Talk:New Netherland

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents


[edit] Flag?

Where does the currently displayed flag come from? I can find no reference to it anywhere besides halfway down this Alternate History site :http://pmburgess.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.11.114 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The indicated source describes it as the flag of a "Republic of New Netherland". In other words; as the flag of his fantasy nation. Cannot location any credible sourcing to back that one up. Which also means that the flag image should be deleted from Commons as well before more people fall into this trap. 83.89.16.138 (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Netherland vs New Netherlands

I'm not sure if that's right; Although the Dutch name or the colony is singular, the English name might well be plural (compare with modern day Nederland vs. the Netherlands). -- Rik

The name New Netherland, without the -s, is correct. In the original Dutch, the name is, in different spellings, 'Nieu Nederlandt', always singular. And, oh, let's please leave out $24. The payment was sixty guilders, presumably in trade goods. There is no need to exchange the amount, especially not using a mid-nineteenth century exchange rate. -- Jaap Jacobs

This article seems to be a double of New Netherlands. I've seen the name without an -s before in other sources. Does anybody know which one is correct and why? -- User:Jheijmans

Just one article, New Netherlands is redirected to New Netherland. The latter has a few more hits on google, but since it's a translation of Nieuw Nederland it's not surprising that the spelling varies. Either one is "correct". In fact the Dutch spelling varies too, e.g., at the time Nieuw Nederlandt or Nieu Nederlandt.
Kindly sign your posts by striking the tilde key four times. That way, we will have not only the names but also the datesl. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Establishment of trading posts

If the trading stations were consolidated in 1621, when were they established? --rmhermen

There *is* disagreement about this but a study by C.A. Weslager in 1961 provides, I believe, very persuasive evidence that the Dutch began with three settlements in the early 1620s:
1)"Fort Orange" near Albany,
2) a fort on the large island near Burlington, NJ, and
3) a fort near the mouth of the Connecticut River.
It appears that at first Burlington island was most promising and the governor's residence was established there, but, after a year or so, forces were consolidated at Manhattan. Later the Dutch established another fort in the Delaware, further downstream, near present-day Gloucester, called Fort Nassau and this was later used to challenge Sweden's attempts to colonize the lower Delaware.


[edit] Sale of Manhattan

The sale of Manhattan is very poorly documented, as far as I know. Can the following be traced to a reliable source?

For example, the people from whom Minuit "bought" Manhattan did not live on the island, and probably thought that they were selling a share in the hunting rights."
Apparently the purchase of Manhattan may have predated Minuit's arrival (contradicting the story in all of our old textbooks that Miuit "bought Manhattan Island for $24!). And yes, it is pretty clear that buying land for exclusive ownership was a baffling concept for the Native Americans for the first several decades at least. The presents were interpreted as customary greeting gifts to establish good will and facilitate good-feeling and co-existence, rather than as any kind of purchase price for real property.
When Minuit arrived (at Burlington I.) the previous governor had just been overthrown and indicted (or convicted locally)for corruption or misrule and was to be sent back to Europe. Minuit was thereupon 'appointed' to take over as governor of the colony (apparently not his original aim in coming) and he affected the population transfer to Manhattan (somewhere between 1624 and 1626?).
After I review this material further and make some notes I will undertake a revision of this page.
reference: Weslager, Clinton Alfred, Dutch explorers, traders, and settlers in the Delaware Valley, 1609-1644. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1961.
ArloBee 00:42 27 May 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Nova Belgica and Novi Belgii

The names Nova Belgica (from Gallia Belgica, the Roman province) and Novi Belgii have both been used, should we mention that? There seem to has been a mix up quite early in history between the names Belgica and Belgium -- moyogo 16:39, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

Novi Belgii is the genitive of Novum Belgium; the plural of the latter would have been Novi Belgia - never used as far as I know.
MWAK--84.27.81.59 15:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


So the Novi Belgii part in the name of Image:Map-Novi Belgii Novæque Angliæ (Amsterdam, 1685).jpg is for "(map) of New Belgium" or something of the sort? --- moyogo
Exactly! :o) - just as Novæque Angliæ in this case (confusingly here the plural is identical to the genitive singular) means "and of New England" (Nova Anglia). The map is called tabula. Of course it might seem even more correct to use the standard word order and speak of Belgium Novum, but even in Antiquity this usage was common, as shown by names as Neapolis, Nova Carthago etc. You want to lure settlers by stressing everything is brand new...;o)
--84.27.81.59 10:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Latin phrase "Tabula Novi Belgii Novæque Angliæ" can be analyzed thus:
"Tabula" = "map," with suffix indicating subject of the sentence, female gender.
"Novum Belgium" = "New Belgium," spelled as if it were the subject of a sentence, neuter gender. (Adjective's suffix must match that of the noun it's modifying.)
"Novi Belgii" = "New Belgium," with suffixes for genetive (possessive) case (map "of" New Belgium). (In the 17th Century, the lowland (Nether-land) provinces, Belgium and Luxembourg --:::: "BeNeLux" -- were united in their fight with Spain, much like US's 13 colonies. Catholic Belgium broke away peacefully later.)
"Nova Anglia" = "New England," spelled as if it were the subject of a sentence, female gender. (Why Belgium is neuter and Anglia is female is a question I leave for the next buttinsky.)
"que" = "and" -- not a word but a suffix attached to the last item in a list strung together with "and".
"Novæque Angliæ" = "and of New England," with suffixes for genetive (possessive) case. (Why not "Novæ Angliæque"? That would be "New and England.")
Now write it 100 times. -- Rick Wolff
Your Latin is excellent, but your analysis contains some factual inexactitudes. It suggests that already in the 17th century the name Belgium was used for the south alone, but then it was simply Latin for The Netherlands (itself meaning the Low Countries - all of them). The split between the Northern and Southern Netherlands was far from peaceful. The 17th century border - which is largely the present-day one - is simply a frontline. In 1815 the Low Countries were again reunited but after the Second French Revolution of 1830 there was an armed insurrection in the south. The Dutch army marched south to subdue the rebellion but was defeated by a French expedition force. Peace was only signed in 1839.
MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Outdent) Weren't the southern netherlands (belgium) occupied by the spanish/french during the colonization of NY?

They were under Habsburg rule--MWAK 07:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] is "factorijs" the correct plural?

"inland forts was to serve as fur trading outposts, called factorijs (factories)."

Being Dutch, I know that "factorij" is a Dutch word, and means trading outpost, but I think the plural form is factorijen. Was it spelled factorijs in the 17th century?

Yes. Both the -n and -s plurals existed for most words, standardisation only began later.

