Talk:Dutch Occupation of Acadia/Archive 1

Speedy Deletion
I am putting this article up for speedy deletion because this topic was discussed to great length and the discussion page of Dutch_empire and it was concluded that Acadia was clearly not never a part of the Dutch empire. The article Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas clearly states it was a paper claim with no practise as well as all the information state on a afroementioned page, which was removed at that time then placed here. It is not Wikipedia policy that once information gets reviewed by a series of people and you are left as the only person defending it, you then create a new page to display the same discredited claims. Also, all of the information in the article, except for the claim that Acadia was a member of the Dutch empire, is included, almost word for word, in the Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas article. So on top of discredited formerly delete material, it is just a copy of another page and therefore should be deleted. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That was never conculded. If you look back and see, you can see I never agreed with him, and we never came to anything. I have explained everything that happned. Why should it not be known? It does not matter if it was part of the Empire or not(although it was) there is not reason for deleting it here. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Everyone but you agreeing to it, me challanging you to show a precedent to include it then you failing to provide one on each of the five occasions I requested it, then purposefully continuing to put this information on Wikipedia by creating an article on the subject the exact same day you stopped trying to defend yourself with googlebook links seems to be a dead ringer for a dead arugment. Also you have failed to address the fact that all this information is in the Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas article, almost word for word. I suggest you have an actual agrument as to why this article should not be deleted besides stating "there is no reason". -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't need an argument for why it shouldn't be deleted, you need one for why it should. You're the one who tagged it. Once again, look back through the dissucsion, my defences you completley ignored or dodgged. Anyways, the only reason you have ever come up with is "they didn't really own it(they did for a month)" and "they were French Forts(wrong again they were Dutch for a month". (Red4tribe (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Wrong. I have given my reason it is you who has to state why my reasoning is flawed. It is copied right out of one article. It is very disputed material. Your defence I didn't completely ignored or dodged. I completely destoried them in agrument. And my main defence is that I do not see a precedent whereby you can include them. I cannot even entertain the idea of including this as a seperate article until I get a precedent. Once we have one, then we can talk about it. Right now, you do not have anything to talk about because you cannot defend the existence of this article. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Where's the repost? I don't see a deletion log for this article... PeterSymonds | talk  21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm very eager to see where you "destoried" my argument. Why is this flawed? Because this is more detailed information than any article can give. The Dutch site has one for this, but the english can't? Seems a bit unfair if you ask me. I have listed my defense which you are continuing to ignore and will, and I'm sure you will continue to gloat about something that never was after this. You have no real interest in deleting this article, you just want to bother me at this point. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

I can't say I remember there ever being one. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Right, I've been bold and removed the speedy tag. Kirkoconnell, this doesn't meet the criteria for WP:CSD, because there was no repost; the article has never been deleted. Also, where is this copied from the mentioned article? It looks completely different to me. PeterSymonds | talk  22:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with PeterSymonds that there is no apparent justification for a speedy delete for this article. A prod would have been more appropriate.  That would be useless now since there is obvious disagreement, so an AfD would be the only reasonable next step procedurally, if deletion is called for.


 * I am not sure, though, that an AfD would pass for this article. The topic is encyclopedic, so a more appropriate debate should center on whether there is sufficient reliable information content for Dutch Acadie to be a separate article or else simply be addressed in appropriate context in the “Dutch colonization of the Americas” and “Dutch Empire” articles (the latter meriting no more than a sentence or two).  It certainly should not be included on the maps in those articles since Arcadia was never effectively held by the Dutch.  The more important effort would seem to me to be ensuring that this article doesn’t imply more than was actually the case.  Askari Mark (Talk) 00:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The name of the article, Dutch Acadie (sic) implies that there was an actual take off, i.e. there was a french Acadie and a Dutch Acadie. There are many issues that need to be addressed but basically this should not be an article. Dutch Acadie did not exist as an enitiy. The very most, as you had stated, is a section in the dutch colonies page. Also, I removed the "this article is related to" headers as clearly this article is solely related to the Dutch colonies of North American and isn't "Netherland Wikiproject" realm, nor the Nova Scotia Wikiproject realm, to which I am a member.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with the problematic title inasmuch as there was never such a formal entity (as I noted in the discussion on the WP:MILHIST talk page. My point was that the brief Dutch occupation of part of French Acadia is a subject worthy of addressing, as some commentary here and elsewhere has suggested it is unworthy of coverage at all. The title "Dutch Acadie" and its being shown on maps as a Dutch colony per se are inappropriate and misleading; the historical event is encyclopedic. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to edit the way I put things, I have no problem with that. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

