Talk:New Holland

Nova Hollandia or Dutch Acadie

I have removed the Dutch Acadie reference:

Nova Hollandia or Dutch Acadie, encompassing part of what is now Maine and New Brunswick

Because of the following reasons: 1) No one of any historical note refers to the area with that name. 2) It was never official called that in a historical context. 3) This is a disambigiton page and no one, because of the previous reasons, would be confused by the ambigiuity of the subject. 4) You procede to follow the susposed name with another name because no one would know that it was called Nova hollandia if you didn't mention it.

Please state you reasons why this SHOULD be included in this disambiguation page. It seems to me that you want to add it for recongition and not to avoid confusion.

-Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added section title here. The edit in question is here, removing the entire line. -Colfer2 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help there, there was no discussion so I forgot the title. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The territory was claimed as Nova Hollandia, which translates as New Holland. I don't see what the problem is. Red4tribe (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides not addressing the numbered reasons I have laid out, a disambigation page is meant to help direct people to a page about a subject they would otherwise get confused about, for example, two people named John Smith. Well which john smith do you mean? My problem is that no one, I mean actually people limited only to you and maybe 5 others, refer to that area as Nova Hollandia. Even at the time it is noted in the articles you reference the claim was all but dismissed by everyone, even the Dutch who appointed someone as governor as a token title. Obviously someone searching Nova Hollandia or New Holland isn't going to get that confused with Austrailia, or the various towns called new holland. Also, it appears to me to be an obvious joke because you have to go so far as to INCLUDE ANOTHER NAME for the area that people MAY know it by so that they can understand WHERE IT IS and that area is BARELY called its name by, and you've guessed it, a hand full of people including yourself ON wikipedia. Basically, no one looking for New Holland is going to be looking for this and this was never the historically accepted name of the area in question and therefore should not be in the article. -Kirkoconnell (talk)

Yeah, so there are two phrases in question here, "Nova Hollandia" and "Dutch Acadie", or three if you count "New Holland." How widely is "New Holland" used in the historiography of his period with this meaning? There are three obvious edits that would do the job of clarifying this for users, which is the goal:

1. (~~previous~~ mod of previous edit) Nova Hollandia or Dutch Acadie, a Dutch claim to Acadia in northeastern North America in the 1670s.

2. Nova Hollandia (meaning "New Holland"), a Dutch claim to Acadia in northeastern North America in the 1670s.

3. (delete)