-- Jordi·✆ 16:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Nowadays factorijs is NOT correct, so I suggest this should be changed to "factorijen".
The thing is they were probably called factorijs back then. If it is the case we should mention it, as well as the fact that's it's 17th century Dutch. ---moyogo 12:33, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
Well, search google for factorijs; you'll only find this wikipedia article, and copies of it. The amount of results for "factorijen" make me think that "factorijen" is correct.

I've changed it. Factorijs -> factorijen

But why say factorij at all rather than just the English cognate factory? --Henrygb 15:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request to add geographical information to opening sentence

Can somebody add what this area currently is to the first sentence of the article? i.e. was the territory claimed by the United Provinces (the Netherlands) on the eastern coast of North America in the 17th century, corresponding to the present.... 218.103.132.85 16:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Shorto's Book

The Author Russell Shorto has produced a book - based on the New Netherlands Project's work, and with their cooperation - that puts much of all this informationh between two covers. Doubleday published it in 1994, and it has been kept in print ever since. I put the information for the book in the Reference section.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite a good book at that. I've been planning on incorporating info from it here for a while, as there's currently a giant hole between initial settlement and turnover to the English, which New Amsterdam does a much better job covering right now. Unfortunately I'm rather busy now, but hopefully be able to edit here more soon. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The book was published in March 2004, not 1994. It is a historical novel like The DaVinci Code. Need we say more? If Wikepedia wants to have any credibility it must focus on the neutral historical facts which ought to tell the story implicitly rather than opinionated or prejudiced story telling.

Historians may disagree with Shorto, a journalist, on interpretation, but it is not fair to call his book historical fiction. It is history based on research in primary and secondary sources and containing no fictional characters, episodes, etc.209.170.255.14 16:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Paul Otto

[edit] Copyvio in recent additions

So some of the recent additions were copyvio from http://www.tolerancepark.org/. Rather than try to sort through which parts are or are not copyvio right away, I've initially reverted all the additions. Tomorrow I'll go through and reinstate some of them as I check them individually. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

(Wikipedia Editor Laura Scudder protects this web site which belongs to broken history. It contains factual errors, misinformation, disinformation, and personal judgments which are irrelevant to New Netherland and would more properly belongs to the history of other colonies.)

Above comment by 162.84.142.161 was moved from the article. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


OK Now I have found you. TolerancePark.org has been written by me, no one else. Everything is original research based on mostly primary, not secondary sources obtained from many libraries in many countries. DeKoning

Okay then. The only problem is that because this is such a legal liability for the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia policy requires some confirmation that you are the copyright holder. There's instructions for that process near the top of WP:CP under "Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia". — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

To understand those instructions one needs to hire a law firm or spend many hours figuring out what the site wants. Is there an easy way such as, e.g., sending you an e-mail from the site TolerancePark.org? What is your e-mail address? DeKoning. Mine at the web address is President@TolerancePark.org

They just need some confirmation that tolerancepark.org authorizes Wikipedia to use the text under the GFDL. The easiest way is an email from you to permissions at wikimedia dot org (with the at replaced by @ and so on), because then the foundation itself has the email for it's records. — Laura Scudder ☎ 06:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Scudder, (1) I would like to replace the very confusing, wrongly colored, later issued Visscher map on the site with the earlier properly colored map of New Netherland on the TolerancePark.org site. That map I have also given to the NNP.org which should have it somewhere on its site. How can that be done?

(2) I would like to add one engraving of the east coast made by Willem Blaeu c. 1621; right underneath the Block map. I have that on my computer and, perhaps, it can be found somehwere else on the internet. Can it be imported from my computer? How do I do that?

(3) The Blaeu engraving on the New Netherland site (wrongly dated as from 1643 by Johannes Blaeu as it was engraved in 1635 by his father Willem Blaeu who died in 1638) is really the engraved version of the Block map, with west facing what is now ususally north. A better map would be the first ENGRAVED map depicting the three colonies from the 1625 book "New World",, second edition of 1630 by De Laet. What do you think? DeKoning


DONE!

From: president@tolerancepark.org [Save Address] [Block Sender] [Report Spam]

To: permissions@wikimedia.org CC: Subject: tolerancepark.org Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 09:18:49 -0500

Show Full Headers

 INBOX    
   As AttachmentInline Text Previous | Next

This is to authorize that Wikimedia or Wikepedia is allowed to quote from www.TolerancePark.org or use its pictures with regard to New Netherland, New Amsterdam, Manhattan and Governors Island. If you have any questions please respond to President@TolerancePark.org


Ms. Scudder, May I now post the most recently corrected prose? DeKoning

The following is a discussion about a joker who made a deceptive map of New Sweden and insisted that it reigns on the New Netherland site. Because the map is meant to mislead, it doesn’t belong on either the New Sweden or New Netherland site. The New Sweden map wasn’t even on the New Sweden site so that is where I moved it to. Yet, a group of self-appointed Wikipedia editors, apparently more versed in computers or language rather than New Netherland history, insisted on putting the map back on the New Netherland site. The map evidences the dictatorship of ignorance with which these pages and New Netherland history are permeated. March 24, 2006, DeKoning:

[edit] New Sweden versus Virginia, New England, New Netherland

March 7, 2006; the map of New Sweden interposed on the New Netherland Wikipedia entry is not contemporary. It is of recent creation which (if at all, because of its interpretive purpose) belongs to an entry on Wikipedia about New Sweden (definitely not on the New Netherland page) which was established by various disenfranchised and disgruntled members of the Dutch West India Company (including Willem Usselincxs, Samuel Blommaert and Peter Minuit) under the auspices of the Swedish king. Petrus Stuyvesant had been ordered by the States General to retake the area which he did on September 25,1655, with a fleet of seven ships and a force comprising 317 soldiers and over 300 sailors. He was told to do "his utmost to revenge this misfortune not only by restoring matters to their former condition, but also by driving the Swedes at the same time from the river as they did to us". DEKONING —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeKoning (talk • contribs)

[edit] About the map

Hello Koning, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not keep removing the map of New Netherlands and New Sweden from the article again; it was probably made by a wikipedian for these two articles, so yes it is surely "of recent creation". Also, please DO NOT SHOUT on talk pages. And finally, please sign your comments. Thanks. //Big Adamsky 06:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Adamsky, The map of New Sweden is wrongly annotated and its interpretation is historically incorrect. It has therefore no comtemporary meaning unless you produce an engraved map of New Sweden engraved in that specific year 1650. Even then, the map belongs on the New Sweden site only and not on the New Netherland site. Please, be respectful. DeKoning —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeKoning (talk • contribs)

