This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Third Anglo-Dutch War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 19, 2005, February 19, 2012, February 19, 2014, February 19, 2016, February 19, 2020, February 19, 2021, and February 19, 2022. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Triple Alliance. Unless two treaties with the same name have been made shortly after another (which a hardly likely) the reference to Triple Alliance here is a mistake. Reference removed.
What were the results of the War? Nik42 00:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-- MWAK 13:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It would be great to have some more sources which are available in English. 90.11.218.173 ( talk) 15:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
"....leaving the Allies in possession of only three of the in fact ten (despite the number traditionally given of seven[28]) Dutch provincial areas"
Footnote 28: The Seven United Netherlands consisted of Holland, Zealand, Utrecht, Guelders, Overijsel, Friesland and Groningen, but in fact the territories of Drenthe, North Brabant and Limburg were also part of the Republic
The United Seven Provinces, as The Netherlands were formally called at this time, consisted of the seven provinces listed in the footnote. Drenthe was indeed an independent administrative area but was deemed an insignificant backwater so did not get even standing with the other provinces upon Dutch independence. Some of what is now North Brabant and Limburg was part of the Staten Landen, lands ruled directly by parliament as they had been conquered subsequent to Dutch independence from Spain. The Provinces of Drenthe and North Brabant only became provinces in 1815 after the defeat of Napoleon and Limburg did not become a province until 1866. The use of Limburg would certainly not have been applied to any Dutch held lands at the time of the 3rd Anglo-Dutch War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pytter ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(1) This article substantially dates from 2007. It remains a C grade and has a citation request. That means it is, in the opinion of other Wikipedia editors, deficient. More importantly, our understanding of what constitutes a well-written and relevant Wikipedia article has moved on; so simply reinstating large chunks of the original is not a response. Plus, I put a lot of work in this (and yes, I realise you did too) but simply dismissing it seems unjustified.
(2) My Dutch-skills are non-existent, so I emphasise with people writing in a second language but at present, it reads like that eg the son of the beheaded Charles I. More importantly, it contains many words that are non-neutral eg humble, pleading, graciously etc.
(3) I'd like to understand the comment that as a subsidiary article, more detail is 'mandatory.' Does that mean articles on the battles (which are subsidiary articles) need to repeat all the detail provided elsewhere?
(4) Dutch language sources are of course fine for Dutch language articles; my reference was to English-language articles.
(5) I tend to pick articles I know something about but not in detail; the more research I do, the more debatable many of the statements contained in the original become.
Robinvp11 ( talk) 10:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
-- MWAK ( talk) 11:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
11:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
etc etc.
Robinvp11 ( talk) 11:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
First I don't know what 'Summary style' is and what it covers but with respect, I don't understand the relevance. I've gone to considerable trouble to cover the salient points (condensing takes a long time) - the rewrite is not a summary.
Second, my original interest arose because the article is too long. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; the original is about four times longer than the entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica and contains a number of debatable points. Doing a rewrite, then including the same basic content in far greater detail makes zero sense. I cannot see how that improves the article.
Third, Dutch land operations against the French are a contextual element of the Third Anglo-Dutch War, which was a naval war. It doesn't need the level of detail contained in the original (especially as its also covered in the Franco-Dutch War). That's not just my view.
Fourth I think I've been respectful and tried to include points you've reiterated; if you tell me what you think is missing from my rewrite, then I'll do my best. Simply re-instating the original content isn't the same.
We've had this discussion several times now. I don't want to keep fighting the same battle; if you want to reinsert the same content, do so and I'll happily move onto something else.
Robinvp11 ( talk) 10:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Several sources are referred to but are missing. Geyl 1936, Childs 2014, Kitson 1994, Clodfelter 1992, Rowen 1978, Holmes 2008. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 10:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The Dutch head of state in this war later became the head of state of the other side, in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This is peculiar enough to deserve a mention? 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:2015:E8DF:BB56:1E27 ( talk) 13:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Captured by the Dutch in January 1673, needs correcting. Also, the English re-captured it in May 1673, which is worth a mention. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:B4D5:421F:52D6:27C8 ( talk) 08:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Third Anglo-Dutch War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 19, 2005, February 19, 2012, February 19, 2014, February 19, 2016, February 19, 2020, February 19, 2021, and February 19, 2022. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Triple Alliance. Unless two treaties with the same name have been made shortly after another (which a hardly likely) the reference to Triple Alliance here is a mistake. Reference removed.