"colony" name
Nova Hollandia doesn't exist... but it's in the picture. 70.55.84.13 (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The area that the Dutch claimed was proclaimed Nova Hollandia, but they never really occupied it. (Red4tribe (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC))


 * If the sign says "Nova Hollandia", then shouldn't this article either be redirected from that, or be called that? 70.51.9.170 (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Though on Wiktionary... it mentions that "Nova Hollandia" is an old name for Australia... so... should a dab page be created at Nova Hollandia? 70.51.9.170 (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We will have to see what teh conclusion is. (Red4tribe (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC))


 * New Holland was the name commonly used for Australia for hundreds of years. Nova Hollandia is latin for New Holland obviosuly. I suppose when this name didn't stick, they were able to re-use it (although again it would not stick so they may yet be a "Nova Hollandia" I suppose). -Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang on one second here...
"Dutch Acadia", "Dutch Acadie" - these have ZERO references in books.google.com and ONE in www.google.com - a personal website of someone interested in Dutch history. This article should be deleted. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Voice your opinion here  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

google books does not hit 0. Take a look. http://books.google.com/books?id=w4IBAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dutch+Acadie&ei=W70bSIXWPJ2YtAO15pzrBg http://books.google.com/books?id=9sLDM9xujP0C&q=Dutch+Acadie&dq=Dutch+Acadie&ei=W70bSIXWPJ2YtAO15pzrBg&pgis=1 http://books.google.com/books?id=n71jGQAACAAJ&dq=Dutch+Acadie&ei=W70bSIXWPJ2YtAO15pzrBg

Those are books based solely on Acadia. There are more if you type in "Dutch Acadie", breif sections of books that talk about it. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Google books returns zero hits for the term Dutch Acadie. You have invented a phrase, a name, that no historian uses.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Go to google books and type in Dutch Acadie. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Learn how to use a search engine properly and enclose the term in quotation marks,  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your're denying that there is a book on it which is absolutley ridiculous. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Let me spell this out for you in simple instructions, since you are clearly misunderstanding something fundamental here.
 * Step 1 - open books.google.com.
 * Step 2 - place your mouse in the search box
 * Step 3 - type in SHIFT-APOSTROPHE (so that a quotation mark is entered into the search box)
 * Step 4 - type Dutch Acadie
 * Step 5 - type in SHIFT-APOSTROPHE (so that a closing quotation mark is entered into the search box)
 * You should now see the following text: "Dutch Acadie". Not Dutch Acadie, but "Dutch Acadie"
 * Step 6 - press the "Search Books" button
 * Step 7 - reply here with how many books are returned.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. No one I know puts "" in front or at the end unless it is a quote. I want you to type in Dutch Acadie and tell how many results you get. Why does it matter if there is a " there or not? What matters is if the books exists or not. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Search engines usually operate by default on an "OR" basis. So when you type in Dutch Acadie into Google, it is returning pages/books with the terms Dutch OR Acadie (though ones with both bubble up to the top of the search results, even though they may not be together).  To see that, try typing in Dutch Afghanistan - it returns 1078 hits.  If you want the search engine to return you pages/books with the exact phrase you have to enclose it in quotation marks.  It has nothing to do with being an actual quote, or searching for quotes.  I am starting to wonder whether I am dealing with young boy here, perhaps eleven or twelve.  Am I?   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "conquest" is between Acadie and Dutch, so it is not going to show up. This really has nothing to do with deleting the article. Aa for my age, it is of no concern to you, I will tell you, however, I am between the ages of 20-150. (Red4tribe (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC))


