This is an archive of past discussions about Dutch colonial empire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It's high time that Wikipedia had a proper encyclopaedia entry on the Dutch Empire, like it does for the British, French, Spanish and Portuguese. Therefore, I have split off the list to Evolution of the Dutch Empire (sister to the British and French versions), and have begun the process of writing a chronological, textual account of the Dutch Empire. All additions have been sourced, but if anyone would like to query my sources or any statements in the article, please post here. This is, of course, a work in progress, to which I hope others will join in on. Hopefully we can get a good article going here. Oh, and this does not detract from the list of Dutch colonies, trading posts and forts etc - that should be a parallel project. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this map is a big improvement on your previous creations. However, I thought we all agreed above that the trading posts and temporary areas of occupation need to be a different colour to each other and to the lands that were indisputably "settled" or "colonised" by the Dutch? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added in blue for temporary(less that 5 years) occupation. Circle=Fort and Square=Trading Post
What about the different color for colony (Dutch ruled an actual area, e.g. Surinam) vs trading post (Dutch had a building or buildings at the pleasure of the local ruler, e.g. Deshima, Hirado)? The problem with having it the same colour is that it is difficult to see the difference on the smaller version of the map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt12:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The intended difference is that for those who want to read, in a flowing text, about the history of the Dutch Empire they can come to this article. For those that want to see (and, also it must be said, for those that want to compile) an exhaustive list of every single territory or trading factory ever held for any length of time by the Dutch companies or state, that can be done at Evolution of the Dutch Empire (that page could probably be turned into more of a table like the British Empire one). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt12:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the map should be a bit clearer then just shading various areas certain colours. Distinctions should be made between in which period the empire existed (ala the main French Empire page). I think quite a line can be drawn between the pre-napoleonic empire and the 'classic' Dutch empire which was under the Dutch all the time until its independance. Also- surely the colour should be orange? :) --Himand adog15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm just looking through the "Rivalry with England and France (1652-1815)" section and I'm questioning the level of detail concerning all the battles listed. Does it really need to be so? Wouldn't this article be better served with a more broader "helicopter" view, discussing reasons, motivations, consequences, etc? A lot of work as be going into the article of late which is most commendable, but it appears to be more a list of battles than anything else. Eg, note the Indonesian section I added - if I had written it like the rest of the article, then I would have listed all the battles and politics of the Indonesian National Revolution - but this is unnecessary. Ie, i just got to the main points, reasons and consequences.
I'm not saying we need to do anything about it now, but I'd like to see less lists of dates, fleets, and battles, and more context and consequences. Remember, all these details seem to be listed in the individual battle and war articles (if not, they should be), so as long as the linking is good, trimming them out will make the article more readable. If people want all the fleets, dates, etc, of each war, they can go to the articles. Just a thought - keep up the good work everyone! :-) --Merbabu (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. But I don't mean to force it quickly, or to criticise what is excellent work. In my own article development, I've often started long and detailed, and then condensed. regards. --Merbabu (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't really too sure how detailed to make the sections. Anyways here is the new map using details from the National Archive. (Red4tribe (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
It appears my suggestions or comments are being ignored or simply overlooked. Nova Scotia was not in the Dutch empire. Period. It does not need to be on the map at all, and quite frankly, putting it on there is a mark of ignorance in my option. The Dutch did not have a long running occupation or even any sort of actual settlement mainly they came and they left within the span of either a few weeks to a year. Claims that Acadia/Nova Scotia were in the Empire by the Empire are fruitless in that they could not, and did not, exert any influence. Also, a legend should be employed on the map so that people tell which is which that is highlighted. I would suggest that different colours should be for different eras of Dutch rule, as opposed to the different kinds of dutch rule as something is usually in the empire or not. Ports, forts, small battles of little historical and practical significance should not be counted. If that were the case, the globe would basically have been the British empire at one point or another, and clearly by looking at the map we can see that is not the case. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
For the most part, the Dutch Empire was a trading empire, not to say they did not own land around the globe but their main impact on the world were their trading posts. That is what contributited to the wealth of the empire. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
I agree with you that the Dutch Empire was a trading empire. However, it's important not to go overboard, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If what is probably the most notable historian of Dutch colonial history (C. R. Boxer) finds that it's not necessary to mention Acadia in his seminal work on the Dutch, it's probably not necessary to either in the context of the Dutch Empire (but sure, mention it at the Acadia article). In fact, I agree with Kirkoconnell that we should do away with these "attacked and held for a few weeks" markers altogether.
Also please explain the following:
the dots in the Caribbean. This is where the Dutch had real colonies, and still have territory to this day, yet the dots don't seem to reflect this.
Well I am not disputing that the Dutch Empire was more trading then anything but the fact remains they did not have legitimate settlements. I can go to England, plant a flag and claim that land for Canada, it doesn't mean that it will be part of the great Canadian Empire. More then likely some police will come by and arrest me. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the National Archives, they had a fort in Chile, Mozambique, Thailand, and two forts on islands in the gulf. The circle is a fort, not a colony. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
Taking Chile, they were there for a few months in 1643. This is kind of the point of Evolution of the Dutch Empire, for this kind of thing - an exhaustive list of places that the Dutch were. I think it is misleading to put on a map of the Dutch Empire though. I strongly believe that the original map [1] should be returned to this article, and you can create the map that you want to at the evolution page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a number of problems with the old map.
1. It completley misses New York and the Hudson Valley
2. It misses French Guiania
3. It misses much of the colony in Formosa
4. It forgets many of the Dutch Forts
5. The extent of the Capetown Colony was greater than on the map
The Dutch were a massive trading empire, and a minor Empire, Empire, which is why I believe this last map I proposed should be kept on this page. Obviously I would have to change the color of the fort on Chile, and look at the others but this map is the most telling of the true Dutch Empire. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
1, 2 and 5 are easily fixable. 3 is actually shown (Fort Zeelandia (Taiwan)). 4 is what we are discussing here. Everyone except you so far feels that it is important not to unduly elevate the status of temporarily occupied, minor forts on the headline map of "the Dutch Empire". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a few things I insist before this map is put up.
1. We allow a few more votes(although I'm sure your map will win)
2. The older edited map be used as the Dutch Colonial Empire, and the one I made be marked as the Dutch Trading&Colonial Empire.