What were the results of the War? Nik42 00:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-- MWAK 13:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It would be great to have some more sources which are available in English. 90.11.218.173 ( talk) 15:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
"....leaving the Allies in possession of only three of the in fact ten (despite the number traditionally given of seven[28]) Dutch provincial areas"
Footnote 28: The Seven United Netherlands consisted of Holland, Zealand, Utrecht, Guelders, Overijsel, Friesland and Groningen, but in fact the territories of Drenthe, North Brabant and Limburg were also part of the Republic
The United Seven Provinces, as The Netherlands were formally called at this time, consisted of the seven provinces listed in the footnote. Drenthe was indeed an independent administrative area but was deemed an insignificant backwater so did not get even standing with the other provinces upon Dutch independence. Some of what is now North Brabant and Limburg was part of the Staten Landen, lands ruled directly by parliament as they had been conquered subsequent to Dutch independence from Spain. The Provinces of Drenthe and North Brabant only became provinces in 1815 after the defeat of Napoleon and Limburg did not become a province until 1866. The use of Limburg would certainly not have been applied to any Dutch held lands at the time of the 3rd Anglo-Dutch War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pytter ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(1) This article substantially dates from 2007. It remains a C grade and has a citation request. That means it is, in the opinion of other Wikipedia editors, deficient. More importantly, our understanding of what constitutes a well-written and relevant Wikipedia article has moved on; so simply reinstating large chunks of the original is not a response. Plus, I put a lot of work in this (and yes, I realise you did too) but simply dismissing it seems unjustified.
(2) My Dutch-skills are non-existent, so I emphasise with people writing in a second language but at present, it reads like that eg the son of the beheaded Charles I. More importantly, it contains many words that are non-neutral eg humble, pleading, graciously etc.
(3) I'd like to understand the comment that as a subsidiary article, more detail is 'mandatory.' Does that mean articles on the battles (which are subsidiary articles) need to repeat all the detail provided elsewhere?
(4) Dutch language sources are of course fine for Dutch language articles; my reference was to English-language articles.
(5) I tend to pick articles I know something about but not in detail; the more research I do, the more debatable many of the statements contained in the original become.
Robinvp11 ( talk) 10:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
-- MWAK ( talk) 11:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
11:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
etc etc.
Robinvp11 ( talk) 11:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
First I don't know what 'Summary style' is and what it covers but with respect, I don't understand the relevance. I've gone to considerable trouble to cover the salient points (condensing takes a long time) - the rewrite is not a summary.
Second, my original interest arose because the article is too long. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; the original is about four times longer than the entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica and contains a number of debatable points. Doing a rewrite, then including the same basic content in far greater detail makes zero sense. I cannot see how that improves the article.
Third, Dutch land operations against the French are a contextual element of the Third Anglo-Dutch War, which was a naval war. It doesn't need the level of detail contained in the original (especially as its also covered in the Franco-Dutch War). That's not just my view.
Fourth I think I've been respectful and tried to include points you've reiterated; if you tell me what you think is missing from my rewrite, then I'll do my best. Simply re-instating the original content isn't the same.
We've had this discussion several times now. I don't want to keep fighting the same battle; if you want to reinsert the same content, do so and I'll happily move onto something else.
Robinvp11 ( talk) 10:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Several sources are referred to but are missing. Geyl 1936, Childs 2014, Kitson 1994, Clodfelter 1992, Rowen 1978, Holmes 2008. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 10:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The Dutch head of state in this war later became the head of state of the other side, in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This is peculiar enough to deserve a mention? 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:2015:E8DF:BB56:1E27 ( talk) 13:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Captured by the Dutch in January 1673, needs correcting. Also, the English re-captured it in May 1673, which is worth a mention. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:B4D5:421F:52D6:27C8 ( talk) 08:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)