 * It has everything to do with deleting the article. There was never any entity or place called "Dutch Acadia".  You have coined that phrase here.  You have invented a term.  That is original research.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've attributed he failing to understand what we tell him to Engrish not being his first language. In all honesty, he speaks it better then I speak dutch. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No one in Canada or America speaks Dutch. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Not even in Dutch Acadie?  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 350 years ago for 1 month yes. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
 * I think the french let them stay in the fort as a joke. "Those Dutch bastards don't know what they are in for when the fall hits." Notice they left when the summer left.... -Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk about original research......(Red4tribe (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Yeah. 350 years ago for one month, one person in Acadia spoke Dutch. Talk about your demographic shifts. Bearcat (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate to break it to you, but no reliable editor on Wikipedia would ever take a search engine term that wasn't enclosed in quotation marks and then use the number of hits they got as prima facie support for an article. You need to find documentable search engine hits for the exact word-for-word phrase "Dutch Acadie", not just the number of pages that happen to contain both words separately. And Red Hat is correct: you find exact word-for-word phrase hits by enclosing the exact word-for-word phrase in quotation marks.
 * Nobody's saying that this thing didn't happen. But you're inventing an unattested and unverifiable name for it, which simply isn't supported anywhere. The phrase "Dutch conquest of Acadie" does not, in and of itself, support a claim that "Dutch Acadie" was ever its name. Bearcat (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge tag
I need to stress yet again: at no point in history was there ever any political or geographical entity called Dutch Acadie. Can somebody honestly address why a neologistic name for a colony that only ever existed on paper, and was never under actual Dutch control, somehow needs a separate article from the one on Jurriaen Aernoutsz, the military commander who was actually in charge of the incursion? The whole thing was basically a minor historical footnote. Nobody's suggesting that the information should be deleted from Wikipedia, certainly, but the fact that you have to invent a name for it is a pretty clear indication of how little effect this actually had on the course of history — which is why Jurriaen Aernoutsz should be the primary article on the subject, not some invented geographical name. Bearcat (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree. "Dutch Acadie" is a Neologism and should not have an article. The mention of the brief capture of the two forts and is best mentioned in the article on Aernoutsz. I believe that all sourced information is already on Jurriaen Aernoutsz. Double Blue  (Talk) 15:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose this merge. If the term "Dutch Acadie" is considered a neologism, then it could simply be renamed Dutch History in Acadia.  The article Jurriaen Aernoutsz is specifically about him while this article has content that is outside the scope of the Aernooutsz biography and specifically about the Dutch presence in Acadia. --Oakshade (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This article, as written, doesn't contain a single piece of information that isn't already in the Aernoutsz article. It's just written differently, that's all. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do believe that I would advise you to look it over again. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC))
 * This article should be merged with the Aernoutsz article, with a redirect from "Nova Hollandia" pointing to it. The neologism should be removed entirely.DigitalC (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved the article to Dutch Occupation of Acadia whilst the merge is discussed. No way should it be called "Dutch Acadie".   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They called it New Holland (in Latin), not Dutch Acadie and Acadie is the french name for Acadia, so it should be Dutch Acadia for an english article from the start, but it shouldn't be an article. This is starting to verge on the stupid. Clearly there was no "Dutch Occupation" as the Dutch, by admission in every article ever presented, abandoned the forts they took almost directly after taking them over. They didn't even wait for the french counter attack and the french didn't rush one because of the relative insignificance of the captured locations. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to word the title in a manner that doesn't overblow the incident without making it into a fully fledged sentence! "The Dutch Brief Seizure of a Couple of French Forts and Evacuation Within A Few Weeks" is obviously a bit too longwinded :-)  I do think that the information warrants an encyclopaedia article though.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll agree the incident warrants entrance into "an" article but not its own. It is simply part of the bigger story of Dutch in the Americans. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dutch Acadia doesn't exist as a redirect... 70.51.9.241 (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening line
The opening line "The two forts of Dutch Acadie were located in present day Maine and New Brunswick." makes no sense as the reader does not know there are two forts. Why would there be forts, why two, why not more, or fewer. The definite article "The" assumes all this knowledge implicit for your readers. Arnoutf (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd pose a re-wording but I am starting to think that contributing to this obvious joke will give it more creadence when it should just be removed and/or merged in with the article about the captain. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move Keegan talk 04:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Occupation of Acadia → Nova Hollandia — The current title is misleading, implying an occupation of most, or a substantial part of Acadia. The proposed title is on the grave marker of the occupying force commander as the name of the occupied territory. —70.51.9.241 (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.