Anyways this is what the edited old map would look like.
Wikipedia is not a democracy. If you cannot source valid information and give examples through precedent, it should be removed. I see that you have a few points with the disputes with the old map, but I think clearly you've overstepped the accepted defination of an empire with most of the new additions. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Some of your citations were strange. You referred to two web links from Colonial Voyage [2] and [3]- linking Dutch and Burma in this discussion [4]. When I go there, I can only find the connection between Portugal and Burma. No facts about Dutch there but you referenced them as your Dutch-Burma source. I agree Dutch merchants were there (as trading posts? as in your Google Book links?) but no Dutch military or administrative presence were in Burma according to mainstream historical sources regarding Burma. Thank you for your hard works but I suggest you to take great care in putting Burma on your map. Maybe like the other guys are saying, shade or different colors to mark the significant difference between these ambiguous entities in the Dutch trading empire. --Kyaw 2003 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll admit you cited every source, but the sources are not particularly valid to me, especially when you consider the fact I am talking on this article is because you proposed to put Nova Scotia as a Dutch Empire member, when that is clearly mistaken under any sort of investigation. Also, the legend has not been address. There should probably be a in picture legend to decribe what is being shown, as with most empire maps I've seen. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok I'll add in a legend then. And actually nothing is in Nova Scotia. The two forts are in Maine, and New Brunswick. I know you do not want any part of Canada in the Empire but the fact is they were there, even if only very, very briefly, which is why I have different colors.(Red4tribe (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
Nova Scotia in the historical context encomposes modren day New brunswick and PEI, they were only seperated in the 1700's. I just want to make it clear, I'm a big fan of the Dutch people. I don't hate the Dutch. I just think it is excredibly irresponisble to propose this verison of History. There were no major Dutch settlements in that area for Canada for sure. It was a bloody conflict between the Natives, French, and English to the point where the English won by trading a claim to Caribean islands to the French to claim the area. Of course the Natives faired out less in the whole ordeal. So Basically my objection is that I do not want the Dutch painted with the brush from the crimes (and the glories to an extent) of the French and English. They were not there nor where they part of that history to any significant excent. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The Dutch probably played little to no role in the situation with the French in English there. But, they were there. Thus, I colored in the two forts blue. If the reader reads why they are in blue s/he will understand what you are saying. (Red4tribe (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
I'm sorry, it appears no matter how hard to throw, you do not catch the point. They should not be added. Please state a precident if you wish to include it. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You are yet to list a good point why they should not be listed. I've told you a few times above they should be listed because, even if it was brief, it was part of the Dutch Empire. They shouldn't be added is your opinion, they should be added is my opinion. I don't have a problem with that. But, the map is places undert dutch control at different points in history. Those two forts should be included. (Red4tribe (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
You show me any precident where a location is held for a minor period of time and included in the map if the empire, and you can include it. It is not my responiblity to provide evidence that it should be not included, any disputed material does not get included as per WP policy. The flimsy at best claim that they were held fort under Dutch control and therefore should be added seems to be clearly biased toward the Dutch Empire expansion. My one bias is accurancy. Again I retort with precident. The Spanish empire had forts all along the east coast of Canada for fishing, and it is claimed a spainish explorer discovered BC. Note that neither of these areas are shaded on this map because they were clearly not in control of the Spanish, they just held minor fishing ports. File:Spanish Overseas Empire and Spanish Hapsburg Realms.png
Now that I have shown a precident AGAINST including your argument, please counter with either a precident we can discuss or remove disputed locations with ambigious (at best) claims.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If the Spanish helf forts on the Coast of Canda, go ahead and include them. You will get no argument from me.
Anyway, these sources all say the same thing. They were conquered, stayed a month, left claiming acadia for the Dutch leaving no one behined. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
"In 1676 the Dutch Government in a "foolish attack" named Cornelis Steenwyck Governor of the Coasts and Countries of Nova Scotia and Acadia, but at that time he had only the title and not the land." Your article even states it was a foolish claim. Why is it any more foolish then than now?
"The forts, from what I can determine, at both Jemseg and Penobscot, were left to stand unoccupied for the next couple of years." This is opinion, "from what I can determine, and therefore original research to some extent. That is beside the fact that HE ADMITS THAT THEY FELT THE FORTS ALONE. Hardly a standard for conquest. Excuse me, bugger off, now we are leaving before anyone attacks us, oh and Acadia is now Dutch, Go Bye! This is no better then the Chinese Emperors agrument that he was emperior of the world.
"For more information on the Dutch "period" of Acadia" In the next article the author mocks the Dutch presence in Acadia. THE AUTHOR. Obviously he does not accept the Acadia in the Dutch empire claim.
I cannot read the google books links, they seem to link to a general page, hardy research worthy material. Linked to the Title of the Book, well thats proof positive evidence there. Open and shut.
"The French and Dutch begin fighting in Europe. This time, the British allies with France. For a brief time, the Dutch claim title to Acadie. Acadian settlements begin at Beaubassin." Claim title again. Claiming is not the same as being in the empire.
"In 1673, Grandfontaine was replaced as governor by Jacques de Chambly, who had a misfortune of becoming victim of a ship captian who claimed Acadie for Holland. " ~ ~ "In 1676, the Dutch named Cornelius Steenwyck governor of the "coasts and countries of Nova Scotia and Acadie," but nothing ever came of it. " - The last link almost confirms my point, this author calls the "governor" a victim for claiming Acadia for Holland and the further claim is completely dismissed altogther.