I promise to be respectful, however you have not yet convinced me as to how the map is not historical or does not belong in these two articles. The caption states that both areas are shown in relation to each other, so I don't see where else the map would belong. It is quite obvious that this map was created recently, and not created in the 17th century, like the paintings that are also in the article. Do not revert unless you can provide a better map yourself, otherwise you might be in violation of the three-revert rule. To sign your posting, just type four tildes (like this ~~~~). //Big Adamsky 17:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Adamsky, What is your interest in insisting on posting a modern interpretive map about New Sweden on a New Netherland site? If people want to know about New Sweden they can go to that Wikipedia site without any problem. The three maps (did you call them paintings?) on the New Netherland site are of the 17th century and NOT, as you appear to claim, from a later date. Not only are you disrespectful of the New Netherland site but you are also ruinous of its integrity and therefore guilty of vandalism. If you read the historical facts carefully, then you know that your modern New Sweden map's caption is erroneous because of, what you say, "both areas are shown in relation to each other". You may need to study history a bit more to understand that one area was situated temporarily contained in another one rather than being (wrongly colored) separate geo-political sections. If you are an expert on New Sweden history, please, focus on that site. I hope that Wikipedia editor Laura Scudder ☎ will be able to do something about that. Respectfully yours, DeKoning —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeKoning (talk • contribs)

There isn't any rule in wikipedia that only historical maps are used as illustration. On the contrary: new maps drawn by wikipedians are encouraged. As Adamsky said the disputed drawing is not a New Sweden map but shows the two colonies together so it is certainly useful for both articles. If you think the map factually incorrect please give us clear explanations and make a better one correcting the mistakes. Zello 21:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Zello, New Sweden was a transitory interposition in geo-political New Netherland. A 1648 manuscript map, engraved by Jan Jansson in 1650 may illuminate this point. New Sweden was not an adjoining complement to New Netherland as your modern interpretive map seems to want to tell with its opposite, disparate coloring. If you want to make the public believe your interpretation or would like to debate this further, you ought to do that on the Wikipedia New Sweden site. Similalry, there would be no place for modern, interpretive maps of New Holland (now Cape Cod) or New Netherland on the Wikipedia New England site. Let New England deal with its own history. Respect the history of the various colonies and don't superimpose them on top of one another to try to make a subjective point. I can't give you a clearer explanation than this. Your map requires to be on the New Sweden site only, i.e., not on the Virginia, not on the New England and not on the New Netherland site. DeKoning —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeKoning (talk • contribs)

BKonrad/Zello/BigAdamsky: New Sweden was not based on (1) first discovery, (2) original exploration, surveying and mapping; and (3) first settlement. It was based on the initiative of various West India Company directors with prior New Netherland experience selling their services to Sweden. New Sweden was therefore an interjection in New Netherland and not a complement to New Netherland. The New Sweden map you are insisting on publishing on the New Netherland site should be only on the New Sweden site as that is the site that pertains to your argument which you are trying to support by your modern deception. Putting the New Sweden map on the New Netherland site belongs to broken history and is historically false. If you continue to post that map, it will be transferred to the New Sweden site. Respectfully yours. March 19, 2006, DeKoning —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeKoning (talk • contribs)

The two colonies were in war with each other and their history closely intertwined so we have to know their respective geographical position. The map is useful for the reader. As for the legal status of New Sweden - I think this question is rather out of date now after 350 years. Maps can obviously represent illegal things (for example Hitler's conquests etc.) Zello 18:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it doesn't show their respective geographical positions. You need to make a new map. March 19, 2006, DeKoning —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeKoning (talk • contribs)

What is the problem with their geographical position? Zello 23:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who can read and understand the above can easily figure out that the map does NOT show the relative positions of New Netherland and New Sweden. Therefore, this map must go from the New Netherland site. March 19, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeKoning (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but all I can see above is incoherent rambling, bordering on ranting. Perhaps that is somewhat understandable as it seems that English may not be your first language. But I really do not at all understand your objections. I'm not sure if anyone has pointed out the Three Revert Rule, but you have reverted many times over this matter. Please discuss your objections on the talk pages before continuing to revert (and remove this image). I am not threatening you (I rarely block and then only for overt vandalism), but you may find yourself blocked if you continue to revert the page. older ≠ wiser 04:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

BKonrad, this is not about an objection. It is plainly wrong. This may be because you are visually or geographically impaired or lack even the most basic understanding of history and therefore can't understand. The map does not reflect the historical facts and that has nothing to do with my English which is rather proficient as many articles can attest to. You are just a very sloppy reader. It is so simple; New Sweden lied inside New Netherland not next to it. DeKoning —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeKoning (talk • contribs)

The map clearly isn't showing areas claimed, but areas occupied. If it was only showing claims then the whole thing should be marked Spanish. — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Koning, try harder to assume good faith on my part; I have no particular "interest" in promoting this map for this article, other than that I see nothing wrong with it and none of the objections which you have advanced make any sense to me whatsoever. Before you continue this "battle", you should read the Wikipedia policies concerning article ownership, how to properly sign your talk page comments and how to convince other editors that you are right and they are wrong (you won't need to read through every single paragraph, just skim those pages so you understand how this whole collaborative project is supposed to work). I have added a request for a new map atop this talk page and reinserted the current map, since I feel that the reader of this article should have a map to go with the text, and the older maps contain many minor cartographical inaccuracies (due to the technological limitations of their era). Please, do help Wikipedia by sharing your knowledge on this subject, but do not make odd accusations when trying to prove a point. //Big Adamsky 08:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Konig, I second Big Adamsky's comments. You have not explained what your objection to the map is in any terms that are intelligible to others. Please, don't take this personally. If there is any legitimate basis for your objections we want to understand. But what you have presented so far has made no sense at all. older ≠ wiser 13:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The inability to associate text with graphics is a common deficiency among people. That is simply because so many people go through life being visually unaware. Perhaps my argument may best be explained by the analogy that, during the cold war, a part of West Germany, in the form of West Berlin, lied inside East Germany. I.e., Geographically, West Berlin was not adjacent to East Germany. Perhaps it could be so depicted as a complement to East Germany if one were to draw a population density map instead. For example, America cannot be geographically depicted as an East and West coast only because certain states have negligible population (North Dakota). Therefore, the New Sweden map is neither a historical geographical map nor a population density map and by default is an erroneous depiction. Namely:

New Netherland’s southern border started at Cape Hinlopen, just south of the Delaware Bay and so surveyed and mapped by Cornelis Hendricksz between 1613 and 1616 (the map still exists) and in 1620 by Cornelis Jacobsz May. May became New Netherland’s first director in 1624. Samuel Godijn, a director of the West India Company, had a patent for the west side of the South (Delaware) River where he built a fort and established the colony of a few dozen men at Swanendael in 1630. At least 32 of them if not all were killed by the Indians in 1632. The colony’s focus had been on the whaling industry. Another director, Albert Coenraetsz Burgh had a patent for the east side of the river. The origin and disappearance of New Netherland and New Sweden are very different and therefore need to be discussed on their own pages.

