Talk:Dutch colonial empire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

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)

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."

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..

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)

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)

Well, the term does look like a Wikipedia novelty. On first sight, in "Seaborne Empire", I would interpret 'empire' metaphorically. I also don't know if the Dutch mercantile 'empire' (again, as a metaphore) and the 19th-century Dutch colonial empire (in the true sense of the word) should be summarized as "Dutch Empire" sec. Iblardi (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A metaphor for what, exactly? (What exactly do you think "metaphor" means?) And have you done any reading on the subject? [1] You can't have done if you think it is a Wikipedia novelty. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to be condescending. Yes, a metaphor. A figure of speech. (See here for another "metaphorical empire".) Dutch colonial possessions from 1600 to 1800 (which is the scope of the publication that was mentioned as proof of the term's legitimacy) hardly qualify as an empire (definition here) in the literal sense. At the very least, "Dutch colonial empire" seems a lot more perspicuous and a lot more precise than the shorthand "Dutch empire". Iblardi (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather ironically, the very first link of your Google Books hitlist seems to argue the same thing, mentioning the term and then refuting it, while most others apparently refer to the period of modern imperialism. As a rule, we should not rely on such lists to prove our point. Iblardi (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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)

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 [2]. Gsd2000 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

"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 [3] is not an acceptable source. (Why ? Please have a look! [4]). 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))

Request For Comment: Map

Red4tribe has made numerous alterations to the long-standing Dutch Empire map on this article. Original version [5]; his new version [6]. His "source" for this is the http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ website, which I view to be an unacceptable source (Why ? Please have a look! [7]) 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 [8] 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 [9] 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))

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 [10]. 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)

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 ([11], 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)

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)

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 [12] 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.

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)

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? [13] This reference certainly does not support that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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 - [14] 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" [15]. 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)

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))

The above text, provided by the maker of the map, expressly mentions that the Dutch did not have a fort in Thailand. The map (File:DutchEmpire7.png) seems to indicate either a fort or a colony in what is now the Bangkok/Ayutthaya area of Thailand. Strangely enough the map doesn't mention the two trading posts in Southern Thailand. Takeaway (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 [16] Big difference. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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))

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)

okay first off the dutch didn't own land in Vietnam. Second the land was not part of Vietnam back then, it was part of Cambodia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vietnam_Expand1.gif Third, just because the Dutch live there doesn't mean they own there. Many Vietnmease live in Southern Cambodia in villages and seaports but they didn't own and wasn't part of Vietnam. Well not at least untill they officially annex it.69.111.72.208 (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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))

Madagascar

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

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)