You still haven't addressed my point, you in fact reenforced it but agreeing the Spanish had forts in Eastren Canada that are not claimed (and the various over links you put forward). I really am failing to appreicate your points right now. Just because it is sourced does not mean it is gospel. By the way, I am still waiting on the precident you wish to use to defend your case. As of yet you have produced nothing. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, Acadia WAS Dutch. Briefly. There is an entire book written on the colony if you looked at the links. The forts were Dutch. Period. We are not going to get anywhere arguing this. My finaly point is they were Dutch. The dutch took them from the French. It doesn't matter if it was a "foolish attack", or if they left the forts alone. They occupied the forts for 1 month. Long enough. There is no set time period to be included in an Empire. If you noticed, I didn't shade in all of Acadia. I shaded in the two forts of which 1 was in Nova Scotia. You can't argue the fact that they weren't Dutch. Maybe they weren't that important, but you know as well as I do, they were Dutch in August in 1674. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
Agreed, this is ridiculous. Please state your precident for including Forts that were barely occupied in an Empire Map. If you do not have a precident you can set, then you do not have an agruement. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because it is true doesn't make it worthy of inclusion on a map of the Dutch Empire. The British administered the Dutch East Indies during the Napoleonic War and parts of Germany/Austria after WW2 which is of far more significance than the Dutch capturing a few huts and leaving a couple of months later, but you don't see that on British Empire maps. This is going to sound rude, Red4tribe, and I apologise in advance but it needs to be said: you must have not read very many books on European empires, because if you had, you would know that the history of them does not consist of an exhaustive list of wars and battles, or every single place that nationals of the colonising country captured or declared that country's territory, which is what you seem to be adding to this article. I am 100% opposed to these "hung onto for a few months" places appearing on the Dutch Empire map at all, and I am yet to see someone reply here who holds the same view on this as you. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
New Map
Obviously no one is going to agree with me on this. However, I don't see why these should not be labled on a map that isn't even going to end up on this page. Anyways, What do you think of the other edited old map on this page? (Red4tribe (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
Red4tribe, this is not a military history of wars! Please stop adding the nitty gritty details of wars that Holland was involved in. That is not what an overview history of the empire is about. You don't seem to have taken on board what someone wrote to you above, in "Level of Detail". The battle of this and the battle of that is not an important fact for this article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The dot in Japan is Deshima, it was on the other map. What do you want to be added? This is about colonies, and usually colonies one way or another result in war. It will be added eventually one way or another. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
Deshima (in Nagasaki) is here [5]. Sometimes it pays not to regurgitate info from Wikipedia! As for "what I want to be added" - I sincerely encourage you to go out and read a book on empire. You will see what kind of things are discussed. If you can't do that, read Portuguese Empire or British Empire, and if you can't do that, just read the sections either side of your handiwork here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have read books on empires before. But what you two seem to be unable to understand is the fact that the Dutch were a trading empire. Sure they were a colonial empire too, but their main legacy are their trading posts. (Red4tribe (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
The words "unable to understand" are a bit rich to hear coming from you. I've asked four times for precidents and you've failed to produce anything, to the point that you've never acknowledged my challange at all. So the Dutch were a colonial AND a trading empire. I'll buy that. If you want to include two maps, one for trading posts and one for the colonial empire, I can see that as being important (instead of both mixed into the same Map to avoid confusion). Although with that I would like to note that by the admission of all the text you have in front of you, the posts in Canada do not qualify for either, espeically trading, given they left the forts almost directly after taking them over. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Which defence is that? The one I blew holes into a few days ago or the colonal trade empire defence, which I just addressed and not ignored? Please, now you are just talking non-sense. I've addressed you at every turn, and all I asked for is one example that supports you. One empire map that shows the kinds of things you want. Then you post ten google books links and say thats your reasoning. You seem to have an inability to understand when you are proven wrong or at least you are unable to have honest discussion and address issues. Your defence is always "well these websites/google books say it so it must be true" but when I reviewed them, the links seemed to support our side. After that you accuse me of not knowing the difference between a trading and colonial empire. That is not really a defence as to why these should be on a map of the dutch empire. I've challage you to make two maps, one for known trading posts and one for actual colonys, what did you do? You told me I ignored your defence. Who's ignoring who?-Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Look at the Belgian Empire map, what is that in China? I have listed my defense, if I was proven wrong this disscussion would be over now. My defence is always that? Look at the facts. The forts were Dutch. You can't deny that. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
Okay, now you are getting into a discussion, although I think that you may have picked the worst possible example. 1) Belgian colonial empire: As per the article, Belgium actually was not an empire and so that almost makes this a moot point. Also they only have the one major coloy, the Congo, I think Rwanda was there too but they are so tiny who cares. 2) Now for the Chinese part. Well that is a concession. Kirk, what does that have to do with this agrument? well Red4tribe, if you conceed something to someone, there is no dispute over the territory. You gave it to them. Also it was China, everyone was doing it. I think most countries with empires, expect the Netherlands actually, had concession states in China. England for example had Hong Kong for several years. Great job on versing yourself on Sino-Asian history after the Boxer Rebellion though.
I like this quote: "if I was proven wrong this disscussion would be over now" obviously not. You've yet to make a valid point beyond "The forts were Dutch" and even then most of the "forts" were "Trading posts" under you own admission, which hardy qualify as a empire colony and if you count the Canadian ones, they were FRENCH forts the Dutch attacked, took over for a month, then abandoned, I assume under the idea that they couldn't defend them. Hardly the makings of an empire.
