for a wikipedia article like this one SatuSuro 01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to look for grammar(no genders, unlike Dutch), but just to prove my point to those who do not speak Dutch or Indonesian arbei-aardbei(strawberry), tante-tante(aunt). Anyways my suggestion here would be to remove the argument for similar grammar now(unless i find something else), but I don't believe there is much of an argument about Indonesian words coming from Dutch. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
I think the issue is with the term grammatical. Obviously these maybe borrowed words but it is hardly a grammatical influence. Commonly, colonized communities borrow words from the empire language. Pork and beef come from Nomanic words for pig and cow. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It is obvious to find the difference between Malay and Indonesian as having vocabulary influences from their respective colonial visitors - the english and dutch vocabulary influence is well - if not over documented - I have no problem with that and if you bothered to look into the Indonesian language articles on wikipedia - it is accepted. Even to the point that some malay and indonesian vocabulary is not interchangable: - despite having the same origins - however to argue that the basic malay/indonesian grammar has been influenced is another subject again and should be left out unless very good sources can be utilised. To know of a dutch word that is duplicated to create a name in indonesian ( as given above) does not constitute a grammatical influence - it is a vocabulary item. cheers SatuSuro 03:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a somewhat dubious reference. It's not an academic piece, rather it appears to be an advertisement for language courses. even the first few words are wrong - "Bahasa Indonesia" is the Indonesian word for the language, not the English word - niether of these point suggest to me that this is a reliable source. :-) regards --Merbabu (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the word dubious accurately describes most of the references I've investigated...-Kirkoconnell (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that was my doing. I was scrabbling around for something - anything - to replace this reference [19], from which the following was being quoted verbatim: "even the younger generation is interested in the language". It is being used to support the claim that older generations can speak Dutch. Do you dispute that? It would be good to have some numbers. Anyway, I think there is something that is missing from this section which is the point that Dutch had a relatively small linguistic legacy in Indonesia, even though the Dutch were in Indonesia longer than the English in India or the French in Morocco. I have a source that makes this point (Ostler) but Red4tribe kept reverting it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ostler was wrong for Suriname so why should we trust him for Indonesia? Not everyone in the older generation can speak it, just some of them, enough to be noted. (Red4tribe (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Ok this begs the question - who, where, why? etc - is it is rather a large population a generalisation like that suggests first hand knowledge or a source? SatuSuro 11:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Saying "Dutch is spoken by the older generation" makes it sound like an important daily language. From my considerable experience, I've met a few older people who can string a few words together. I'm speculating (based on knowledge of Indonesia's 20th century) that those educated in Dutch were a minority. I'd say it'd be a few elderly from the educated elite who get around a cup of tea for a bit of Dutch banter - for a bit of fun. Not a "spoken" language.--Merbabu (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


It is not hard at all to find a source that says Dutch is still spoken there. Just look up the dutch language and nearly always, Indonesia is listed under where it is spoken. (Red4tribe (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Hey there, I hate to be mister buzzkill again but for kicks I just looked at the article for Indonesia and apparently they went out of their way not to learn Dutch. Yep. As part of a nationalist movement, begining in the 1920's they wanted all citizens to speak Indonesian as their first language while permitting them to speak some of the over 700 local languages as well. No where have I found that Dutch is spoken regularly there, in fact, I found this page Languages_of_Indonesia on the languages most widely spoken in Indonesia and Dutch doesn't make the top 15.. or is on the list. I found this map Map of spoken languages from the 70's and it appears that Dutch is not widely spoken in an area. Before you retort, the map lists Chinese as being a lanaguage spoken in the region by many people but not in any particular place.. I assume it would have afforded Dutch the same if it were on the list. That being said, I'm sure some people speak it there but it seems to be a novelity language in the area, like Latin, spoken by few but hardly wide spread. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying its spoken in everyday conversations, unless its a group of older people, but it is still somewhat known there. Sure, it will probably die out in 20 years give or take a few. Anyways, we can take it out 20 years from now when its completley dead. Less and less speak Dutch there everyday. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
Your words here - "somewhat known" - are a lot closer to the mark than the article that said something along the lines of "still spoken by the older generation". Can you see the difference? I'm not saying it's perfect (ie, "somewhat" is odd), but it's a lot better and closer to the reality. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you wish for me to reword it i will. 9Red4tribe (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Spreading of Indonesian culture

