Talk:Dutch Occupation of Acadia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Delete

I am putting this article up for speedy deletion because this topic was discussed to great length and the discussion page of Dutch_empire and it was concluded that Acadia was clearly not never a part of the Dutch empire. The article Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas clearly states it was a paper claim with no practise as well as all the information state on a afroementioned page, which was removed at that time then placed here. It is not Wikipedia policy that once information gets reviewed by a series of people and you are left as the only person defending it, you then create a new page to display the same discredited claims. Also, all of the information in the article, except for the claim that Acadia was a member of the Dutch empire, is included, almost word for word, in the Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas article. So on top of discredited formerly delete material, it is just a copy of another page and therefore should be deleted. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That was never conculded. If you look back and see, you can see I never agreed with him, and we never came to anything. I have explained everything that happned. Why should it not be known? It does not matter if it was part of the Empire or not(although it was) there is not reason for deleting it here. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Everyone but you agreeing to it, me challanging you to show a precedent to include it then you failing to provide one on each of the five occasions I requested it, then purposefully continuing to put this information on Wikipedia by creating an article on the subject the exact same day you stopped trying to defend yourself with googlebook links seems to be a dead ringer for a dead arugment. Also you have failed to address the fact that all this information is in the Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas article, almost word for word. I suggest you have an actual agrument as to why this article should not be deleted besides stating "there is no reason". -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't need an argument for why it shouldn't be deleted, you need one for why it should. You're the one who tagged it. Once again, look back through the dissucsion, my defences you completley ignored or dodgged. Anyways, the only reason you have ever come up with is "they didn't really own it(they did for a month)" and "they were French Forts(wrong again they were Dutch for a month". (Red4tribe (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
Wrong. I have given my reason it is you who has to state why my reasoning is flawed. It is copied right out of one article. It is very disputed material. Your defence I didn't completely ignored or dodged. I completely destoried them in agrument. And my main defence is that I do not see a precedent whereby you can include them. I cannot even entertain the idea of including this as a seperate article until I get a precedent. Once we have one, then we can talk about it. Right now, you do not have anything to talk about because you cannot defend the existence of this article. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Where's the repost? I don't see a deletion log for this article... PeterSymonds | talk 21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm very eager to see where you "destoried" my argument. Why is this flawed? Because this is more detailed information than any article can give. The Dutch site has one for this, but the english can't? Seems a bit unfair if you ask me. I have listed my defense which you are continuing to ignore and will, and I'm sure you will continue to gloat about something that never was after this. You have no real interest in deleting this article, you just want to bother me at this point. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

I can't say I remember there ever being one. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Right, I've been bold and removed the speedy tag. Kirkoconnell, this doesn't meet the criteria for WP:CSD#G4, because there was no repost; the article has never been deleted. Also, where is this copied from the mentioned article? It looks completely different to me. PeterSymonds | talk 22:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur with PeterSymonds that there is no apparent justification for a speedy delete for this article. A prod would have been more appropriate. That would be useless now since there is obvious disagreement, so an AfD would be the only reasonable next step procedurally, if deletion is called for.
I am not sure, though, that an AfD would pass for this article. The topic is encyclopedic, so a more appropriate debate should center on whether there is sufficient reliable information content for Dutch Acadie to be a separate article or else simply be addressed in appropriate context in the “Dutch colonization of the Americas” and “Dutch Empire” articles (the latter meriting no more than a sentence or two). It certainly should not be included on the maps in those articles since Arcadia was never effectively held by the Dutch. The more important effort would seem to me to be ensuring that this article doesn’t imply more than was actually the case. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The name of the article, Dutch Acadie (sic) implies that there was an actual take off, i.e. there was a french Acadie and a Dutch Acadie. There are many issues that need to be addressed but basically this should not be an article. Dutch Acadie did not exist as an enitiy. The very most, as you had stated, is a section in the dutch colonies page. Also, I removed the "this article is related to" headers as clearly this article is solely related to the Dutch colonies of North American and isn't "Netherland Wikiproject" realm, nor the Nova Scotia Wikiproject realm, to which I am a member.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur with the problematic title inasmuch as there was never such a formal entity (as I noted in the discussion on the WP:MILHIST talk page. My point was that the brief Dutch occupation of part of French Acadia is a subject worthy of addressing, as some commentary here and elsewhere has suggested it is unworthy of coverage at all. The title "Dutch Acadie" and its being shown on maps as a Dutch colony per se are inappropriate and misleading; the historical event is encyclopedic. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to edit the way I put things, I have no problem with that. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] "colony" name