Now with that example and explaination thoroughly torn to pieces and set on fire, I ask again for a valid, I repeat, valid example of what you propose. Also, I again propose that you make two maps, one for colonies and one for trading posts/forts (likely ones that were not abandoned completely within, lets say, 2 years). Also you may want to start structuring your responses with the proper indention, it is really getting bothersome to read and hard for people to follow I would imagine. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The stupidest thing about arguments is arguing who won them which you have taken up to doing, over something that never happened. They were Dutch forts for 31 days. Yes they were. It doesn't matter how brief, they were Dutch. "Everyone was doing it" Well, I guess everyone wasn't establishing trading posts over the world or taking other nations forts either. That must have all been an illussion. "Who Cares" Well, I'm going to take a wild guess that the Africans who had their hands cut off and were hung probably care. The forts were Dutch. Yes, you may want to take those 31 days and try to throw them out of your mind but they were Dutch. Make a valid point instead of gloating and acting like you've won something.(Red4tribe (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
The Dutch fort agrument is settled as far as I am concerned. You have yet to produce a precident to include it and therefore have no basis to. Obviously you have taken some of my comments out of context. When I stated who cares it was in reference to the Belgium colony argument. Given that Rwanda is under 50 times less the size of the Congo, I felt it was safe to say that their overall influence as a colony was not worth commenting on. As for the everyone was doing it in terms of the consession of land in China after the Boxer Rebellion, well I think that actually speaks for itself. This is not gloating. I am just trying to make you understand that you are required to have defendable positions when you wish to produce something that other people will read and assume is gospel. I'm not going to let you produce a map that is obviously flawed without rigorus investigation.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
People - please try and focus on content, rather than editors and your perceptions on their style. In fact, this should insisted on. One’s ego might be important to oneself, but not to the rest of us - we don't notice. Stick to content and quit the one-upmanship – and then others might be interested on commenting. (if you really have to talk on more than content, please do it on user talk pages). Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this should be focused on the content. Unfortunately the comments tend to move toward how my "ignorance" to the situation is causing me to disagree as oppose to actually addressing my points. I thought a thorough disection of his positions would force a valid argument stream or a concession. I have yet to see either, hopefully soon.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Language of Instruction in the Dutch West Indies
Just to state the situation in long form so that people stop changing phrasing. Here on Bonaire, early education is in Papiamentu, but by the time a child is 12 years or so, his education is predominantly in Dutch. My understanding is that Aruba is the same as Bonaire. On Curacao, the educational system is predominately Dutch from an earlier age.Kww (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Rubbish
To claim that Indonesian language gained grammatical influence from Dutch is problematic to say the least and should be examined for its potential as a misleading statement. Vocabulary maybe - but please if you dont know the language - please do not put it in! SatuSuro01:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It was argued in that paper, which Red4tribe added as though it was a "fact", which is why I reworded it. It would be good to get other sources on this before adding it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I have talked to Indonesians who even say Dutch has influenced their language. Granted, they did not say 20% but they showed me words that were very clearly of Dutch origin. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
That may be vocabulary - but you better dig deep to find a ref on the influence on grammar otherwise leave that out - anecdotal conversation does not suffice as evidence for a wikipedia article like this one SatuSuro01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I will continue to look for grammar(no genders, unlike Dutch), but just to prove my point to those who do not speak Dutch or Indonesian arbei-aardbei(strawberry), tante-tante(aunt). Anyways my suggestion here would be to remove the argument for similar grammar now(unless i find something else), but I don't believe there is much of an argument about Indonesian words coming from Dutch. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
I think the issue is with the term grammatical. Obviously these maybe borrowed words but it is hardly a grammatical influence. Commonly, colonized communities borrow words from the empire language. Pork and beef come from Nomanic words for pig and cow. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It is obvious to find the difference between Malay and Indonesian as having vocabulary influences from their respective colonial visitors - the english and dutch vocabulary influence is well - if not over documented - I have no problem with that and if you bothered to look into the Indonesian language articles on wikipedia - it is accepted. Even to the point that some malay and indonesian vocabulary is not interchangable: - despite having the same origins - however to argue that the basic malay/indonesian grammar has been influenced is another subject again and should be left out unless very good sources can be utilised. To know of a dutch word that is duplicated to create a name in indonesian ( as given above) does not constitute a grammatical influence - it is a vocabulary item. cheers SatuSuro03:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a somewhat dubious reference. It's not an academic piece, rather it appears to be an advertisement for language courses. even the first few words are wrong - "Bahasa Indonesia" is the Indonesian word for the language, not the English word - niether of these point suggest to me that this is a reliable source. :-) regards --Merbabu (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that was my doing. I was scrabbling around for something - anything - to replace this reference [6], from which the following was being quoted verbatim: "even the younger generation is interested in the language". It is being used to support the claim that older generations can speak Dutch. Do you dispute that? It would be good to have some numbers. Anyway, I think there is something that is missing from this section which is the point that Dutch had a relatively small linguistic legacy in Indonesia, even though the Dutch were in Indonesia longer than the English in India or the French in Morocco. I have a source that makes this point (Ostler) but Red4tribe kept reverting it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt10:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ostler was wrong for Suriname so why should we trust him for Indonesia? Not everyone in the older generation can speak it, just some of them, enough to be noted. (Red4tribe (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
Ok this begs the question - who, where, why? etc - is it is rather a large population a generalisation like that suggests first hand knowledge or a source? SatuSuro 11:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Saying "Dutch is spoken by the older generation" makes it sound like an important daily language. From my considerable experience, I've met a few older people who can string a few words together. I'm speculating (based on knowledge of Indonesia's 20th century) that those educated in Dutch were a minority. I'd say it'd be a few elderly from the educated elite who get around a cup of tea for a bit of Dutch banter - for a bit of fun. Not a "spoken" language.--Merbabu (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not hard at all to find a source that says Dutch is still spoken there. Just look up the dutch language and nearly always, Indonesia is listed under where it is spoken. (Red4tribe (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
Hey there, I hate to be mister buzzkill again but for kicks I just looked at the article for Indonesia and apparently they went out of their way not to learn Dutch. Yep. As part of a nationalist movement, begining in the 1920's they wanted all citizens to speak Indonesian as their first language while permitting them to speak some of the over 700 local languages as well. No where have I found that Dutch is spoken regularly there, in fact, I found this page Languages_of_Indonesia on the languages most widely spoken in Indonesia and Dutch doesn't make the top 15.. or is on the list. I found this map Map of spoken languages from the 70's and it appears that Dutch is not widely spoken in an area. Before you retort, the map lists Chinese as being a lanaguage spoken in the region by many people but not in any particular place.. I assume it would have afforded Dutch the same if it were on the list. That being said, I'm sure some people speak it there but it seems to be a novelity language in the area, like Latin, spoken by few but hardly wide spread. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying its spoken in everyday conversations, unless its a group of older people, but it is still somewhat known there. Sure, it will probably die out in 20 years give or take a few. Anyways, we can take it out 20 years from now when its completley dead. Less and less speak Dutch there everyday. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