Discussion
We do not call the occupation of the Channel Islands the Nazi occupation of the United Kingdom. The forts should be specifically mentioned in the title, or some other title used. 70.51.9.241 (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I never cease to be amazed by the amount of energy some people expend on trivial matters. From the reference in the Canadian online biography it seems clear that there was a Dutch conquest of Acadia in 1674, and that the Canadians don't have a problem acknowledging it. So if the word "occupation" causes heartache to some, why not change that to "conquest?" (Incidentally, I think the text of the article is perilously close to said source. Be careful of plagiarism.)--Ereunetes (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I have, very vocally and with extreme prejustice, opposed this article mainly because it is an over blown mentioning of the Dutch conquest in Nova Scotia/Acadia. The fact remains that I have posed a challage to anyone who can explain where someone claimed a land by taking over two small forts then within months abandoning them instead of choosing to defend them. I have yet to be met with a valid example for comparsion. The fact reminds, the terrorties in question were solely a french and english war theatre. The portigese have a better claim to newfoundland. I am not saying it isn't valid information and this information warrants inclusion in the "Dutch colonies of North American" article but not an article in and of itself, especially given the article is basically about the captain that took over the forts and not the occuption itself. How many stayed? How many villages were named? What are their modren names? is there a gravy yard? Nothing. But hey, did you know this captain took this place over and was tried for it and got off? Yeah I did. I learned that from his own article. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is valuable content that is deserving of its own article. To an extent, you could argue, it is almost like a battle. We have stubs on them. This is more than a stub. I cannot comprehend why you think this should not be an article. It was an important event, we can't go out and make the article on (captains name) ,that I cannot spell, all about one event. Red4tribe (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the plaque clearly indicates the "colony" was called Nova Hollandia, what's wrong with using that name? 70.51.10.60 (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind using that. There is a New Holland(Dutch Brazil) already but the colony was called Nove Hollandia so that is no problem with me. Red4tribe (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nova Hollandia was also a name for Austraila for 150 years, or 150 years more then it ws used as the name of the area. So it would be improper to use it. I do not entertain any suggestions from red4tribe as he has clearly stated he bull-headness on the subject and fails to appreicate any reasoned answer. This has gone out of control. I feel like history is being re-written with these articles and suggestions. Again, the area in dispute was never under Dutch authority. They over took two small forts in the entire area then promptly abandoned them instead of defending them. No map at the time includes their claim. The only thing that is of any tanglable "proof" is a plaque that says they were here and they left, hardly the stuff of oclonies. Again I say sure it warrants mentioning in an artcile about the dutch in north america but not its own story, not the name Nova Hollandia, and certain not in disambugation pages.
 * Support Since the Dutch did not colonize Australia, that is the sort of thing which should be dealt with by a dab header and a paragraph. Even if it were ambiguous, we should use it with a disambiguator. We use New Sweden, Roanoke Colony and Darien; all of them could be dismissed in the same manner: they came and they left. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose move & Merge: While it would be a better name for an adequately sourced article, the current article should be merged with Jurriaen Aernoutsz. DigitalC (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you would prefer the current name? If there is no merger, it would then stay at "Dutch Occupation of Acadia" 70.55.86.139 (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Map needs to change.
The map of all of Acadia is not revelent to the article. If you want to make a map and highlight the areas conquored, you are welcomed to do so. I have not reverted the map again due to the 3RR rule but it is obvious to a regular contributer that including a large map of all of Acadia implies something different then what actually occured. Any comment, include "Not all of it was conquored" does not address the fact that only a tiny segment of Acadia was even attacked and held for any length of time. It is disingenious to the article to include it. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but the map was one of where Acadian communities are found today. It was not a map of Acadia as it existed in 1674. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * True, i did notice the exclusion of Louisbourg, the biggest and main french base. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This was not a colony, please stop saying that it was.
Please use the discussion form to explain how the area was a colony given that they enforced zero control over it and estiblished zero settlements. It fails every test of A colony.