Frankly, the Wikipedia pages on 17th-century New Netherland as well as New Sweden and its associated pages have been and are still very lacking in archival truth. I have made an honest beginning with regard to the New Netherland page and some associated pages. But many of them still contain erroneous, misleading secondary information, so repeated through the ages, of prejudicial or no value to Wikipedia’s readers. I now know why no serious historian or earnest person will spend the time and effort required to make this encyclopedia a useful tool.

Having to deal with computer hackers without primary expertise or understanding on the subject matter and having nothing else to do than prejudicially torpedoing other persons’ contributions is not a winnable recipe. For BKonrad to threaten me with a childish “three strikes and you’re out” lockout is evidence of the despotic nature of this ignorance with which these Wikipedia pages are imbued.

Therefore, for as long as that New Sweden map is on the New Netherland site I will refrain from any more contributions. I will no longer remove it. I am sure that someone else will put it back. But, after today, it is entirely up to others to invite me back by removing the New Sweden map from the New Netherland site. I won’t spend one more minute on this as being a computer hacker is not my passion. DeKoning, March 20, 2006

You would gain respect more readily if you did not insult people who are trying to understand what you are trying to say. I DID NOT threaten you. You complain about others lack in reading skills and yet you willfully misread and misconstrue what I wrote. I was simply pointing out the the existing rule here on Wikipedia. I EXPLICITLY said I would not block you. If this is the best that you can do for substantive argument, there's not much to discuss.older ≠ wiser 17:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hm, what can I say? DeKoning, you may have valuable knowledge to contribute, but before you can start sharing you have quite a bit to learn about cooperation, discussion, consensus-seeking and related people skills. Your factual input may or may not be missed, but your petty accusations and insults have no place in here. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 20:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You have behaved like a pack of bull terriers unwilling to read and understand my objective, well-supported arguments for the immediate and permanent removal of a map that serve no function on the New Netherland site as it is incongruous. Cooperation, discussion, consensus-seeking and related people skills are a two-way street, not a one-way attack. To dismiss my effort to make you understand something and calling it “incoherent rambling, bordering on ranting” is indeed a petty accusation and insulting. DeKoning March 20, 2006

I agree completely that discussion and consensus-seeking is a two-way street. Along those lines I would like to point out for future disputes that, while addressing the merits of someone's argument is productive, comments attacking another's motives or abilities are not. This may have progressed to the point where everyone's firmly entrenched in their own opinion and unwilling to really listen to the other side, but hopefully we can try stick to the actual issue under dispute.
With that in mind, let me try to summarize the issue. As I understand it, DeKoning believes
  1. that a map showing New Sweden doesn't belong on an article on New Netherland because it was transient, unsupported be formal claims, and founded by former New Netherlanders
  2. that any such map should show New Sweden surrounded by New Netherland based on suverys and claims made by the Dutch.
Is that about right, DeKoning?
If I understand correctly, on the other side Zello argues to point (1) that as they fought and interacted much with each other a map showing both is relevant to this article regardless of New Sweden's legal status. To point (2) I argue that the map shows actual settlement rather than claims.
Now, I'm not sure I understand exactly DeKoning's counterargument to Zello or me, and it seems to me that Big Adamsky and Bkonrad are looking for such responses. Could you please address those two points specifically?— Laura Scudder ☎ 00:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The relative location of the Nieuw Nederland and Nya Sverige in eastern North America.
Before I run off for the night, let me add questions directed more towards possible solutions rather than problems.
  1. What about the map or the way it's used in the article would have to change, DeKoning, for you to be okay with it being in the article?
  2. How would everyone feel if the caption was changed to point out that the map shows areas of settlement?
  3. How about if instead the map was changed to show New Sweden surrounded by New Netherland's claimed territory?
— Laura Scudder ☎ 01:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea to draw another map which shows all the claimed territory of New Netherland together with the actually settled territories (probably with darker and lighter hues). Changing the present map to show New Sweden surrounded by New Netherland seems a bit misleading to me because of mixing the two points of view (ie. actual settlement and claims). Changing the caption is absolutely OK for me. Zello 08:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I personally think that changing the caption at the minimum would help the reader. Your idea sounds pretty good, but I'm trying to picture how the colors would work. Maybe if the only effective change was to draw a colored line around the Dutch claim? That would make it obvious that New Sweden was located in New Netherland's claim, while still showing the settlement of both withini that area. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DeKoning, the picture isn't appropriate for an article about New Netherland. Especially since the actual article doesn't even mention New Sweden. And even if the article were to mention New Sweden, it would have to be more than in just one or two sentences to warrant a picture as large as this one. It is quite an interesting subject though, the history of New Sweden vis-à-vis New Netherland and probably deserves it's own article, and that article would be the proper place for the picture, not New Netherland.

If people want to see a map showing the New Netherland settlements overlaid on a contemporary map of the US, I'd be willing to make one. Dedden 19:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New map

How about this one? http://commons.wikimedia.org/description/Image:Nieuw_Nederland.png. Dedden 11:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Dedden's map
I like it, especially the added context to the east and more settlements labelled.— Laura Scudder ☎ 18:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't get it at all. What is the reason for this new map, what is it meant to convey? The original contemporary 1650 Jansson map or the 1651 "emendata" Visscher map is infinitely better and more detailed and already contains the names mentioned on this new modern map. The Visscher map is all one would need as an authentic companion to the text and is already part of the New Netherland article. Why do we need, again, another modern map with errors and omissions like the modern New Netherland/New Sweden map which I have tried to purge from the article because it is conceptually flawed? What is the need for a modern map that repeats what is already there, i.e. the Visscher map (even though later and incorrectly colored. I had suggested to Ms. Scudder to replace it with a properly colored one)? Moreover, the whole point of this discussion has been that the Wikipedia editors, by insisting on the posting of the incorrect New Sweden/New Netherland map, used their power to be sole arbiters of cartographic information on New Netherland and New Sweden at the expense of reason and historical facts. Even though they didn't come up with or advanced any convincing arguments which would warrant the defense of the colored sections on that modern New Sweden/New Netherland map, their actions have now superseded history by pretending to know the precise position and exact geographical borders of New Sweden while misrepresenting the geographical reality of New Netherland. I had argued that New Sweden's relative coloration had no geographical relevance with regard to New Netherland and also is erroneous as to New Sweden because its borders are indeterminable. New Sweden can only be defined by its forts; not by borders. New Netherland, though, had defined coastal borders. This new modern map, however well intended by Dedden, doesn't solve the debate and would only clutter up the article, like the flawed New Sweden map is now doing. This discussion has never been about Wikipedia readers wanting "to see a map showing the New Netherland settlements overlaid on a contemporary map of the US". For that it is wholly inadequate or wanting. It had to do with Wikipedia editors wanting their way in spite of their cartographic posting being nonsensical. I had read somewhere that posting nonsense was an act of vandalism. Why do I have to uphold the integrity of an article if editors can randomly post misinformation not worthy of an encyclopedia? We don't need a new map, we only need to remove an incorrect map. DeKoning, April 30, 2006