Your words here - "somewhat known" - are a lot closer to the mark than the article that said something along the lines of "still spoken by the older generation". Can you see the difference? I'm not saying it's perfect (ie, "somewhat" is odd), but it's a lot better and closer to the reality. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If I can find sources for it, would that be an appropriate topic for this article? Because of the Dutch trading, I have neighbors with Indonesian architecture, Indonesian words that have been borrowed into Papiamentu, Indonesian dishes that are thought of as Antillean and Surinamese, etc. I'll try to dig up reliable sourcing if it won't get immediately deleted as irrelevant.Kww (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I think that would be a good idea. You could also talk about how the Indonesian dishes are popular in the Netherlands too. (Red4tribe (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
Obviously, such a statement needs to be sourced. Sushi is popular in the United States and pizza and Chinese takeaway in the UK but it doesn't mean anything about imperialism. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That'll be a problem, but I'm a stickler for sourcing anyway. There are cases that are pretty obvious, like the Papiamentu word for small market being "toko". Not many ways for that word to make it from Indonesia to Bonaire without it being an effect of the Dutch trading empire, but I'll have to see if any third-party ever bothered to write about it. It's frustrating to deal with sourcing on obscure topics sometimes. I think the reason the words for camera, refrigerator, and insecticide are "kodak", "frishider", and "flit" are pretty obvious, but I don't think anyone in authority ever bothered to write down the etymology.Kww (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Reading between the lines, it appears that some might want to be building a case, rather than reporting on an existing case. If it is indeed that significant and tangible, it should be easily sourced – rather than a concept that we need to construct. I’m concerned about notability and synthethis issues. --Merbabu (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Trying to improve the article, getting reverted by Red4tribe
Hi everyone
I am trying to improve the article here and talk about the Dutch Empire not wars that the Dutch were involved in and I'm getting immediately reverted by Red4tribe. Some assistance would be appreciated. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As pointed out above by Merbabu, there is far too much detail on wars and battles. This is not appropriate information for the article, Red4tribe, I'm sorry, but that is the case. If you revert again, I will report you for 3RR violations. Your behaviour at this article is unacceptable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because an article needs to be fleshed out doesn't mean that one has to jump in and paste in text. Most of what you have written has very little consequence for the Dutch Empire. When I attempted to improve it, your immediate reaction was to instantaneously revert it. Instantanoues. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes for the most part I do, because you're reverting my accurate edits. I was in the process of listing sources when this started. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
What is needed is some other opinions and attention. I've made a fair bit of comment here (albeit general) as have others. Hopefully over the coming weekend I can implement some of this. A big one for me is the level of detail on a battles that is already contained in seperate war/battle articles. Ie, in the Indonesia sections, I didn't repeat all the details of Netherlands East Indies campaign, Japanese occupation of Indonesia, or Indonesian National Revolution. I'm not saying my work is perfect or beyond major revision, but I've tried to only state the main consequences. This summary article, IMO, should not focus on the events behind the building or dissoltion of the empire (which are repeated in other articles), but need the briefest of mentions, and focus to go onto what I see as Dutch colonialism. This article is going to be a very broad summary of detailed info contained in a whole lot of other articles. Ie, it should be seen as a "mother article" - with lots of "child articles" linked to it. And, it doesn't have to be overally long. COnsider the reader - give them quality, not quantity. It should be an article for someone who knows nothing about the subject - give them a tight overview. If they want to know more about an individual battle, use the link. But as I said before, the reduction in detail doesn't has to happen now. Also, it must not remove info from wikipedia. ie, we must make sure it is contained in a relevant "child article" first before removal from here.
Also, all editors should really refrain from combative attitudes both on the talk page and the article itself - even if one's position is "correct", combat/incivilty/accusations/etc only make it worse. WP:CIVIL is not there so we be nice to each other and feel warm and fuzzy inside, it is there to enforce an atmosphere of collaboration - WP:CIVIL is for the benefit of wikipedia, not editors. Discuss content not editors. Use talk page, not undo button - we don't have to have a perfect article today. (this is aimed at all - including me - please don't take offence). Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Red4tribe, what Merbabu is trying to accomplish is to develop this article according to a summary style. For such a broad and general topic, this is the encouraged approach. Such a “parent article” provides a useful overview for a reader, with links to guide the reader to more fully developed, detailed “child” articles on specific topics, without giving undue weight to minor topics or overmuch detail to important sub-topics. Excessive inclusion of detail in a single article can make it unreadable (due to “reader fatigue”). Askari Mark(Talk)00:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Prehaps mine was too detailed, but I do feel this one could use a little bit more information than it currently has. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
That may well be the case, but Talk page discussion is always preferable to reverts. Since it is a matter of opinion as to how much is too little, too much or just enough, reasonable people can disagree constructively, which is what we call "achieving consensus". Askari Mark(Talk)01:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Merbabu - you wrote "This summary article, IMO, should not focus on the events behind the building or dissoltion of the empire (which are repeated in other articles), but need the briefest of mentions, and focus to go onto what I see as Dutch colonialism". I would have thought that the events behind the building and dissolution of the empire are exactly what this article should focus on, but leaving the minutiae of these events to articles on those events (one doesn't need to know, in a summary article, how many ships or soldiers were sent to conquer New Netherland, but its handover to the English in 1667 is an important fact). One thing this article should definitely not do is get into a sociological analysis of empire: that is not what encylopaedias are for. I hope that is not what you are proposing? My view is that this article should be the exact parallel of Portuguese Empire, Spanish Empire and British Empire. What is yours? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps when I said the "briefest of mentions" I gave the wrong impression. If an event is fundamental and highly notable to the topic of a summary article - say, for example the Japanese invasion of Indonesia it doesn't mean we have to give it more words to prove its notability - a country invading and occupying another territory is self evidently notable. But, I think you are thinking this way too, right? The campaign itself (IMO) is not the only thing of not for this article, but also its consequences, context, etc.
As for the "sociological analysis" I'm not sure what you mean - can you elaborate? Why is that not encyclopedic? Without knowing exactly what you mean, I suspect I disagree - it would be another aspect of Empire that needs to be discussed. I don't think the article should solely focus on the "Dutch" side of things - what about the indigenous peoples? Other contexts, consequences, etc. Although like our apparently shared ideas on the military aspects, I am by no means advocating the article gets taken over by the other aspects - like the military aspects, limit it to mentions of the main points and then readers can be linked to expansions of the topics, such as Dutch East Indies. But as I've said before, I'm in no rush to blank sections, re-write it, etc - and will hopefully look into it more soon. We will get there! As for the 3 articles you suggest, I had a very quick skim through - the British one is impressive. --Merbabu (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I am glad you like the B.E. article as this is one that I had a large hand in crafting (the origins to 1815 bits), and I hope we all can get this one up to the same level. Anyway, trumpet blowing aside, I think we're basically in agreement here on the military side of things. What I meant about the sociological analysis stuff is staying away from injecting any WP:POV - the stuff you might read in a doctoral thesis or see on the shelf of a international development studies professor's bookcase - things which inevitably involve interpretation and analysis and are not hard fact. An example of that might be an analysis of the benefits/costs of Dutch rule in Indonesia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, NPOV is a given. Although, what I'm calling "context and consequences" is a little more tricky in that respect than, say dates and troop numbers, it is by no means impossible or less important - and we have some already in the article. Let's handle any POV issues as and if they arise. (for what it's worth, I know of no cost and benefit analysis of the Dutch rule, nor can I imagine that I would advocate it's use in the article!). However, I might at later date, look at putting in a few sentences from Dutch East Indies, and it's related/linked articles - but in good time. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Cape Colony - boundaries look too large compared with Boxer's map in the Dutch Seaborne Empire.