I would choose "3. (delete)" unless there are good refs for the usage "New Holland" in the literature, and #2 otherwise. I don't see any usage of "Dutch Acadie" outside Wikipedia and its derivatives. -Colfer2 (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a valid discussion, as always, Red4tribe has taken it upon himself to edit without addressing the issue. So I will. New Holland is used less widely than I am refered to as Sparticus. A sin I know. Also, Red4tribe in his infinte wisdom referenced the following article "Acadia, Maine, and New Scotland: Marginal Colonies in the Seventeenth Century by John G. Reid (1981) pg. 293". I will have you note that in the ACTUAL title it states Marginal Colonies. Upon further review it appears that it is a PhD thesis by Dr. Reid... which I am not sure is or is not a original research. Anyway clearly if the reference you wish to include states it is a "Marginal Colony" at best, this is strech to say that people would be searching for it at all. Again, I am not saying it is not encycpedia worthy. There is an article on the Dutch in North America and it is a great sentence in the article "In year blah blah Captain blah took several forts in the area around blah and named it blah. While the claim existed until blah they were not able to formally control the area, abandoned the forts a few months later and in the treaty of blah ceded all rights to the area." Otherwise, it was not historically signicant as red4tribe would want it to be. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess someone must refer to you as Sparticus occasionally. If someone is reading through a book, and one day and sees Acadia was claimed as New Holland by a Dutch Captain, and they decide took look it up one day, wouldn't it be worth having it listed? You are not remaing WP:CIVIL at the moment, as you are moving towards insults. But yet again, all of this is "fucking nonsense" isn't it? Red4tribe (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We as a matter of fact I think that term more or less discribes it yes. I am trying to be civil in the face of an habitual rule breaker, known sockpuppetter whose refuses to actually engage in a debate and resort to "truthiness" of the article. You lucky wikipedia isn't a democratcy because you would have been voted out months ago. Oh and please address the issues. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am sorry to say you have failed. Red4tribe (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has protected the page until 2 August. Take a break guys, it's only a disambig page. -Colfer2 (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreicate everyone's efforts on this, I am somewhat upset as to why it was protected. Basically I ask for a reasoned dicussion on this matter, ask for ANY proof that would include this, and red4tribe inexplicibly, actually without explaination, changes it back. I would think he falls under 3RR given he lack of will to participate in a consenses and/or general dicussion on that matter. Protecting the article the way it is basically rewards his lack of effort to follow rules and be fair on Wikipedia. And that is upsetting to me because I understand Wikipedia is about this "Be Bold" business but to me and I am fairly certain most academics, information HAS to be fair before bold. I can list 4 reasons that are unrefuted as to why that should not be there. He cannot list one as to why it should. It stays for a month. Wow, talk about fair practise and consense Wikipedia gods.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply ignoring all my claims. Look at my 2nd to last post on this page. You ignore my claims, then after seeing them, declare they aren't valid and your argument is. And please stop making false claims that I am not disscussing, because by look at this page I think it is pretty clear I am. Red4tribe (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim "If someone is reading through a book, and one day and sees Acadia was claimed as New Holland by a Dutch Captain, and they decide took look it up one day, wouldn't it be worth having it listed?" So someone is reading a book about ACADIA and finds out it was once claimed by the Dutch. Which article do you think they would be looking at? Hint, if the book is about ACADIA they would, unless they have developed some sort of condition where logic is a secondary source of common sense, search for ACADIA and not New Holland to get more information regarding the subject. Then the question arises, what book at they reading/ It appears to me that you could actually make stickers and paste them on the entirely of books on the subject. All four that have ever been referenced. I ignored this argument because I thought it invalided itself and was not worthy of replying to. I'm sorry, next time I'll be sure to directly invalidate your arguments before saying you refuse to discuss. Although, of course, that does not get you off the hook for changing the page back before consenus was reached, which is the usually practice in a discussion. Not "Its my way, so I'm changing it."-Kirkoconnell (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did exactly what I said you were going to do. If someone is reading through a book about acadia and they see it was claimed as New Holland, they would type in New Holland, and then they would see the Dutch occupation there. Red4tribe (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid point. It is never known historically, regionally, or in any sense outside of those with knowledge o fthe claim. Your task is to prove otherwise. Simply noted that in your opinion someone would search the topic New Holland when they were reading a book about Acadia is not proof that this term will be a generally searched term. I would go so far as to say that no one searching for a new holland reference would be searching for this example. it seems to be a clear attempt to draw "viewership" to your Dutch Acadia page, which I believe is a violation of the use of a disambigity page. You have no reasoned standing whatsoever. Please provide one. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to do it. Ignoring any claim I make, with only you to say this is not valid. Something that you believe it to be not vaild is needed. I added a reference to where it is refered to as New Holland. I could add more if you wish. Red4tribe (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point of a disambigity page. I am sorry if I sound harsh to you but the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia has standards. I am not ignoring your claim, it is not valid for the explaination I discussed. The references to the area as such are vague, marginal and confusing. No one will confuse this as it was never a generally accepted term. If it was, it would have been here before you. Believe it or not Wikipedia has had editors for several years, most of whom are knowledgable. If you cannot tell that you are pocessing this issue, you really need to step back and let your agruments help you or see if others agree with you. You seem to be the sole voice on this and thats the problem I have. I don't want someone re-writting history or the importance of something. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]