If I can find sources for it, would that be an appropriate topic for this article? Because of the Dutch trading, I have neighbors with Indonesian architecture, Indonesian words that have been borrowed into Papiamentu, Indonesian dishes that are thought of as Antillean and Surinamese, etc. I'll try to dig up reliable sourcing if it won't get immediately deleted as irrelevant.Kww (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I think that would be a good idea. You could also talk about how the Indonesian dishes are popular in the Netherlands too. (Red4tribe (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
Obviously, such a statement needs to be sourced. Sushi is popular in the United States and pizza and Chinese takeaway in the UK but it doesn't mean anything about imperialism. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That'll be a problem, but I'm a stickler for sourcing anyway. There are cases that are pretty obvious, like the Papiamentu word for small market being "toko". Not many ways for that word to make it from Indonesia to Bonaire without it being an effect of the Dutch trading empire, but I'll have to see if any third-party ever bothered to write about it. It's frustrating to deal with sourcing on obscure topics sometimes. I think the reason the words for camera, refrigerator, and insecticide are "kodak", "frishider", and "flit" are pretty obvious, but I don't think anyone in authority ever bothered to write down the etymology.Kww (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Reading between the lines, it appears that some might want to be building a case, rather than reporting on an existing case. If it is indeed that significant and tangible, it should be easily sourced – rather than a concept that we need to construct. I’m concerned about notability and synthethis issues. --Merbabu (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to improve the article, getting reverted by Red4tribe