I personally think that it illustrates the positions of settlements for a modern reader much more clearly than the contemporary maps. If you think we should use another Visscher map, then the first step would be to find a picture of the appropriate one online. — Laura Scudder ☎ 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Scudder, I can't start a new discussion with you on the pros and cons of the newest of new maps about New Netherland for modern readers. There are already hundreds of those existing as you can see, for example, on http://www.nnp.org/newvtour. I have previously told you that the correctly colored Visscher map was on that site which was taken from an orginally colored map which I own and which is also on http://tolerancepark.org/_wsn/page2.html/ and that you could use it for the Wikipedia New Netherland article. As you know, I have pledged to not contribute any longer to the article for as long as the modern New Sweden/New Netherland map is posted there by Wikipedia editors. Frankly, I am worn out on this subject and too frustrated to continue with this. Please post nonsense. Wikipedia and its readers deserve it. May 1, 2006,. DeKoning

No one is preventing you from replacing the Jansson-Visscher. See Wikipedia:Uploading images for information on how to (I'm personally not particularly inclined to do it myself right now). — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Since Dedden's map seems to address eveyone's objections except DeKoning, I've been bold and switched to it. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dedden's map achieves next to nothing compared to contemporary maps. It doesn't even mention New Netherland's southern border at Cape Hinlopen on the 38th degree latitude nor the northern border at 42nd degrees named New Holland (now the Cape). How can this map "address everyone's objections" as I was the only one who objected to the erroneous modern map the wikipedia editors insisted on posting? The map was a historical fraud. Yet, everyone was defending the incorrectly colored deliniations of the New Netherland-New Sweden map. Deddens map doesn't accomplish anything other than showing a few scattered names overlaid on a modern map. It is irrelevant to the discussion we have had on the subject. There are more than two dozen contemporary maps of New Netherland. Why the Dedden map is posted is beyond me as Dedden's map would need serious scholarly work to be of any use to a wikipedia reader. DeKoning 14:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the unspoken reasons for this dispute is that DeKoning believes that contemporary (i.e. 17th century) maps ought to be adequate to illustrate this article. I would strongly disagree with this assertion, for a number of reasons:
  • Advances in cartography mean that such maps are not fully accurate in their descriptions of coastlines and major features.
  • Modern readers are much more accustomed to the design conventions of modern maps and have more difficulty processing and understanding the information from 17th century maps.
  • The 17th century maps do not make a distinction which ought to be of high importance to the modern reader and historian: the distinction between claims and settlement. The sweeping claims made by the Dutch at the beginning of the colonization process brought a huge stretch of land under the Netherlands' theoretical sovereigntly. These claims conflicted with the claims of other European powers, and thousands of Native Americans continued along their way not realizing that they lived in land claimed by a faraway country. The very reason that New Sweden was able to be settled was that the Dutch had not established firm control over the area. A contemporary map can show the distinction between the Dutch claim and the land that the Dutch actually settled. --Jfruh (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of the fraudulent New Sweden map

Following the New Sweden map discussion above, I have removed the New Sweden map once more. (1) New Sweden was an ephemeral insert in New Netherland. The latter was founded on very specific principles which didn’t include armchair claims, military conquest or trespass. The three-step process of discovery, intensive and systematic exploration and mapping, followed by initial settlement was the basis for the geographical claim of New Netherland between the 38th and 42nd parallels. (2) New Sweden was not founded on those principles and therefore didn’t have defined geographical borders. The geography of New Sweden can therefore not be drawn on an imagined geographical map made in the 21st century as it couldn’t be drawn in 1650 thus. The New Sweden map is therefore spurious. (3) A modern map, perhaps meant to show New Sweden’s population (of a little over 200 persons), would require precise knowledge of the location of each house, if they ever lived in houses rather than forts. There are no population records based on a New Sweden census. Hence, a population distribution map can also not be made. (4) Therefore, what remains is the possibility of making a map that depicts the position of the various New Sweden forts only. Such a map, however, belongs on the New Sweden article and not on the New Netherland article. For example, the Wikipedia New England article should not be required to carry in its text oversized geographical or fortification maps of New France and New Netherland as they would be impertinent to New England. (5) This tenet should be valid for the New Netherland article as well. For those Wikipedia editors who feel strongly about vandalizing the New Netherland article with an incorrect and fraudulent New Sweden map, they ought to be held accountable for providing a fully supported, convincing rationale as the basis for including such an intrusion. DeKoning April 6, 2006

Contrary to Zello’s belief, Wikipedia articles are not based on majority rule. One thousand colorblind editors asserting that grass is red will lose against one contributor who proves it to be green based on historical and scientific precedent. Removed map put up by Zello because he didn't substantiate the placement. DeKoning April 7, 2006; Removed again because of Big Adamsky's unsubstantiated posting.DeKoning April 7, 2006. Because the map is neither a cartographic portrayal of New Netherland nor of New Sweden, the caption “relative location of New Netherland and New Sweden” is nonsensical. Reversed Zello's misplaced, erroneous New Sweden posting. DeKoning April 8, 2006.

manif@hotmail.com vandalized again the New Netherland article by posting an untrue New Sweden map which is falsely created and an unequivocal historical corruption. This intrusion by “manif” cannot be justified in any way on scholarly or geo historical grounds. The map’s flawed creation, its erroneous caption and its unjustified insertion on the New Netherland article is either a deliberate attempt to corrupt the article and to deceive the reader. “Manif” must prove that the map is errorless as a geographical depiction, that its caption can be defended academically and that placing an erroneous map in the wrong article is a Wikipedia objective. The New Sweden map was removed. April 8, 2006, DeKoning