Caribbean - there should be six dots in the Caribbean, I am not sure what the current ones are
South America - the boundaries of British Guyana were not finalised until long after it was last Dutch, yet this has the modern day borders of Guyana shaded
New Netherland - looks far too large and not aligned north to south with the Hudson River as New Netherland was
Gold Coast - far too much territory shaded - the Dutch had forts on the coast. The British hadn't even penetrated this far in just prior to the Scramble for Africa (using McEvedy's Penguin Atlas of African History as a reference)
Taiwan - the Dutch had a fort at Fort Zeelandia. They did not rule over the whole island.
As far as I am aware, the Dutch never penetrated the whole of inland Ceylon - e.g. the kingdom of Kandy?
Deshima - this was a trading post, not a colony, at the pleasure of the rules of Japan. The Japanese could have booted them out at any time.
New Netherland-They claimed and occupied the eastern half of connenicut(sp) the Hudson Valley, The Philidelphia Penslyvenia(sp) area, and the Delaware River Valley(northern Delaware, and New Jersey). http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/AMH/map.aspx?lang=en
Cape Colony- Here is a map on the expansion, I will continue to look for my book
Sri Lanka-The Dutch settled on the coasts, but claimed the whole island. Kandy remained independent, on the map it would look like a small white speck.
Deshima-Was on old map so I included it
Goald Coast-Now that I take a look at this map they did not travel deep into the jungles, but they occupied more coast than that map says.
Guyana-Not sure about the bounderies, will search for them
Taiwan: I really don't understand how many times I have to tell you that personal websites are not acceptable sources. Which part of that do you not understand? The nationaalarchief site shows three forts. Not the whole of Taiwan.
New Netherland - again, the nationaalarchief shows forts. It does not imply that it is correct to shade such a large area as per the current map. As discussed before, "claims" are relatively meaningless during this era.
Cape Colony - you never provided a map, but again, C. R. Boxer's detailed map, showing how the colony expanded until its capture by Britain does not concur with these boundaries.
Sri Lanka - claims, claims, claims... Spain and Portugal claimed the whole of the world. Doesn't mean anything.
I know your intentions are good, but your activities at Wikpedia lead me to believe that you just don't getWP:NOR and WP:CITE and WP:SYN. In a way this is worse than vandalism: at least it's obvious "Mr. Wilson has a small tackle" injected into an article is nonsense. When you add stuff that you have conjured up in your bedroom, an unsuspecting reader may be misled into thinking that this is established fact. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Is using books wrong? Because it seems okay when red hat does it, but when I do a problem all of a sudden appears. (Red4tribe (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
More unsourced gems
"In New York Courts were required to have written material in Dutch as well as English until the 1920's. Even early in the 1900's some people in New York and New Jersey, mostly the elderly, spoke Dutch at home and as their native language." I have to say, I find this extremely unlikely, but am willing to be proved wrong. Provide a source for this, please Red4tribe, and make it a good one. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt04:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
History of the Dutch Empire vs History of the Netherlands
Red4tribe, a lot of your edits seem to suggest that you think this is an article on the history of the Netherlands in general. It's not: it's an article about the overseas activities of the Dutch - the Dutch colonial empire. Whilst these activities were obviously influenced greatly, often driven directly, by events in Europe, unless the European events had a notable impact on the colonial activities of the Dutch, it's not really relevant material for this article. Another edit that you seem hell bent on having in the article is this one [8]. What was the impact of "King Louis not performing to Napoleon's expectations" on the Dutch colonial empire? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt04:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
But, what was the impact? If it had an impact then that impact should be explained (with a source). Or is your reasoning "they were under French control so they must have had some impact, not sure what it was but I'll put it in anyway because that's what I think"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
So you are suggesting that, despite being a satellite state of France since 1795, these ports and riches were left untouched by France until it decided to annex the state in 1810? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Where did I say that? The French gained full control of the ports etc.. after the Kingdom was dissolved. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
Cape Colony
The Dutch Cape Colony did not extend up as far as the border with present day Namibia. Boxer's map has it, in 1795, extended as far as Buffels River which is half way between Port Nolloth and Hondeklip [9]. In his Penguin Atlas of the British Empire, Dalziel also concurs with this. In his "Conquest of the Cape" map, on page 45, it shows the frontier in 1840 and 1829 (when it had become British) beginning in the same place as Boxer's 1795 one - ie on the Atlantic coast, it had not moved, even decades after the Dutch were ousted. The map shows it extending up to the Orange River (ie, the border with Namibia) in 1848. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
List of wars
Red4tribe, you are persisting in making this article a list of Dutch wars, aren't you? Despite comments above, you've now added details of another war [10] which had no impact on the Dutch Empire. Why are you doing this? The artice does not need to list every single war that the Dutch got involved in. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt12:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no map on that website that I can see which justifies this colouring. Also, please provide a page number of that book which you have provided as a reference, so I can view the map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt13:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that you are engaged in original research with this map. To contrast with the Cape Colony and Brazil maps that I uploaded, these are based exactly on two maps in C. R. Boxer's Dutch Seaborne Empire book (well, as exactly as I could - obviously it's difficult reproducing it exactly down to the last pixel, but the important thing is that I am not adding any of my own interpretation to it). Your map is showing specific shaded areas, which, unless you can demonstrate you are reproducing (not reinterpreting) from a map in a reliable source, it is original research. So provide me with the map that you have produced this from. The VOC/WIC fort map is not an acceptable source for this, because that shows points - you have shaded areas. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt13:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed both those references - the online reference shows nothing, and my edition of Ricklefs has no such map. --Merbabu (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Red4tribe: Disruptive Behaviour & Disputed Map of Dutch Settlements in Asia