Hi everyone

I am trying to improve the article here and talk about the Dutch Empire not wars that the Dutch were involved in and I'm getting immediately reverted by Red4tribe. Some assistance would be appreciated. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out above by Merbabu, there is far too much detail on wars and battles. This is not appropriate information for the article, Red4tribe, I'm sorry, but that is the case. If you revert again, I will report you for 3RR violations. Your behaviour at this article is unacceptable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to reword what I wrote but what your idea of detail is little detail at all. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Just because an article needs to be fleshed out doesn't mean that one has to jump in and paste in text. Most of what you have written has very little consequence for the Dutch Empire. When I attempted to improve it, your immediate reaction was to instantaneously revert it. Instantanoues. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes for the most part I do, because you're reverting my accurate edits. I was in the process of listing sources when this started. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Red4tribe - it's not about accuracy, it's about relevancy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What is needed is some other opinions and attention. I've made a fair bit of comment here (albeit general) as have others. Hopefully over the coming weekend I can implement some of this. A big one for me is the level of detail on a battles that is already contained in seperate war/battle articles. Ie, in the Indonesia sections, I didn't repeat all the details of Netherlands East Indies campaign, Japanese occupation of Indonesia, or Indonesian National Revolution. I'm not saying my work is perfect or beyond major revision, but I've tried to only state the main consequences. This summary article, IMO, should not focus on the events behind the building or dissoltion of the empire (which are repeated in other articles), but need the briefest of mentions, and focus to go onto what I see as Dutch colonialism. This article is going to be a very broad summary of detailed info contained in a whole lot of other articles. Ie, it should be seen as a "mother article" - with lots of "child articles" linked to it. And, it doesn't have to be overally long. COnsider the reader - give them quality, not quantity. It should be an article for someone who knows nothing about the subject - give them a tight overview. If they want to know more about an individual battle, use the link. But as I said before, the reduction in detail doesn't has to happen now. Also, it must not remove info from wikipedia. ie, we must make sure it is contained in a relevant "child article" first before removal from here.
Also, all editors should really refrain from combative attitudes both on the talk page and the article itself - even if one's position is "correct", combat/incivilty/accusations/etc only make it worse. WP:CIVIL is not there so we be nice to each other and feel warm and fuzzy inside, it is there to enforce an atmosphere of collaboration - WP:CIVIL is for the benefit of wikipedia, not editors. Discuss content not editors. Use talk page, not undo button - we don't have to have a perfect article today. (this is aimed at all - including me - please don't take offence). Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Red4tribe, what Merbabu is trying to accomplish is to develop this article according to a summary style. For such a broad and general topic, this is the encouraged approach. Such a “parent article” provides a useful overview for a reader, with links to guide the reader to more fully developed, detailed “child” articles on specific topics, without giving undue weight to minor topics or overmuch detail to important sub-topics. Excessive inclusion of detail in a single article can make it unreadable (due to “reader fatigue”). Askari Mark (Talk) 00:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Prehaps mine was too detailed, but I do feel this one could use a little bit more information than it currently has. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
That may well be the case, but Talk page discussion is always preferable to reverts. Since it is a matter of opinion as to how much is too little, too much or just enough, reasonable people can disagree constructively, which is what we call "achieving consensus". Askari Mark (Talk) 01:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Merbabu - you wrote "This summary article, IMO, should not focus on the events behind the building or dissoltion of the empire (which are repeated in other articles), but need the briefest of mentions, and focus to go onto what I see as Dutch colonialism". I would have thought that the events behind the building and dissolution of the empire are exactly what this article should focus on, but leaving the minutiae of these events to articles on those events (one doesn't need to know, in a summary article, how many ships or soldiers were sent to conquer New Netherland, but its handover to the English in 1667 is an important fact). One thing this article should definitely not do is get into a sociological analysis of empire: that is not what encylopaedias are for. I hope that is not what you are proposing? My view is that this article should be the exact parallel of Portuguese Empire, Spanish Empire and British Empire. What is yours? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps when I said the "briefest of mentions" I gave the wrong impression. If an event is fundamental and highly notable to the topic of a summary article - say, for example the Japanese invasion of Indonesia it doesn't mean we have to give it more words to prove its notability - a country invading and occupying another territory is self evidently notable. But, I think you are thinking this way too, right? The campaign itself (IMO) is not the only thing of not for this article, but also its consequences, context, etc.
As for the "sociological analysis" I'm not sure what you mean - can you elaborate? Why is that not encyclopedic? Without knowing exactly what you mean, I suspect I disagree - it would be another aspect of Empire that needs to be discussed. I don't think the article should solely focus on the "Dutch" side of things - what about the indigenous peoples? Other contexts, consequences, etc. Although like our apparently shared ideas on the military aspects, I am by no means advocating the article gets taken over by the other aspects - like the military aspects, limit it to mentions of the main points and then readers can be linked to expansions of the topics, such as Dutch East Indies. But as I've said before, I'm in no rush to blank sections, re-write it, etc - and will hopefully look into it more soon. We will get there! As for the 3 articles you suggest, I had a very quick skim through - the British one is impressive. --Merbabu (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I am glad you like the B.E. article as this is one that I had a large hand in crafting (the origins to 1815 bits), and I hope we all can get this one up to the same level. Anyway, trumpet blowing aside, I think we're basically in agreement here on the military side of things. What I meant about the sociological analysis stuff is staying away from injecting any WP:POV - the stuff you might read in a doctoral thesis or see on the shelf of a international development studies professor's bookcase - things which inevitably involve interpretation and analysis and are not hard fact. An example of that might be an analysis of the benefits/costs of Dutch rule in Indonesia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, NPOV is a given. Although, what I'm calling "context and consequences" is a little more tricky in that respect than, say dates and troop numbers, it is by no means impossible or less important - and we have some already in the article. Let's handle any POV issues as and if they arise. (for what it's worth, I know of no cost and benefit analysis of the Dutch rule, nor can I imagine that I would advocate it's use in the article!). However, I might at later date, look at putting in a few sentences from Dutch East Indies, and it's related/linked articles - but in good time. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, context and consequences are very important, otherwise the article distills out into a list of dates and events!  :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map problems....again....

  • Cape Colony - boundaries look too large compared with Boxer's map in the Dutch Seaborne Empire.
  • Caribbean - there should be six dots in the Caribbean, I am not sure what the current ones are
  • South America - the boundaries of British Guyana were not finalised until long after it was last Dutch, yet this has the modern day borders of Guyana shaded
  • New Netherland - looks far too large and not aligned north to south with the Hudson River as New Netherland was
  • Gold Coast - far too much territory shaded - the Dutch had forts on the coast. The British hadn't even penetrated this far in just prior to the Scramble for Africa (using McEvedy's Penguin Atlas of African History as a reference)
  • Taiwan - the Dutch had a fort at Fort Zeelandia. They did not rule over the whole island.
  • As far as I am aware, the Dutch never penetrated the whole of inland Ceylon - e.g. the kingdom of Kandy?
  • Deshima - this was a trading post, not a colony, at the pleasure of the rules of Japan. The Japanese could have booted them out at any time.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You wanted to return to the old map, so we did.