Once again, DeKoning, I ask you to assume good faith and not attack other editors' motives. It seems to me others think that this map is helpful to the reader even if it is not perfect, and would like to see it in the article until a better map is presented. Personal attacks are not an effective way of convincing other editors. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Scudder, This has nothing to do with personal attacks. It is as I said before: "the map is neither a cartographic portrayal of New Netherland nor of New Sweden, the caption “relative location of New Netherland and New Sweden” is nonsensical". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.224.88 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2006

My comments on your behavior were entirely aside from the map issue. I am simply asking that in the future you try to limit yourself to the issues and leave off attacking other editors' motives. — Laura Scudder ☎ 01:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about editors' motives as long as the information they post is correct; i.e., fully substantiated or supported with reason in the face of being challenged factually. My behavior is solely about the issue itself and certainly not personal. If one takes it personally, that is not my problem. My efforts are directed at achieving a sense of historical integrity for which I am holding these editors accountable. Power games and threats by these editors who seem to insist on not wanting to know, to understand or, alternatively, are unwilling or incapable of understanding should be discouraged. If their posts (like the New Netherland/New Sweden map) are purely for reason of personal motive rather than the Wikipedia readers’ edification, that's fine with me. Yet, they should not be relieved from having to embrace what is truthful or supportable. I.e., personal motive AND gobbledygook are out. The entire discussion above is about ONE issue only: the editors' appropriateness of insisting on posting a map which even Big Adamsky finally admitted is wrong. He thinks however, like the other editors seemingly, that it is fine to post wrong information until the right information comes along. Frankly, that is appalling and unacceptable. Must Wikipedia readers be presented with gibberish (which therefore is a deliberate deception) until correct information becomes available or, in this case, a "correct map will be available". I have only one question all along during this discussion: What could possibly justify the insistent posting of a nonsensical New Netherland/New Sweden map? Why are you insisting on knowingly posting a distorted cartographic fabrication? April 10, 2006 DeKoning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.224.88 (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2006

Hi, I'm not at all aware of this conflict, I just patrol the recent changes and assumed the anon was removing a picture , to test his edit options, that's why I reverted. manif@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.224.88 (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2006 [1]

This reply from Manif@hotmail.com, upon my inquiry to him, demonstrates the haphazardness and carelessness by which these Wikipedia articles are composed. Manif put the flawed New Netherland/New Sweden map back on the article while not having seen it or participated in the discussion why it didn’t belong there. He had no understanding of the subject matter and probably had never even heard of New Netherland or New Sweden. Yet, his post of the map is seen by others as legitimate input. I suspect that this is valid for lots of editors without fundamental knowledge of New Netherland because, not too long ago, the New Netherland article was an embarrassment for an encyclopedia. Yet, most new input, founded in academic, archival knowledge, was questioned, attacked or removed. The New Netherland article was mostly defined by external and peripheral stories such as, for example, stroke-of-the-pen armchair claims by an English king, an Italian explorer who had never explored, a modern New Netherland-New Sweden map with fabricated geographical borders. These tales had nothing to do with New Netherland and therefore should not have been posted on the article. Moreover, the text was plagued with fragments from historical novels and subjective or culturally biased judgments from secondary sources about the main historical characters. The legendary heroes who had dealt with unbelievable adversity to build the foundation of this nation and its largest city were disrespectfully insulted or dismissed as extraneous: Whether it was Verhulst, Minuit, Van Twiller, Kieft or Stuyvesant, they were all ghastly people, unpopular and apparently intently resented by the population, so much so that the 1664 English invasion was welcomed by the population with open arms, if you would like to believe the article. The fact that the disputed New Sweden map is back on the article is confirmation that there is no one out there willing to maintain even a minimum standard of credibility that is worthy of an encyclopedia or to take the New Netherland article seriously. DeKoning April 10, 2006

Laura Scudder ☎ writes on 27 April 2006 (UTC): Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles text that is not related to an article's subject. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can!

My response to this is why do you insist on posting a gigantic modern map that is either an uninformed creation by an amateur or a deliberate deception which should have no room in an encyclopedia or on an article of New Netherland or, for that matter, of New Sweden. Doesn't your contribution qualify as unreasonable information and malicious editing? April 28, 2006. DeKoning

It looked to me like the consensus was to keep the map until a more suitable replacement is created, and so I have been doing so. If this is no longer the consensus, or if I am misinterpreting previous discussions, I invite the other contributors to set me straight.
Lastly, I'm getting tired of reminding you that your aggressive tone is counterproductive as it does not exactly encourage other editors to read your opinions with an open mind. If you think I am editing maliciously, you are perfectly welcome to pursue Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Your perception of my aggressive tone is dictated solely by your frustration with my unwillingness to concede to the despotism of about three persons with no historical, cartographic or geographical knowledge of the subject matter and who, under the cloak of “consensus”, are perpetuating an intolerable condition to exist on the New Netherland article. I realize that you "are getting tired of reminding me" but you should also realize that I am equally "getting tired of reminding others" that they have a responsibility and must try to understand something of which they have no knowledge of understanding. I realize that my persistent efforts to open their eyes can only be construed by them, or you, as "aggressive". However, there is no other way to get rid of that ridiculous map other than by continuing to present or explain the rationale for its immediate removal. Frankly, I am awed by your apparent singular power in this matter by overruling reason and argument in favor of superficial consensus. As with Manif@Hotmail (see above), I have no confidence that the three persons, who you state represent a "consensus", have any knowledge or understanding of the subject matter at all. They have not proven to possess such knowledge yet are insisting the map's inclusion on vague notions that the map is a nice or useful map; for whom? In the land of the blind... April 29, 2006. DeKoning

[edit] Stuyvesant's popularity

Ms. Scudder writes: “They met minimal resistance, perhaps because of the unpopularity of Stuyvesant”. This is a judgmental, subjective statement not founded in the historical facts. DeKoning

I based that off of many statements in Russell Shorto's book. If you have any citations of scholarly dispute on that point, I'm perfectly open to them. I have simply not yet read a work that didn't take his unpopularity at that point for granted. — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed many entries based on historical novels. Scary (scholary) input. Again, I won't contribute unless the New Sweden map disappears from the New Netherland site. The inability to fight the English incursion had nothing to do with the popularity of one man, even Stuyvesant. Be that as it may, I am losing interest in discussing absurdities put up by unqualified people and correcting ignorance. DeKoning