Nova Hollandia doesn't exist... but it's in the picture. 70.55.84.13 (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The area that the Dutch claimed was proclaimed Nova Hollandia, but they never really occupied it. (Red4tribe (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

If the sign says "Nova Hollandia", then shouldn't this article either be redirected from that, or be called that? 70.51.9.170 (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Though on Wiktionary... it mentions that "Nova Hollandia" is an old name for Australia... so... should a dab page be created at Nova Hollandia? 70.51.9.170 (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
We will have to see what teh conclusion is. (Red4tribe (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
New_Holland was the name commonly used for Australia for hundreds of years. Nova Hollandia is latin for New Holland obviosuly. I suppose when this name didn't stick, they were able to re-use it (although again it would not stick so they may yet be a "Nova Hollandia" I suppose). -Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hang on one second here...

"Dutch Acadia", "Dutch Acadie" - these have ZERO references in books.google.com and ONE in www.google.com - a personal website of someone interested in Dutch history. This article should be deleted. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Voice your opinion here [1] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

google books does not hit 0. Take a look. http://books.google.com/books?id=w4IBAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dutch+Acadie&ei=W70bSIXWPJ2YtAO15pzrBg
http://books.google.com/books?id=9sLDM9xujP0C&q=Dutch+Acadie&dq=Dutch+Acadie&ei=W70bSIXWPJ2YtAO15pzrBg&pgis=1
http://books.google.com/books?id=n71jGQAACAAJ&dq=Dutch+Acadie&ei=W70bSIXWPJ2YtAO15pzrBg

Those are books based solely on Acadia. There are more if you type in "Dutch Acadie", breif sections of books that talk about it. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Google books returns zero hits for the term Dutch Acadie. You have invented a phrase, a name, that no historian uses. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Go to google books and type in Dutch Acadie. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Learn how to use a search engine properly and enclose the term in quotation marks, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Your're denying that there is a book on it which is absolutley ridiculous. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
Let me spell this out for you in simple instructions, since you are clearly misunderstanding something fundamental here.
  • Step 1 - open books.google.com.
  • Step 2 - place your mouse in the search box
  • Step 3 - type in SHIFT-APOSTROPHE (so that a quotation mark is entered into the search box)
  • Step 4 - type Dutch Acadie
  • Step 5 - type in SHIFT-APOSTROPHE (so that a closing quotation mark is entered into the search box)
You should now see the following text: "Dutch Acadie". Not Dutch Acadie, but "Dutch Acadie"
  • Step 6 - press the "Search Books" button
  • Step 7 - reply here with how many books are returned.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. No one I know puts "" in front or at the end unless it is a quote. I want you to type in Dutch Acadie and tell how many results you get. Why does it matter if there is a " there or not? What matters is if the books exists or not. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Search engines usually operate by default on an "OR" basis. So when you type in Dutch Acadie into Google, it is returning pages/books with the terms Dutch OR Acadie (though ones with both bubble up to the top of the search results, even though they may not be together). To see that, try typing in Dutch Afghanistan - it returns 1078 hits. If you want the search engine to return you pages/books with the exact phrase you have to enclose it in quotation marks. It has nothing to do with being an actual quote, or searching for quotes. I am starting to wonder whether I am dealing with young boy here, perhaps eleven or twelve. Am I? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The word "conquest" is between Acadie and Dutch, so it is not going to show up. This really has nothing to do with deleting the article. Aa for my age, it is of no concern to you, I will tell you, however, I am between the ages of 20-150. (Red4tribe (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
It has everything to do with deleting the article. There was never any entity or place called "Dutch Acadia". You have coined that phrase here. You have invented a term. That is original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I've attributed he failing to understand what we tell him to Engrish not being his first language. In all honesty, he speaks it better then I speak dutch. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
No one in Canada or America speaks Dutch. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
Not even in Dutch Acadie? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
350 years ago for 1 month yes. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
I think the french let them stay in the fort as a joke. "Those Dutch bastards don't know what they are in for when the fall hits." Notice they left when the summer left.... -Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk about original research......(Red4tribe (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
Yeah. 350 years ago for one month, one person in Acadia spoke Dutch. Talk about your demographic shifts. Bearcat (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you, but no reliable editor on Wikipedia would ever take a search engine term that wasn't enclosed in quotation marks and then use the number of hits they got as prima facie support for an article. You need to find documentable search engine hits for the exact word-for-word phrase "Dutch Acadie", not just the number of pages that happen to contain both words separately. And Red Hat is correct: you find exact word-for-word phrase hits by enclosing the exact word-for-word phrase in quotation marks.
Nobody's saying that this thing didn't happen. But you're inventing an unattested and unverifiable name for it, which simply isn't supported anywhere. The phrase "Dutch conquest of Acadie" does not, in and of itself, support a claim that "Dutch Acadie" was ever its name. Bearcat (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