Tawain-Says the whole island was a dutch colony http://www.geocities.com/apapadimos/Taiwan_Pages/Taiwan_History_2.htm http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/AMH/map.aspx?lang=en More than just a fort

New Netherland-They claimed and occupied the eastern half of connenicut(sp) the Hudson Valley, The Philidelphia Penslyvenia(sp) area, and the Delaware River Valley(northern Delaware, and New Jersey). http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/AMH/map.aspx?lang=en

Cape Colony- Here is a map on the expansion, I will continue to look for my book

Sri Lanka-The Dutch settled on the coasts, but claimed the whole island. Kandy remained independent, on the map it would look like a small white speck. Deshima-Was on old map so I included it

Goald Coast-Now that I take a look at this map they did not travel deep into the jungles, but they occupied more coast than that map says.

Guyana-Not sure about the bounderies, will search for them

Now that I look closer at India, I realize they contorlled the Coromandel Coast too. http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/AMH/map.aspx?lang=en


(Red4tribe (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Taiwan: I really don't understand how many times I have to tell you that personal websites are not acceptable sources. Which part of that do you not understand? The nationaalarchief site shows three forts. Not the whole of Taiwan.
New Netherland - again, the nationaalarchief shows forts. It does not imply that it is correct to shade such a large area as per the current map. As discussed before, "claims" are relatively meaningless during this era.
Cape Colony - you never provided a map, but again, C. R. Boxer's detailed map, showing how the colony expanded until its capture by Britain does not concur with these boundaries.
Sri Lanka - claims, claims, claims... Spain and Portugal claimed the whole of the world. Doesn't mean anything.
I know your intentions are good, but your activities at Wikpedia lead me to believe that you just don't get WP:NOR and WP:CITE and WP:SYN. In a way this is worse than vandalism: at least it's obvious "Mr. Wilson has a small tackle" injected into an article is nonsense. When you add stuff that you have conjured up in your bedroom, an unsuspecting reader may be misled into thinking that this is established fact. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


http://books.google.com/books?id=sqivHEvJJHwC&pg=PA84&dq=taiwan+dutch&ei=vrsbSJjLJorytAOGwLTkBg&sig=ERxJCYuOSavE-zR3g314XqG5WC4#PPA84,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=Uex2budtSOUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=new+netherland&ei=_7sbSKb4L4P6sQO66eDyBg&sig=SDBrJivTrMdV1ryayaXeihpjENQ#PPR7,M1 As for Sri Lanka, Kandy was a very small nation in the middle of Sir Lanka. IF you wish for that to be made gray that can be done. I do believe there is a map of Cape Colony there but I will double check. If you read that book you will read that the dutch established towns at present day Philidelphia(sp), Hartford, Willimnington(sp, from the Sweds), New York(obviously), Kingston, and Albany. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Why is it everytime I read a post from you I feel like I am being attacked by a book named google? -Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't a post to you. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
Sadly that doesn't make it better....-Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Is using books wrong? Because it seems okay when red hat does it, but when I do a problem all of a sudden appears. (Red4tribe (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] More unsourced gems

"In New York Courts were required to have written material in Dutch as well as English until the 1920's. Even early in the 1900's some people in New York and New Jersey, mostly the elderly, spoke Dutch at home and as their native language." I have to say, I find this extremely unlikely, but am willing to be proved wrong. Provide a source for this, please Red4tribe, and make it a good one. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 04:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add that. (Red4tribe (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
I apologise. It was not you. [20] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 04:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Dutch Empire vs History of the Netherlands

Red4tribe, a lot of your edits seem to suggest that you think this is an article on the history of the Netherlands in general. It's not: it's an article about the overseas activities of the Dutch - the Dutch colonial empire. Whilst these activities were obviously influenced greatly, often driven directly, by events in Europe, unless the European events had a notable impact on the colonial activities of the Dutch, it's not really relevant material for this article. Another edit that you seem hell bent on having in the article is this one [21]. What was the impact of "King Louis not performing to Napoleon's expectations" on the Dutch colonial empire? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 04:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It put Dutch overseas colonies under French control. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
But, what was the impact? If it had an impact then that impact should be explained (with a source). Or is your reasoning "they were under French control so they must have had some impact, not sure what it was but I'll put it in anyway because that's what I think"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The impact? It gave the French bases of the Dutch around the world. Ports, riches, etc. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
So you are suggesting that, despite being a satellite state of France since 1795, these ports and riches were left untouched by France until it decided to annex the state in 1810? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Where did I say that? The French gained full control of the ports etc.. after the Kingdom was dissolved. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Cape Colony