I agree with you that Shorto's book is certainly a popular rather than scholarly work, but that does not mean it's either fiction or ungrounded in the scholarship. I also agree that whether Stuyvesant was popular or not they couldn't fight the inevitable conquest of the English, but they might have yielded a little more happily due to it. That is the intimation of that addition.
Also, I believe I already discussed how unhelpful attacking another's abilities is when trying to write a collaborative encyclopedia. The more effective way to convince someone is to provide scholarly citations. I am always happy to read further on this subject, so I'm looking forward to any new material with additional information you can point me to. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully I have cleared up the meaning of that sentence. An earlier paragraph established that there was almost no military to resist the English. That paragraph is meant to convey that they met almost no civilian resistance either and offer that it is perhaps because — as demonstrated by the multitude of documents written against various Director-Generals — they were already unhappy with their government. Did that change help clarify the meaning? — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There was only one director-general which was Stuyvesant who was never governor of New Netherland even though he was governor of Curacao. All others were just (local company) directors. As you suggested, the contents of the New Netherland article ought to be based on scholarly citations which, in turn, ought to be based on original archival records. Citations by scholars and academicians who base their writings and conclusions on erroneous secondary information, novels or deficient research should have no room on this page. Even the many English translations from the original Dutch are full of errors and evidence of Anglo-centric bias. Therefore, what is popularly known about New Netherland in three hundred years of writings is filled with Anglo-centric falsehoods which qualify as nonsense. It also finds its way onto these sites. Like, for example, on the New Amsterdam article whereon the notion is proclaimed that New Netherland was exchanged for just the tiny English island of Run situated within the Dutch East Indies. This info comes straight from the most prejudiced historical novel one could read about the subject; "Nathaniel's Nutmeg". Someone more clear headed than that Wikipedia contributor added Suriname to the swap than just Run. But why not read the original Treaty of Breda before making any entry? If the basic information on an article is already flawed to start with, why must one battle to get rid of it because the ones who put it there insist on writing fairy tales or making others believe their tales? What will you get of America's 21st-century history written entirely by citing "Arab" scholars on the subject?.

Compare your statement on the article: “They met minimal resistance from the citizens, perhaps because of the unpopularity of Stuyvesant” with Stuyvesant’s 1665 report:

“Had your formerly dutiful, but now afflicted inhabitants, on the supplicatory remonstrances of the people and our own so iterated entreaties, which must be considered almost innumerable, been helped with the long sought for settlement of the boundary, or in default thereof had they been seconded with the oft besought reinforcement of men and ships against the continual troubles, threats, encroachments and invasions of the English neighbors and government of Hartford Colony, our too powerful enemies. That assistance, nevertheless, appears to have been retarded so long that our abovementioned too powerful neighbors and enemies found themselves reinforced by four royal ships, crammed full with an extraordinary amount of men and warlike stores. Our ancient enemies throughout the whole of Long Island, both from the east end and from the villages belonging to us united with them, hemmed us by water and by land, and cut off all supplies. Powder and provisions failing, and no relief nor reinforcement being expected, we were necessitated to come to terms with the enemy, not through negelect of duty or cowardice, as many, more from passion than knowledge of the facts, have decided, but in consequence of an absolute impossibility to defend their fort, much less the city of New Amsterdam, and still less the country.”…

“many verbal warnings came from diverse country people on Long Island, who daily noticed the growing and increasing strength of the English, and gathered from their talk that their business was not only with New Netherland but with the booty and plunder, and for these were they called out and enrolled. Which was afterwards confirmed not only by the dissolute English soldiery, but even by the most steady officers and by a striking example exhibited to the colonists of New Amstel on the South Delaware River, who, notwithstanding they had offered no resistance, but requested good terms, could not obtain them, but were invaded, stripped, utterly plundered and many of them sold as slaves to Virginia”.

Do you really believe that Stuyvesant’s alleged unpopularity had anything to do with New Netherland’s provisional surrender (an Anglo centric view?). April 5, 2006 DeKoning

[edit] Exploration (Verrazano)

The article about New Netherland, section "Exploration" is prefaced as follows:

“The coast of New Netherland was previously explored in 1524 by Giovanni da Verrazano, whose expedition was financed by the citizens of Lyon, France, under the auspices of King François I. Despite this, the area was mostly ignored by Europeans for a long time afterwards.”

This claim is entirely based on just 25 words purportedly written in a log book based on what Verrazano observed: “We entered up the said river into the land about half a league, where it made a most pleasant lake about three leagues in compass.”

(1) There is, however, no record of any soundings, latitude calculations, surveys or maps or even a sensible textual description of any part of the New Netherland coast. To say that he “explored” the New Netherland coast is nothing less than a myth.

(2) To credit him with discovering New York harbor by sailing through the narrows or observing the harbor from afar is also a falsehood as the flimsy description does not support the geographical reality. Namely, his observed “lake” (ostensibly New York harbor) was not preceded by a river.

The preface, therefore, has no validity on the New Netherland article as the statement is false and its conclusion irrelevant. I removed it on April 3, 2006, DeKoning

The Adriaen Block map of 1614, belongs to the section Exploration. The oversized New Sweden map is irrelevant to that section in particular and to the New Netherland site in general as discussed above. Its overshadowing presence has no function other than to present an erroneous message.

Since the preface paragraph makes no claims as to Verrazano (1) making sounding, calculations, or maps or (2) discovering New York Harbor, I don't think I understand why you think the paragraph has no validity. I'm just confused because it seems to me that he can perfectly well have explored the coast without doing either of those things. — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

He merely sailed northwards along the eastern coastline, made one landing (nobody knows where exactly), and moved on. As you said, he "can pefectly well have explored the coast" but there is no textual proof or visual evidence. Seeing the moon doesn't mean one has EXPLORED the moon. It takes more to qualify as an explorer than just seeing. For Verrazano to sail along the coast and to see a "lake" should not bestow him with the honor of being quoted on the New Netherland article with having explored the coast line from Cape Hinlopen to Cape Cod, the New Netherland coastline, or to have discovered New York harbor. He simply did not EXPLORE the New Netherland coast line as the statement is based on zero evidence. DeKoning April 6, 2006

You take my quote out of context. My point is that for one to have explored a new territory it is not necessary for one to have made any special measurements or produced some set amount of documentation. I have no special investment in whether Verrazano explored the coastline; I am merely pointing out that your definition of explore seems to be overly rigorous. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Exploring has to do with inquiring, examining, studying, searching or investigating systematically. With regard to the New Netherland coast line, Verrazano can not be called an explorer at all. The one explorer who more than deserves that title is only Adriaen Block. I didn't know it was your quote but it certainly doesn't measure up to the definition of exploring, even if defined as "slightly" rigorous. DeKoning