OK, so Red4tribe is now being disruptive to make a WP:POINT. You have disputed the map of Asia, which shows the location of the settlements discussed in the text. Given that you can look up the location of these cities in maps.google.com, and given that the text is already sourced, explaining which settlements the Dutch captured from the Portuguese, can you please explain what you are disputing? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. I had not provided a source for the Asia map because it was an an aid to the text: it was just a visual representation of the places discussed to its left, which all were sourced, and one can easily check the location of the dots by looking at an atlas. I hope you can see that your map is actually making claims in its own right, and no words would be a reasonable source for it: for a map like that, the only acceptable source is another map. If you are reading words such as "the Dutch captured Amboina in 1605" and then deciding "well, it says the Dutch were in Amboina in 1605, so I will shade this area", that is original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt13:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that these actually come from the Univ. of Texas. This seems to me to be like another self published website who is listing his own sources, a bit like that colonial voyage website which you know I strongly object to as a source. I have an alternative suggestion. DeSar's "Southeast Asia: Past and Present" [11] has a map of the East Indies on page 88, showing areas of European occupation dividend into three periods. Luckily, Amazon have scanned that page and made it available, if you click on the link. I suggest we use this instead? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt14:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No sooner have we dealt with one unsourced map, we are onto the next.[12] The map of Dutch spoken round the world is again based on self-published websites, plastered together into one grandiose unreliable, and unlabelled map. Is Dutch really spoken on every single island of the Indonesian archipelago? I sincerely doubt it. What is that small area of France and Germany shaded in as Dutch being the official or first language? Where did these particular shadings of South Africa and Namibia come from? What are those dots in the USA? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt19:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Analysis of references provided:
[13] ifarm.nl - Erik Tjong Kim Sang's own homepage
[14] - a website written by a guy called Chris Sonnemans
[15] - admittedly a professor, but his personal section of his university's website would not have been peer reviewed. Besides, it doesn't have a legend and it doesn't show Namibia.
Come on - please be serious here. None of these references justify the shading you have used. Do we have to go through this every single bloody time? You seem to operate by uploading your own information, and then scrambling around to find sources - usually dubious - that back it up. That is the wrong way round. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt19:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The map is highly suspect. I've removed it but it got reverted again without any explanation. Saying that over all of Indonesia a minority speak Dutch is complete rubbish. See WP:SYN --Merbabu (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I really don't understand how you can seriously dispute this but ok.
Indonesia-Marked for country in general, a SMALL MINORITY of that country can speak dutch
Please show which part of the Indonesia reference you provided supports you assertion that "Dutch is spoken by a minority". --Merbabu (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
For Indonesia, I am marking for the country in general. In general, there are still a minority of people that can speak it. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
My question was: Please show which part of the Indonesia reference you provided supports you assertion that "Dutch is spoken by a minority". . I take your response above to mean that you are making up information to fill the holes in the knowledge needed to create a map. You have enough info to make a statement about Dutch speakers in Indonesia (that's fine in principle), but you don't have enough info to make a map, nor can you just fill it. --Merbabu (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, why, when I have told you countless times, are you using a Wikpedia map as a source? I seriously do not understand you. Nothing seems to register with you. Wikipedia is not a source that can be used to verify other articles on Wikipedia (that would be circular, wouldn't it?) Personal, self published, websites are not acceptable. How do I have to phrase this so that you understand? I also see you are at it at other articles too, and removing requests not to do it on your talk page. [19]The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"at it on other pages" I added a book for that reference, which they conviently deleted.....that has nothing to do with this. What are you disputing about this map? There is nothing to dispute. I explained Indonesia above, if you wish to go through and see which islands have more dutch speakers go ahead. I'd guess Java has the most but that really is just a wild guess. The guy was a proffessor, as you said, so I'd say that afrikaans is ok. The dots are explained...what are you disputing? (Red4tribe (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
If you look at this is says Indonesia and France under "region". It even goes further to say 80,000 speakers in that region of France. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
Would you care to explain how Holland, Michigan was a legacy of the Dutch Empire? And why is part of France coloured in but the whole of Indonesia? That is inconsistent. This map is entirely your own original research and should not be on WP. Certainly not in the "legacy" section on an article on the Dutch Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Its a Dutch langauge map....I shaded where they speak Dutch. It is unknown where the largets Dutch speaking part of Indonesia is, that is why it is all shaded in. For France, it is better known, so that is why I only shaded in the area it is spoken in. This is absolutley 0 original research. I seriously have no idea how you can deny that this isn't an accurate map. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_map.asp?name=FR&seq=10(Red4tribe (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
Dodgy personal home pages and whole country/partial country inconsistencies aside, it has no place on the Dutch Empire legacy section page. This is a section about consequences of the Dutch Empire, of which the spread of Dutch was one, not about the Dutch Languageper se. The fact that Dutch emigrants set up communities in the USA two hundred years after the Netherlands were ousted from North America, or indeed that certain portions of France and Germany speak Dutch, is not a legacy of the Dutch colonial empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The map is where Dutch/Afrikaans is spoken. And how is that home page dodgy? I see absolutely nothing "dodgy" about it. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
Some thoughts on quality
I understand and commend Red4Tribe’s motivation in creating maps – they are excellent visual tools that literally do “say 1000 words”. So his intent is fine, and he clearly goes to some effort which should be acknowledged.
HOWEVER, maps, like any entry should be based on the thoroughly reliable references to COMPLETE information. Ie, in my opinion a smaller amount of quality info is better than a larger amount of potentially dubious. Not only does the info have to be well-verified, it must also give our readers a sense of reliability. If one item is not well back-up or proves to be false, what will they think about the rest of WP?
As I said above, we have enough verification to make a mention of Dutch language in Indonesia (even though the info is a bit vague), however, we don’t have enough to make a full map – to just fill in info is WP:OR and WP:SYN. If we don’t have that info, then it is better to just leave it blank. We don’t create knowledge, we report it.