The Dutch Cape Colony did not extend up as far as the border with present day Namibia. Boxer's map has it, in 1795, extended as far as Buffels River which is half way between Port Nolloth and Hondeklip [22]. In his Penguin Atlas of the British Empire, Dalziel also concurs with this. In his "Conquest of the Cape" map, on page 45, it shows the frontier in 1840 and 1829 (when it had become British) beginning in the same place as Boxer's 1795 one - ie on the Atlantic coast, it had not moved, even decades after the Dutch were ousted. The map shows it extending up to the Orange River (ie, the border with Namibia) in 1848. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of wars

Red4tribe, you are persisting in making this article a list of Dutch wars, aren't you? Despite comments above, you've now added details of another war [23] which had no impact on the Dutch Empire. Why are you doing this? The artice does not need to list every single war that the Dutch got involved in. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced Indonesia Map

Provide a source (must not be someone's self-published website) for the colouring that you have placed on this please, Red4tribe. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no map on that website that I can see which justifies this colouring. Also, please provide a page number of that book which you have provided as a reference, so I can view the map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that you are engaged in original research with this map. To contrast with the Cape Colony and Brazil maps that I uploaded, these are based exactly on two maps in C. R. Boxer's Dutch Seaborne Empire book (well, as exactly as I could - obviously it's difficult reproducing it exactly down to the last pixel, but the important thing is that I am not adding any of my own interpretation to it). Your map is showing specific shaded areas, which, unless you can demonstrate you are reproducing (not reinterpreting) from a map in a reliable source, it is original research. So provide me with the map that you have produced this from. The VOC/WIC fort map is not an acceptable source for this, because that shows points - you have shaded areas. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Which page from the Ricklefs book does the info in the come from? --Merbabu (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed both those references - the online reference shows nothing, and my edition of Ricklefs has no such map. --Merbabu (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red4tribe: Disruptive Behaviour & Disputed Map of Dutch Settlements in Asia

OK, so Red4tribe is now being disruptive to make a WP:POINT. You have disputed the map of Asia, which shows the location of the settlements discussed in the text. Given that you can look up the location of these cities in maps.google.com, and given that the text is already sourced, explaining which settlements the Dutch captured from the Portuguese, can you please explain what you are disputing? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to citation needed, my maps need citations so I figure all maps must. (Red4tribe (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
OK. I had not provided a source for the Asia map because it was an an aid to the text: it was just a visual representation of the places discussed to its left, which all were sourced, and one can easily check the location of the dots by looking at an atlas. I hope you can see that your map is actually making claims in its own right, and no words would be a reasonable source for it: for a map like that, the only acceptable source is another map. If you are reading words such as "the Dutch captured Amboina in 1605" and then deciding "well, it says the Dutch were in Amboina in 1605, so I will shade this area", that is original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/seasia/haxindonesia.html Those maps come from the University of Texas.....and the previous two from two other maps I own (Red4tribe (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
I am not sure that these actually come from the Univ. of Texas. This seems to me to be like another self published website who is listing his own sources, a bit like that colonial voyage website which you know I strongly object to as a source. I have an alternative suggestion. DeSar's "Southeast Asia: Past and Present" [24] has a map of the East Indies on page 88, showing areas of European occupation dividend into three periods. Luckily, Amazon have scanned that page and made it available, if you click on the link. I suggest we use this instead? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Page 88 isn't scanned, it jumps from the first page to the index for me.(Red4tribe (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
It is - search for the term "marshal", it should pop up page 89, then go back one page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Still can't see whats wrong with this map, but I suppose we could use that one. (Red4tribe (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
As I pointed out in the section above, it's not properly referenced. --Merbabu (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Who is making the new map? (Red4tribe (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
Unless anyone objects, I can make it, in the same style as the other two maps above. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead (Red4tribe (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Expression Error

Expression error: Unexpected div operator sq mi km² (List of countries and outlying territories by total area) Expression error: Unexpected div operator sq mi

Are you adding up the size of the empire? (Red4tribe (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

I don't know where that is coming from! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More maps