There isn't one example that you put foward of a colony that this would match. It does not even met the defination "In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state." as the Dutch had ZERO control of the majority of Acadia, little control of the forts that were taken over, and abandoned them exactly because they could not enforce any control. By the very defination of a colony, it is not a colony.

Please respond with a valid agrument for the explaination that it is a colony, citing previous examples. Thank you -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no way I can give you an example(If you look back though you can see one) as every time I do you seem unable to cope with my explanation. Red4tribe (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually you've yet to have offered a valid example. I am unable to cope with your explanation because you have yet to offer a valid one. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See my previous response. I have nothing more to say to you. Red4tribe (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue at hand is whether or not this is considered a colony. If you do not choose to offer a valid explaination for your cause, you are not providing a reason to keep this information and therefore it should be removed. I have seen your previous responses remember, and at every example you have failed to prove how this case lives up to the standard of a colony. Until you do, it should not be included. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You do not want to believe it was a colony. I cannot change your mind. It is impossible. Nothing I say is going to change it, becuase at the moment, you for some unknown reason, are having difficulty accepting that this ever happened. The person above me put it very well(sorry, I forget your name whoever you are) they came and they left. It doesn't matter. You can continue to go around called the captain "Rouge" and saying that the Dutch were "afraid" or whatever. It really doesn't matter anymore. I can't change your mind. only you can do that. Red4tribe (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please reference the comment. I searched and I cannot find it. Please provide an example for inclusion of an area into an Empire and listed as a colony with a simular history. This are not hard tasks to do unless it is hard for a reason: it fails to live up to the standard set in place for an area to be considered a colony. I believe it is very generious that this is even given space on wikipedia but you are re-writing history by propigating an inflated view of importance on this. If you are unable to understand that and have a reasonable debate, you may not be qualified to edit articles on this subject. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

''Again, It was not a dutch colony. It was a place that was taken over by a rogue Dutch captain, who later abandoned the post.'' -22:22, June 30, 2008 -Kirkoconnell

I recall you saying other statement as well, I will continue to look back through our long arguments at let you know when I find it. The Dutch came, yes it was brief(I'm sure you will point this out anyway), but we are not going to get anywhere here and you mind will not bechanged becuase you do not want it to change. I really don't understand you. You go around cracking jokes(see above, your comment on why the Dutch left) and completely blowing off this as any important event at all. Every time I give you a reason, you quickly say "No that isn't good enough" or "That isn't a valid reason" even if they are. Red4tribe (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the third opinion request specifically about this edit which adds the "Dutch Colonies" template to the bottom of the page? -Colfer2 (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

Editor opinions on this matter are actually immaterial and irrelevant to the encyclopedia. If reliable sources (WP:RS) verify (WP:V) that Acadia was a Dutch colony, cite them to support it. Without that, the article should have neither the claim nor the "Dutch colonies" template. — Athaenara ✉  03:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The "reference" Red4tribe added (diff) is a link to a website maintained by a hobbyist/historybuff ("This is my hobby" ... "Copyright © 1998-2006 ...  All rights reserved." ... colonialvoyage.com link). It does not look like a reliable source. (There is a Reliable sources/Noticeboard for assistance in determining such things.)
 * About that "reference" ... 

Note that WP:RS is a guideline, while verifiability and no original research are policies. Constructing a synthesis (that Acadia was formally a colony as colonies are defined) from two brief paragraphs on a hobbyist's website does not comply with those policies.

