Talk:Dutch colonization of the Americas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). Add comments
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Chili? 2 "purchased" ? 3 Needs a map 4 Image reflected disputed material

[edit] Chili?

The "Chili" section is a mess. Is this supposed to refer to the country of Chile? In any event, could someone knowledgable fix it? I would, but I know next to nothing on this topic. --Polynova 05:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is. Chili is Dutch for Chile. Peter Maas 14:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "purchased" ?

The acquisition of Manhattan island is referred to as a "purchase", within quotes, as if there was something fishy about it. I have never heard of anything fishy going on during the transaction, so I think it would require a generally accepted source and explanation, if the deal was not all above board. --Lokimaros 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the deal with the quotes is that the Indians did not regard it as a purchase. Supposedly their view of the transaction is that the Dutch gave them gifts, and then they gave the Dutch use of the land (i.e., continued use of the land would be dependent on continued good will between the two groups). — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a map

This article needs a map similar to most other "Colonization in America" articles. --CPAScott (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image reflected disputed material

The image on main page is listed disputed material from the Dutch Empire discussion forms. The areas in Acadia were never practically held by the Dutch, as stated in this article, and therefore should be removed. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:11, 1 May 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 in this article and in “Dutch Empire”, in its appropriate circumstance and context, to provide information to readers. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)