Please keep up your energy Red4Tribe, but please strive for quality. Remember, a small piece of quality is better than a large piece of dubious quality. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I really think that for language distribution you will find it very hard to find any information to be adequately represented on a map. I think a map just doesn't work in this case, unless you can find info island by island. hmmm. let me think what else we could do. --Merbabu (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Attempting to draw a map of Dutch speakers in Indonesia would be like trying to draw a map of French speakers in the UK - impossible, given that there are no cohesive communities of either. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of quality, at WP it begins with locating a reputable source before adding the material, so the material and the reference can be added at the same time. That way, anyone monitoring the page can double check the reference if they wish. Quality rarely begins with adding what you think you know to be true, and then scrabbling around with google searches to find material that supports this view. And quality certainly does not involve using personal websites as references. Red4tribe: if you abided by the policies of WP:NOR and WP:V and WP:RS at Wikipedia, you and I would get on a lot better. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem I have is I do follow those rules, and yet every time I list something you try to dig up some vauge rule and try to make whatever I did seem to fit into that category.(Red4tribe (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
There are 254 books whose title contains the words "End of Empire" [20], compared with five containing "End of an Empire" [21] 1029 with the exact "End of Empire" phrase inside the book [22], 638 with "End of an Empire" [23]. It is a turn of phrase. Please put it back. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Gentlemen (ladies?),
Following the 'discussions' going on on this talk page and cross-referencing with the achieved 'improvements' in the article I would say it seems time for a time-out. This is not the private project of either User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick or User:Red4tribe or the both of you together, as the case may be. Apparently this specific article attracts a lot of controversy, as the current edit war is not the first one. As a historian I do not see why. All of the issues discussed can be dealt with NPOV, in an academic debate and directed towards consensus.
I suggest a cooling-off period without edits and reverts for a couple of days, and also without further debate. After that it might be a good idea to first inventorise the mutual POV's in relation to the (perceived) needs of the article. Then a plan of action might be a good idea to improve the article section by section, without actually editing the article itself before consensus is reached on the talk page.
I am not an administrator, nor do I wish to be one, but it pains me to see how good work by good editors can work against the overall quality of an article when emotions become the guiding principle. Michel Doortmont (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I realise that you are trying to do "the right thing" here by mediating, but please understand that I have been having ten days of an uphill struggle trying to get Red4tribe to provide proper sources for his numerous additions. His failure to play by the rules has only been made clear for everyone to see: today he got blocked for a week for being disruptive and was confirmed to be using a sock puppet account to evade 3RR. [24] I only have one concern here: that this article should be one of quality and trustworthiness. I can assure you that I have no delusions of grandeur that this article is a personal project. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Happy to hear you do not consider the article your personal project, but do consider what impression and signals you give to prospective editors who stood on the sideline for the last two weeks. Tone of voice and manner of action do a lot either to reach or prevent consensus and promote open debate. I was not trying to mediate, just proposing a possibly more satisfactory approach to an article that has the potential to reach FA-status. Hence the second part of my comment: plan of action, list of to-do's, etc. so that we can avoid future edit wars. As I pointed out, yours was not the first one on this article. Michel Doortmont (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to say that independantly Redtribe's dubious editting nature was bought to my attention and with me too, after requesting precedent or proper sourcing, I basically got over ruled by "well I think its right". I commend Pat for staying with him for so long. He got too ridiculous for me to deal with quite frankly.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi... if you are interested in joining the debate, please mosey on over to discuss the Proposed merger with List of Dutch East India Company trading posts, for or against. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Dutch Language in Indonesia
I have reworded this paragraph, because I feel that it gave an incorrect impression of the impact of Dutch in Indonesia. I also think that the "20% of Indonesian words are from Dutch" paper should not be mentioned, unless corroborating references can be found: it does not appear to be academic consensus. So I removed it. Even though the wording said "one scholar suggested that", it still lends undue weight to the claim. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Big problem with the Dutch Language. This source claims that 20 Million people speak Dutch which, is uh, not possible. 16 Million people live in the Netherlands. Lets say 15 million speak dutch(I suspect it is more). Same with Flanders. Lets say out of the 6 Million people, 5 million speak Dutch. Well, that is 20 million right there. This isn't including Suriname, Indonesia, or Dutch communities in Canada, the USA, French Flanders, or anywhere else in the world where people happen to speak Dutch. here are references that claim more than 20 million.
Welcome back. Firstly, there is no need to label a whole section "disputed" when you are querying one fact. Secondly, it says as of 2005. Thirdly, I personally wouldn't object to a more updated figure, but it would be nicer to have a good reference instead of summing up the numbers found in more than one reference. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Irrespective of the merits of the info that is "disputed", I disagree with the need for such a drastic tagging. These are for major and fundamental issues and only to be used following appropriate good faith attempts to resolve. --Merbabu (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Red4tribe - how is someone supposed to verify the reference that you have placed there? You can't just put "Taalunieversum". Please fix it or I will revert soon. Oh, and the Taalunieversum reference above does not support the figure you added to the article. 15+6+0.4 = 21.4 not 23. If you are adding your own numbers to that from other locations in the world, you are engaging in synthesis. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt11:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note, this is not a review, but it may help with future review processes.
The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted and this problem will hinder the FAC nomination. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>
If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly before this article undergoes FAC, and indeed this is something that any reviewer should insist you do before supporting your article. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards
Food as a legacy
I removed the food section [35] for the following reasons:
Indonesian food has become daily life in the Netherlands. - a complete generalisation for 15 million people, probably totally unprovable anyway. And what does "daily life" mean? All 15 million Dutch have a daily encounter with Indonesian food?
Indonesian food in the Netherlands, is somewhat comparable to Chinese food in the United States of America. - says who? and in what way? what does this even mean anyway - what status does Chinese food have in the USA and who says it has this status?
Chili peppers - considering that these were not indigenous to Indonesia, and were brought there by other nations, I don't see how this is a "legacy" of the Dutch Empire
That reference, not that it really supports any of this, is another personal website.
I couldn't see the recommendation, but irrespective of that, you need to use some discretion when doing FAC. Generally, if someone offers stylistic recommendation then you should take it - most reviewers on FAC know what they are talking about. On the other hand, if it is content advice, the reviewer may not know as much as you do on the topic, so you should consider/discuss their recommendation first. Ie, usually FA advice is good, but sometimes you should question. Do know when to take advice or question it comes with experience.
PS, can you please use edit summaries when editing articles. Although not compulsory, all good editors do it - those who don't tend to be lousy editors. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/DutchEmpire.png){kind=link}
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Language.png){kind=link}
![[15]](http://www.sois.uwm.edu/jacques/images/afrikaans.JPG){kind=link}