No sooner have we dealt with one unsourced map, we are onto the next.[25] The map of Dutch spoken round the world is again based on self-published websites, plastered together into one grandiose unreliable, and unlabelled map. Is Dutch really spoken on every single island of the Indonesian archipelago? I sincerely doubt it. What is that small area of France and Germany shaded in as Dutch being the official or first language? Where did these particular shadings of South Africa and Namibia come from? What are those dots in the USA? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of references provided:
  • [26] ifarm.nl - Erik Tjong Kim Sang's own homepage
  • [27] - a website written by a guy called Chris Sonnemans
  • [28] - admittedly a professor, but his personal section of his university's website would not have been peer reviewed. Besides, it doesn't have a legend and it doesn't show Namibia.
  • [29] - doesn't even work
  • [30] - you are suggesting that this article warrants colouring in every single island of Indonesia?
  • [31] - ditto?
Come on - please be serious here. None of these references justify the shading you have used. Do we have to go through this every single bloody time? You seem to operate by uploading your own information, and then scrambling around to find sources - usually dubious - that back it up. That is the wrong way round. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The map is highly suspect. I've removed it but it got reverted again without any explanation. Saying that over all of Indonesia a minority speak Dutch is complete rubbish. See WP:SYN --Merbabu (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand how you can seriously dispute this but ok.

Indonesia-Marked for country in general, a SMALL MINORITY of that country can speak dutch

As for France and Germany http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Verbreitungsgebiet_des_Niederl%C3%A4ndischen.PNG A map, which you will probably ignore

http://home.scarlet.be/~tsc66092/flandreen.htm http://home.online.no/~vlaenen/flemish_questions/quste10.html http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/TaalverhoudingFranseWesthoek.PNG

Afrikaans http://www.cyberserv.co.za/users/~jako/lang/languagemaps/afrikaans.jpg http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/f/f1/300px-Afrikaansdistrib.gif http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/december/Afrikaans.html

Dots in the USA http://www.dutchvillage.com/index.html http://books.google.com/books?id=npQ6Hd3G4kgC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=dutch+speaking+communities+michigan&source=web&ots=wdnYHi1wxo&sig=UBQ0QfFu1PuanPDKRj_KCd3ofts&hl=en http://www.pellatuliptime.com/

(Red4tribe (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

Please show which part of the Indonesia reference you provided supports you assertion that "Dutch is spoken by a minority". --Merbabu (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
For Indonesia, I am marking for the country in general. In general, there are still a minority of people that can speak it. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
My question was: Please show which part of the Indonesia reference you provided supports you assertion that "Dutch is spoken by a minority". . I take your response above to mean that you are making up information to fill the holes in the knowledge needed to create a map. You have enough info to make a statement about Dutch speakers in Indonesia (that's fine in principle), but you don't have enough info to make a map, nor can you just fill it. --Merbabu (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, why, when I have told you countless times, are you using a Wikpedia map as a source? I seriously do not understand you. Nothing seems to register with you. Wikipedia is not a source that can be used to verify other articles on Wikipedia (that would be circular, wouldn't it?) Personal, self published, websites are not acceptable. How do I have to phrase this so that you understand? I also see you are at it at other articles too, and removing requests not to do it on your talk page. [32] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"at it on other pages" I added a book for that reference, which they conviently deleted.....that has nothing to do with this. What are you disputing about this map? There is nothing to dispute. I explained Indonesia above, if you wish to go through and see which islands have more dutch speakers go ahead. I'd guess Java has the most but that really is just a wild guess. The guy was a proffessor, as you said, so I'd say that afrikaans is ok. The dots are explained...what are you disputing? (Red4tribe (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
If you look at this is says Indonesia and France under "region". It even goes further to say 80,000 speakers in that region of France. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
Would you care to explain how Holland, Michigan was a legacy of the Dutch Empire? And why is part of France coloured in but the whole of Indonesia? That is inconsistent. This map is entirely your own original research and should not be on WP. Certainly not in the "legacy" section on an article on the Dutch Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Its a Dutch langauge map....I shaded where they speak Dutch. It is unknown where the largets Dutch speaking part of Indonesia is, that is why it is all shaded in. For France, it is better known, so that is why I only shaded in the area it is spoken in. This is absolutley 0 original research. I seriously have no idea how you can deny that this isn't an accurate map. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_map.asp?name=FR&seq=10(Red4tribe (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
Dodgy personal home pages and whole country/partial country inconsistencies aside, it has no place on the Dutch Empire legacy section page. This is a section about consequences of the Dutch Empire, of which the spread of Dutch was one, not about the Dutch Language per se. The fact that Dutch emigrants set up communities in the USA two hundred years after the Netherlands were ousted from North America, or indeed that certain portions of France and Germany speak Dutch, is not a legacy of the Dutch colonial empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The map is where Dutch/Afrikaans is spoken. And how is that home page dodgy? I see absolutely nothing "dodgy" about it. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Some thoughts on quality

I understand and commend Red4Tribe’s motivation in creating maps – they are excellent visual tools that literally do “say 1000 words”. So his intent is fine, and he clearly goes to some effort which should be acknowledged.

HOWEVER, maps, like any entry should be based on the thoroughly reliable references to COMPLETE information. Ie, in my opinion a smaller amount of quality info is better than a larger amount of potentially dubious. Not only does the info have to be well-verified, it must also give our readers a sense of reliability. If one item is not well back-up or proves to be false, what will they think about the rest of WP?

As I said above, we have enough verification to make a mention of Dutch language in Indonesia (even though the info is a bit vague), however, we don’t have enough to make a full map – to just fill in info is WP:OR and WP:SYN. If we don’t have that info, then it is better to just leave it blank. We don’t create knowledge, we report it.

Please keep up your energy Red4Tribe, but please strive for quality. Remember, a small piece of quality is better than a large piece of dubious quality. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am currently trying the figure out where dutch is most spoken on Indonesia. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
To be honest, I really think that for language distribution you will find it very hard to find any information to be adequately represented on a map. I think a map just doesn't work in this case, unless you can find info island by island. hmmm. let me think what else we could do. --Merbabu (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Attempting to draw a map of Dutch speakers in Indonesia would be like trying to draw a map of French speakers in the UK - impossible, given that there are no cohesive communities of either. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of quality, at WP it begins with locating a reputable source before adding the material, so the material and the reference can be added at the same time. That way, anyone monitoring the page can double check the reference if they wish. Quality rarely begins with adding what you think you know to be true, and then scrabbling around with google searches to find material that supports this view. And quality certainly does not involve using personal websites as references. Red4tribe: if you abided by the policies of WP:NOR and WP:V and WP:RS at Wikipedia, you and I would get on a lot better. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


The problem I have is I do follow those rules, and yet every time I list something you try to dig up some vauge rule and try to make whatever I did seem to fit into that category.(Red4tribe (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC))


[edit] End of Empire, or End of An Empire

Which sounds better? End of Empire, or End of An Empire? (Red4tribe (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

There are 254 books whose title contains the words "End of Empire" [33], compared with five containing "End of an Empire" [34] 1029 with the exact "End of Empire" phrase inside the book [35], 638 with "End of an Empire" [36]. It is a turn of phrase. Please put it back. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Lets leave it up to the others.(Red4tribe (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Edit War: Is it improving the article?

Gentlemen (ladies?), Following the 'discussions' going on on this talk page and cross-referencing with the achieved 'improvements' in the article I would say it seems time for a time-out. This is not the private project of either User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick or User:Red4tribe or the both of you together, as the case may be. Apparently this specific article attracts a lot of controversy, as the current edit war is not the first one. As a historian I do not see why. All of the issues discussed can be dealt with NPOV, in an academic debate and directed towards consensus.

I suggest a cooling-off period without edits and reverts for a couple of days, and also without further debate. After that it might be a good idea to first inventorise the mutual POV's in relation to the (perceived) needs of the article. Then a plan of action might be a good idea to improve the article section by section, without actually editing the article itself before consensus is reached on the talk page.

I am not an administrator, nor do I wish to be one, but it pains me to see how good work by good editors can work against the overall quality of an article when emotions become the guiding principle. Michel Doortmont (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I realise that you are trying to do "the right thing" here by mediating, but please understand that I have been having ten days of an uphill struggle trying to get Red4tribe to provide proper sources for his numerous additions. His failure to play by the rules has only been made clear for everyone to see: today he got blocked for a week for being disruptive and was confirmed to be using a sock puppet account to evade 3RR. [37] I only have one concern here: that this article should be one of quality and trustworthiness. I can assure you that I have no delusions of grandeur that this article is a personal project. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Happy to hear you do not consider the article your personal project, but do consider what impression and signals you give to prospective editors who stood on the sideline for the last two weeks. Tone of voice and manner of action do a lot either to reach or prevent consensus and promote open debate. I was not trying to mediate, just proposing a possibly more satisfactory approach to an article that has the potential to reach FA-status. Hence the second part of my comment: plan of action, list of to-do's, etc. so that we can avoid future edit wars. As I pointed out, yours was not the first one on this article. Michel Doortmont (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to say that independantly Redtribe's dubious editting nature was bought to my attention and with me too, after requesting precedent or proper sourcing, I basically got over ruled by "well I think its right". I commend Pat for staying with him for so long. He got too ridiculous for me to deal with quite frankly.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at Talk:Evolution of the Dutch Empire

Hi... if you are interested in joining the debate, please mosey on over to discuss the Proposed merger with List of Dutch East India Company trading posts, for or against. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Language in Indonesia

I have reworded this paragraph, because I feel that it gave an incorrect impression of the impact of Dutch in Indonesia. I also think that the "20% of Indonesian words are from Dutch" paper should not be mentioned, unless corroborating references can be found: it does not appear to be academic consensus. So I removed it. Even though the wording said "one scholar suggested that", it still lends undue weight to the claim. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after reading this [38] I readded the 20% thing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Language

Big problem with the Dutch Language. This source claims that 20 Million people speak Dutch which, is uh, not possible. 16 Million people live in the Netherlands. Lets say 15 million speak dutch(I suspect it is more). Same with Flanders. Lets say out of the 6 Million people, 5 million speak Dutch. Well, that is 20 million right there. This isn't including Suriname, Indonesia, or Dutch communities in Canada, the USA, French Flanders, or anywhere else in the world where people happen to speak Dutch. here are references that claim more than 20 million.

[39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] Red4tribe (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Firstly, there is no need to label a whole section "disputed" when you are querying one fact. Secondly, it says as of 2005. Thirdly, I personally wouldn't object to a more updated figure, but it would be nicer to have a good reference instead of summing up the numbers found in more than one reference. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Irrespective of the merits of the info that is "disputed", I disagree with the need for such a drastic tagging. These are for major and fundamental issues and only to be used following appropriate good faith attempts to resolve. --Merbabu (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Red4tribe - how is someone supposed to verify the reference that you have placed there? You can't just put "Taalunieversum". Please fix it or I will revert soon. Oh, and the Taalunieversum reference above does not support the figure you added to the article. 15+6+0.4 = 21.4 not 23. If you are adding your own numbers to that from other locations in the world, you are engaging in synthesis. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You really think, after everything we have been through, that a website called "cheap pro fonts" is a reliable source? [47] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
So, instead of reverting to the taalunie, you revert to a reference that is matamatically impossible. Red4tribe (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Please note, this is not a review, but it may help with future review processes.

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted and this problem will hinder the FAC nomination. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

  • <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly before this article undergoes FAC, and indeed this is something that any reviewer should insist you do before supporting your article. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards

[edit] Food as a legacy

I removed the food section [48] for the following reasons:

  • Indonesian food has become daily life in the Netherlands. - a complete generalisation for 15 million people, probably totally unprovable anyway. And what does "daily life" mean? All 15 million Dutch have a daily encounter with Indonesian food?
  • Indonesian food in the Netherlands, is somewhat comparable to Chinese food in the United States of America. - says who? and in what way? what does this even mean anyway - what status does Chinese food have in the USA and who says it has this status?
  • Chili peppers - considering that these were not indigenous to Indonesia, and were brought there by other nations, I don't see how this is a "legacy" of the Dutch Empire
  • That reference, not that it really supports any of this, is another personal website.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

ps I don't dispute the good intentions behind the addition of the info, just that it is very OR-ey and reads a bit like a travel guide book. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It was at the suggestion of others that I added it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dutch_Empire&redirect=no Red4tribe (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't see the recommendation, but irrespective of that, you need to use some discretion when doing FAC. Generally, if someone offers stylistic recommendation then you should take it - most reviewers on FAC know what they are talking about. On the other hand, if it is content advice, the reviewer may not know as much as you do on the topic, so you should consider/discuss their recommendation first. Ie, usually FA advice is good, but sometimes you should question. Do know when to take advice or question it comes with experience.
PS, can you please use edit summaries when editing articles. Although not compulsory, all good editors do it - those who don't tend to be lousy editors. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)