Now, about the edit warring: I have prepared the boilerplate for a report on WP:AN/3RR in the event that it is needed. Red4tribe ceased reverting after his third revert on each page (Dutch Occupation of Acadia and Template:Dutch colonies), and after 3RR warnings were posted to his user talk page. Please note that waiting for 24 hours and then doing a 4th revert is considered "gaming the system" and will result in a block as explained on both the 3RR noticeboard and on the three-revert rule page. — Athaenara ✉  06:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreicate your well reasoned opinion on this matter. Hopefully rules will be followed.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Although it might potentially be valid to list "Dutch Acadia" (or whatever the hell else we decide to call it) under a separate section titled "territorial claims" or "disputed territories" or something of that ilk, it was not a colony of the Netherlands, as the term "colony" inherently requires that the territory be integrally under the actual control of the colonizing power, which "Dutch Acadia" never was. Red4tribe is acting very much like an agenda editor with a WP:NPOV problem here; he seems more interested in inflating the size of the Dutch Empire than in the actual facts. Yes, the Dutch held a claim on Acadia for a number of years in the 1670s — but it was never a Dutch colony. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not accuse or judge me falsely. The Captain was in the Dutch Navy, so, if he briefly is in control of a certain area, what does that mean? If you take a look at the article you can see it is not at all about the claim, it is more focused on the attack. Red4tribe (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It means one captain was in control of two Acadian forts for about a month. That doesn't make it a colony. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See it is on this point that I have given you unparaelled latitude in my opinion. I am willing to allow its inclusion as a colony if you can provide an example of a simular colony being listed for another empire. It does not met any defination of colony. And no, they did not have "control" of the area because they choose, by the adimission of all of your sources, to abandon the settlements instead of asserting control or defending them. And while he was a captain in the Dutch Navy, a fact i am willing to concede, he WAS capture and charged with piracy, as in his own articles information. If he was not a "rogue" captain he would have had letters of marque from the Dutch royality. Clearly he was acting outside the bounds of a Dutch Navy captain by unilaterally declaring war on a nation, which most Naval captains do not have the power to do, if he was not acting in a "rogue" manner. I am only swayed by logically arguments, not persistence. That stuff pays off for amature javilen throwing, not Wikipedia. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but you have to capture the capital to legitimately claim sovereignty over another country's colony. As he never captured (or even tried to capture) Louisbourg, by claiming all of Acadia Aernoutsz was, at best, overplaying his hand. All he ever had was two peripheral forts. A territorial dispute, sure, but a colony? No. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Query. Is anyone proposing an edit to this article, Dutch Occupation of Acadia? If so, could you please say what it is? Thanks. -Colfer2 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey there, well I and several others have proposed merges on this subject and cannot get a consesus. The question at hand with the 3rd person was whether or not this mets the standards of a colony and if not then to remove it. Any other issue you want to weigh in on, feel welcome. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove what? -Colfer2 (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was to remove the references to this area as being a colony of the Dutch Empire... now I am getting cofnused sorry-Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I made some edits yesterday and today, see the history. Is there anything left to do?  Thanks... -Colfer2 (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * as main writer of the Dutch article about this subject I have a few comments to make. As for the name Dutch Acadia; a alinea has been edit to the Dutch article whichs states that there was no such thing as Dutch Acadia. The name refers to the brief (6/7 months) occupation by Aernoutz and his associates and the paperclaim afterwards. The name for this area still was Acadia. Because the name given by Aernoutz Nova Hollandia (New Holland) never made it out of his bottle that name wasn't usefull also. Such an edition could (or should) be made to this article. Second about the colony. When the West-India Compagny was to (re)use Acadia and appointed a gouvenour they at least considerd it as a colony. The West-India Compagny was inherrited with those subjects by the Dutch government. The occupation by Aernoutz itself didn't made it a colony but the actions by the WIC and later the claim till '78 by the Dutch government made it considered as a colony. So it can be decribed as a Dutch Colony because they considerd it that way but critical remarks about the actual possesion should be made. Agora (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Just to clear the colony agrument a little though, I think the discussion was whether or not a claim can be considered a colony. I don't think we were ever disputing that the Dutch thought it was a colony or not. Thanks again for the input. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)