The "references" for this article are two personal self-published websites, and as such are not acceptable sources. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not. I have just chanegd the references from the other sites to references from a book. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
References to the book that we cannot read and has dubious claims to begin with? Well I think that settles it Pat, I guess we have to leave this alone. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
There are very few things that aren't self-published or a book you can't read. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Merge tag

I need to stress yet again: at no point in history was there ever any political or geographical entity called Dutch Acadie. Can somebody honestly address why a neologistic name for a colony that only ever existed on paper, and was never under actual Dutch control, somehow needs a separate article from the one on Jurriaen Aernoutsz, the military commander who was actually in charge of the incursion? The whole thing was basically a minor historical footnote. Nobody's suggesting that the information should be deleted from Wikipedia, certainly, but the fact that you have to invent a name for it is a pretty clear indication of how little effect this actually had on the course of history — which is why Jurriaen Aernoutsz should be the primary article on the subject, not some invented geographical name. Bearcat (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree. "Dutch Acadie" is a Neologism and should not have an article. The mention of the brief capture of the two forts and is best mentioned in the article on Aernoutsz. I believe that all sourced information is already on Jurriaen Aernoutsz. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose this merge. If the term "Dutch Acadie" is considered a neologism, then it could simply be renamed Dutch History in Acadia. The article Jurriaen Aernoutsz is specifically about him while this article has content that is outside the scope of the Aernooutsz biography and specifically about the Dutch presence in Acadia. --Oakshade (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This article, as written, doesn't contain a single piece of information that isn't already in the Aernoutsz article. It's just written differently, that's all. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If you do believe that I would advise you to look it over again. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC))
This article should be merged with the Aernoutsz article, with a redirect from "Nova Hollandia" pointing to it. The neologism should be removed entirely.DigitalC (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I moved the article to Dutch Occupation of Acadia whilst the merge is discussed. No way should it be called "Dutch Acadie". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
They called it New Holland (in Latin), not Dutch Acadie and Acadie is the french name for Acadia, so it should be Dutch Acadia for an english article from the start, but it shouldn't be an article. This is starting to verge on the stupid. Clearly there was no "Dutch Occupation" as the Dutch, by admission in every article ever presented, abandoned the forts they took almost directly after taking them over. They didn't even wait for the french counter attack and the french didn't rush one because of the relative insignificance of the captured locations. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It's difficult to word the title in a manner that doesn't overblow the incident without making it into a fully fledged sentence! "The Dutch Brief Seizure of a Couple of French Forts and Evacuation Within A Few Weeks" is obviously a bit too longwinded :-) I do think that the information warrants an encyclopaedia article though. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree the incident warrants entrance into "an" article but not its own. It is simply part of the bigger story of Dutch in the Americans. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening line

The opening line "The two forts of Dutch Acadie were located in present day Maine and New Brunswick." makes no sense as the reader does not know there are two forts. Why would there be forts, why two, why not more, or fewer. The definite article "The" assumes all this knowledge implicit for your readers. Arnoutf (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd pose a re-wording but I am starting to think that contributing to this obvious joke will give it more creadence when it should just be removed and/or merged in with the article about the captain. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)