I suppose one could debate the meaning of exploring, but professional historians have described Verrazzano and other 16th-century mariners "investigating" the North American coast as explorers. As to whether or not Verrazzano "explored" New York Bay, a careful examination of the cartographic evidence (see Stokes, The Iconography of Manhattan Island) would support such a claim. I repeat this claim in the first chapter of my book where I identify two other "explorers" of the region after Verrazzano and before Henry Hudson.209.170.255.14 16:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Paul Otto

[edit] Flushing Remonstrance

I have removed the paragraph below from the heading "English Incursions" as it has no relevance there. Frankly, the Flushing Remonstrance is something that belongs particulary to Stuyvesant, not New Netherland. Therefore, it should be discussed on the Petrus Stuyvesant page. It is a difficult to understand, complex, idiosyncratic subject matter and requires historical, contextual understanding of both Stuyvesant, New Netherland and patria. DeKoning April 6, 2006


"The Flushing Remonstrance objected among other things to his ban on Quakers as an infringement on the religious freedom of fellow Christians and Dutch citizens. The capture of the city resulted in the Second Anglo-Dutch War between England and the Dutch Republic."

[edit] "Belgium" stuff is confusing

While I suppose it's necessary to have it somewhere to keep things clear, it seems very odd to me as a casual reader that so much of the lead paragraph of this article is dedicated to explicating the fact that "Belgium" in the 17th century was used for the modern Netherlands. The lead should be a succinct summary of what the article is about -- this is not a primary issue. Is it really necessary to use the Lating name in the lead at all? Can't this material be moved to a footnote or something? --Jfruh (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The information is interesting and belongs in Wikipedia but not at this article. If there is no objection, I will move the nomenclature info to Dutch Republic and Southern Netherlands and change the intro paragraph here to the following:
New Netherland (Dutch: Nieuw-Nederland, Latin: Novum Belgium or Nova Belgica), 1614–1674, was the territory on the eastern coast of North America in the 17th century which stretched from latitude 38 to 45 degrees north as originally claimed for and on behalf of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands, also known as the Dutch Republic.
AjaxSmack 06:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


I disagree wholly as in nearly ALL the maps of New Netherland (many dozens) the Latin Appelation of Novum Belgium, Novi Belgii, Novo Belgico etc. was used. New Netherland can therefore only be understood in that geographical and historical context. Without that historical and geographical link, the province of New Netherland in North America cannot be understood by anyone as they will confuse the current Kingdom of Belgium with New Netherland as an extension of the Dutch Republic or Belgium Feoderatum. DeKoning

I don't think the information should be excised from the article; I just don't think it should be in the lead paragraph. I assume that by "nearly ALL the maps (many dozens)" you mean maps that were produced in the 17th century? The vast majority of the readers of this article will encounter only modern maps that will label the colony as New Netherland. There should be a separate section in the article explaining the Latinate name and the potential confusion between the 17th and post-19th century uses of the word "Belgium," but this is not the most important thing about the colony and thus should not be at the beginning of the article. --Jfruh (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've moved this material to the bottom. I've also removed some historical problems. The southern Netherlands were not generally referred to as "Belgium" until after 1830, and then as a deliberately archaizing move. --Jfruh (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comment moved from article

This change of degrees latitude from historical fact to a shot in the dark by 24.140.20.205 is unfounded and cannnot be supported in any way. The correct degrees latitude was supported by a link to slides of contemporary period maps which was removed by Laura Scudder on August 18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.148.137 (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2006

[edit] Related but unreferenced articles

It seems to me that the articles New Netherland Company and Adriaen Block are very intimately related to this article, however no mention of either name or links to these article exist here. I am hardly an expert on Colonial Dutch exploration, I'm hoping that someone with more knowledge on the subject can straighten out the relationships between the articles. --Elipongo 20:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voiding maritime law

Eh? When all private contracts were invalidated, didn't that have the opposite effec from voiding maritime law? Jim.henderson 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Legacy: What about Dutch traces in the American English language?

Aren't f.i. words like "cookie" ("koekje") or "Santa Claus" ("Sant Nikerlaas") derived from Dutch? I think this is missing in the article

[edit] Explanation of "New Netherland" in the singular?

I would like to suggest that someone provide an explanation of the dreadful convention of using "New Netherland" instead of "New Netherlands". Surely I'm not the only one that finds this usage unappealing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schildewaert (talk • contribs) 19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The singular is the common usage in English and Dutch (e.g., nl:Nieuw-Nederland). — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the odd usage "New Netherland" has somehow arisen for the American colony, but I still think it might be helpful if the irregular use of the singular were explained in the Wikipedia article itself. Perhaps as a terminology note. It might encourage people to understand why this strange usage has been adopted for the New Amsterdam colony and encourage them to use it themselves if it is justifiable. (Of course, the usage in Dutch is irrelevant.)Schildewaert (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The United Provinces of Nederland consisted of a group of lands: Holland, Zeeland, Brabant, Flanders, Groningen, etc. The province in North Anerica was one land: The New Lowland. Had in remained in the conferdation it one have become one of the dozen or so provinces of Der Nederlanden, or the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

[edit] Green Long Island

The map of "greatest extent" of colonial claims only colors the western third of Long Island. It is true the Dutch never acted decisively against the infestation of the island by Yankee interlopers, but didn't they claim the whole island? Jim.henderson (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved "euromericas" tag

Page rendered wrong in both Firefox and Chrome, causing the "euromericas" tag to show up behind main text; moved tag down a bit so the page is at least readable now. My pref would be to delete it altogether (it's for the "Dutch colomization..." page as linked within the tag ) and put ref. to it in the "See Also" section. Pls. test preview before changing this.DeVerm (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Also did some consistency editing and some Dutch<>English translation corrections. (no change in content) This page needs a lot more work.. is the current text stable enough to spend my time on?DeVerm (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Making this a readable article

Surprisingly my edits were not undone so I'm being bold and continued. Although my previous edits (see previous section) were minor edits I forgot to flag them so. The edits I started now are not considered minor although I'm not changing factual content. I can see that the authors must have been Dutch (like me) because I recognize the sometimes odd way of phrasing and tried to correct that. English is my 2nd language so if it's your first and you see phrasing that sounds odd in my edits, please jump in!

My goal is to first make this a readable article with basically the same content. If that works out well, intend to make further refinements and corrections to the content itself, which I will explain on this page too. For now it will be some time before that point is reached as I'm still working on the "exploration section"... DeVerm (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! (Or is it here, here!?) I agree with DeVerm and, as an English-speaking editor of many years' experience, will help out. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Página espejo de la Wikipedia
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo