Talk:Dutch Revolt/Archive 2

Rename - Dutch Revolt
Following Skeptic77 comment on consensus among current academic historians I renamed the article Dutch Revolt. Arnoutf 18:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why was it renamed the "Dutch Revolt"? I was coming here to ask if there was a reason the main article isn't titled "The 80 year war". I might be wrong about this, but I thought it would be similear to calling the American Revolution War the American Rebelion. If there was a previous discussion I missed explaning this could you point tell me where it is? Gwen Star 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * see Talk:Dutch_Revolt#Just_a_few_comments_regarding_name_of_this_article.2C_used_sources_and_the_Military_Revolution. Briefly, this is becoming standard name among academic historians; it is not continuous fighting so war may not be the best name, and it is not a war between nations but more a separation movement (the actual name of the American revolt is not truly relevant but indeed, does that conform to the official definition of war). The name of the Dutch revolt used to be just that, but during the romantic age (1800-1900 ie 150 yrs after the end of the conflict), the name 80yrs war became more popular; however for the reasons above, this idea is being abandoned today. Hope this clarifies Arnoutf 20:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
Following a Good Article review, I'm putting this article on hold. Here are some issues I'd like to suggest be addressed:


 * 1) Current title does not seem to reflect a neutral point of view. This term appears one-sided and doesn't reflect the broad basis of the war. However, I am not an expert on this topic and I could be convinced.
 * 2) The top of the Background section is very cluttered with a table and two images. Consider moving one of more of the images to allow the page to flow more freely.
 * 3) I'd like to see more citations. Background has only one, which doesn't seem to apply to most of the section. Ditto with "Taxation". No citations at all in Protestantism, William of Orange, Unions of Arras and Utrecht, Oath of Abjuration, The fall of Antwerp, only one in a huge section of De facto independence of the north (1585–1609), none in War recommences, Nature of the war, Effect on the Spanish Empire... I think you see the idea. In general, we should have citations at a minimum in every section and it is not uncommon to see them at the end of every paragraph. Make sure that every statement that might be called into question is backed up with a citation.
 * 4) Footnotes should go after punctuation. Most of yours are before.
 * 5) There is a "citation needed" in "Twelve Years' Truce (1609–1621)". That should be addressed, also.

Otherwise, the text itself looks good and reasonably complete. As an advocate for neutral point of view, I wonder if we should have more of the Spanish position in the article. It is currently written from a very Dutch perspective, though that is expected in an article about the "Dutch Revolt". JRP 00:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:


 * provisional response
 * At 2,3, and 5. Fair points, I will work on these
 * at 1 Dutch revolt is currently the preferred name for this conflict among academic historians. However, some more insights into the Spanish POV is a good idea, although this might not be very easy, as the Revolt was relatively minor for Spain, but defining for the Netherlands (compare the American Revolutionary War which is not as important for the UK, compared to the US. I will see what I can do Arnoutf 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There may be some POV visible in the larger attention that is given to Dutch victories as compared to Spanish victories. An example: "Over the following years, Parma reconquered the major part of Flanders and Brabant, as well as large parts of the northeastern provinces." That is a very short description for a campaign that is in fact an enormous gain. Compare to the extensive description of Maurice's victories. Second, when you scroll over the article and just look at the pictures, there seems to be a lot more attention for the Dutch, and the wording of (1) "the recently expanded Dutch navy destroys a Spanish fleet at Gibraltar" versus (2) "surrender of Breda, one of the few Dutch defeats in the latter stage of the war" maybe technically correct but, well, you know :-) No major problems, but since the article is mostly written by Dutch people they should be cautious. Piet | Talk 20:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point Arnoutf 21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Spanish point of view that should be reflected (I haven't read the article in a while):
 * The war was a big cost to Spain in money, and in lives. Combined with the fact that it was far away, this led to a strong opposition to the war within Spain. For the King however, the fight against the protestants was important, and the pro-war forces in Spain always won out.
 * The success in this war depended heavily on the situation of the Spanish treasury which in turn depended on success in other wars (ex. destruction of Spanish Armada was a turning point in this war as well).
 * I'm not sure if these and other points are reflected in the text, I might check later. I will not insert them until I have a good source. Piet | Talk 20:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True; I never said the war is not important for Spain, but for Spain fighting with England, and the Turks and the French and building an empire, this war, albeit important is only one among many. As wars go I would say this one was important for Spain, but absolutely extremely important for the Netherlans (without this war the Netherlands would not have existed, mainland Spain would regadless of the outcome). Anyway, my remark was more an explanation for the Dutch input. Arnoutf 21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * at 4. As far as I know punctuation after reference/footnote is accepted in UK style English. Arnoutf 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See Citing sources in the Footnotes section: "Footnotes come after punctuation.". May be okay in UK English, but I'd like to research that a bit more first. (I'll check the MOS pages on Uk/American differences and such, but if you have a link that would make it easier for me.) JRP 18:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, will follow wiki-standards and place the footnotes after punctuation. Thanks Arnoutf 19:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thirty tears war
The war was on once more - and crucially, merging with the wider Thirty Years' War. - The article doesnt tell how it merges with the thirty years war. From my work in the thirty years war, I think Spain tried to get hold of certain germen states in order to isolate the dutch republic on land. Anyway, the theme certainly deserves more text than this one line. TeunSpaans 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, good call, we should do some work on this. If you have any ideas (and preferably sources) feel free to have a go at it. Arnoutf 14:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tried to look them up, but unfortunately I have been unable to find them. TeunSpaans 20:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Israel has a 10 page section (p 467) on the Dutch role of the outbreak of the 30yrs war. I will have a go at summarising that in a few lines soon. Arnoutf 21:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular discord in the Dutch Revolt
I've added some text showing there was no 'Dutch Revolt against the Spanish' but a civil war between pro-spanish/catholics and intolerant calvinists. I think it still deserves more attention though, even a special section to address the issue. Right now it seems the Dutch Revolt was the Dutch vs the Spanish which really wasnt the case.

. Wiki1609 00:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please usse references when you add text. Also please choose a neutral point of view, yes the Calvinists where not very tolerant, but the Spanish governors executed moderate Catholics and Calvinists alike. The problem was that the Spanish government was intolerat Catholic and did not understand the status quo in the Netherlands, thus fueling the frustration (and indeed fundamentalism) of the Calvinists; making any peaceful settlement impossible. Arnoutf 12:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I took most of what I wrote from I. Schöffer's work, he also explicitly mentions the fact that the Dutch Revolt was actually a civil war. Schöffer isnt the only one saying this, but there is no mentioning of this being at least close to a civil war in this wiki article. It really should be included. Wiki1609 14:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know Schöffer, that is why you have to provide the reference in the text (please do, it makes the article better).
 * I agree the article tends to have a pro-Dutch calvinist point of view, and I agree that should be corrected.
 * However, the civil war thing is much more difficult, as the Netherlands were a personal union of semi-independent fiefdoms within the Holy Roman Empire; that were through this personal union governed by the Spanish King (but officially never officially part of the Spanish Empire). While part of the war may have been within the Dutch provinces (ie civil war); for example the action by Lumey could certainly count as such; the actions of William the Silent were directed at preventing infighting and his effort was (almost exclusively) directed against the demands made on the whole of the Netherlands by the Spanish.
 * Of course Spanish history will call the Dutch revolt a terrorist civil war, where the Dutch are speaking about freedom fight. In this light it is very important to value the historians on their background. This is a fairly recent insight and only recently historians try to correct for this bias when writing. This is why both Geyl and Motley should be used with the utmost care. Another reason to give the full reference to Schoffer when using these works. Arnoutf 16:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have added 15 citation needed tags for several statements within the article. Please add sources for those within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. This may seem like a lot, but the article is currently undersourced for the amount of information present. If you need to, consider using online sources to use as inline citations. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Regards, --Nehrams2020 23:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the article has made significant changes for improving the article, and at the recommendation of another GA reviewer, I've extended the hold for the article an additional seven days. The article must have the citation tags addressed by 9/27 or the article's review will fail. If you don't think that you will be able to address them by that time, then let me know and I'll remove it from its GA status now. You can always renominate the article again once the sources are added. Again, if you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Good job so far, but keep working at it! --Nehrams2020 23:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortuantely at this time, I have delisted the article for not addressing the above issues. However, if at any point the above issues are addressed and the article meets the rest of the GA criteria, it can be renominated at Good article nominations. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. --Nehrams2020 21:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Early Dutch Reformation
Israel (105) states that from the late 1550s Calvinism emerged as the strongest force in Netherlands Protestantism. That doesn't mean that Protestantism as a whole, let alone Calvinism, was already, or immediately, the predominant religion in the Low Countries. The only right conclusion would be that Calvinism developed a considerable potential strength. It operated as a powerful minority and rapidly conquered societal power, just as revolutionary movements often do. Ad43 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have page 105 of Israel The Dutch Republic in front of me. First, I would like to make sure that we are not equating Protestantism with Calvinism, as if there were no Lutherans, Zwinglians, Anabaptists/Mennonites etc. etc.  Second, page 105 is part of a sub-chapter that deals with the rise of Calvinism.  A reading of the whole of Israel’s chapter 5 can only lead to a conclusion that Calvinism rose in the Low Countries amid a fluid Protestant situation, with Lutherans etc. (for good reasons: persecution, burnings, etc.) not being able/willing to provide leadership to the Protestant movement (with the exception of the Anabaptists, who were willing but whose extreme positions were unattractive for many people).  Third, note that I am not claiming that in the 1560s Protestants were in the majority.  It’s just that I think there is no evidence for an assertion that in the 1560s they were in any kind of minority – the situation was too fluid, and too uneven if we consider the differences between the Southern Netherlands and the country above the rivers.  Of course, I’m open for evidence to the contrary, but Israel in particular does not provide the evidence for “Protestants constituted a significant minority.”  (By the way, I wish Israel did, one way or another.  I have been looking for 1560s demographics for some time.)  Cheers. -- Iterator12n   Talk  20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

At least you suggest that there was already a protestant majority of some kind. You then seem to assume that the iconoclastic outbreak (1566) and the first military battle (1568) were confirmations of an already established or converted situation, rather than blunt revolutionary acts. The Eighty-years' war then must have been a kind of dull soap. Let's face the reality here. Protestantism was not yet that widespread at the onset of the Dutch Revolt. It gained power because it served as a vehicle in the revolutionary dynamism. But it was also the other way around. It converged with other socio-cultural forces and functioned as a revolutionary kind of societal ideology. Even then, a considerable percentage of the population, even in Amsterdam, remained catholic and had to be tolerated until 1853, when catholicism finally and officially got restored in its old rights. Protestantism was not so much the leading stream at the onset of the Dutch revolt, but it took profit from the situation, if you want. Ad43 10:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * All good and well, but where is the evidence? where are the citations? The reader of the above concludes that yours is an opinion.  --  Iterator12n   Talk  14:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this sound as an opinion to you? It belongs to the common knowledge of all well-educated Dutch people. It is you who should substantiate such a deviant outsider opinion. Perhaps this would ask for quantitative data, but only if there were justified reasons for serious doubts in this matter. There aren't. So, what you want from me might only be useful for you personally. In this case, there is no objective need. The matter itself is rather self-evident, so you better take this for granted. Ad43 15:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For your convenience, I've just added a reference. You're welcome. Ad43 11:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reference. However, for the reader of the English Wikipedia article who doesn’t master the Dutch language, I should like to ask you to provide one or two quotations from the Rogier work so the strength of the evidence can be judged.  I am asking because of  the following quotations from Jonathan Israel’s work that lean in the opposite direction while Israel too references Rogier.  The following quotations are from Crisis, 1559-1566, a part of chapter 7 of The Dutch Republic, by Jonathan I. Israel:


 * From a section dealing with the early 1560s: “Philip himself knew that the position of the Catholic Church in the Habsburg Netherlands was now critical.  Protestantism, open, semi-concealed, or Nicodemist, saturated the entire country.”  Saturated!


 * Further down: “The unpopularity of the clergy was now palpable. [Newly installed Bishop] Sonnius entered ‘s-Hertogenbosch in November 1562, to find the city heavy with tension.  In defiance of a placard of 1559 forbidding songs, plays, and pasquinades deriding Church or clergy, irreverent verses circulated freely.  The Franciscans of Gelderland complained they dwelt in acute poverty, receiving no alms, since the people, moved by the hatred of the Church of Rome, refused to give them any.”


 * On it goes.


 * Then there is the following wrap-up by Israel: “But what is remarkable about the north Netherlands, in 1566, is that (except in Gelderland) there was practically no popular Catholic response to Protestant action [i.e. the iconoclasm] at all. No doubt only a minority of the populace were committed [my emphasis] Protestants.  But committed [id.] Catholics, in the sense of people willing to go into the streets and demonstrate, or fight, to defend the old Church and its symbols and clergy, must have been far fewer.”  Far fewer!


 * Finally, please consider that Rogier’s work pre-dates the wave of fresh research (particularly British research, of which Israel is an exponent, and particularly quantitative research) into the origins of the Dutch Republic. We may attach some value to the fact that Israel acknowledges Rogier’s work but doesn’t seem to align with Rogier’s position on the quantity of Protestantism.  In view of the questions that I raise, it is prudent to maintain the Citation needed sign – as a minimum, the Rogier reference needs one or two translated quotations to the extent of Protestantism.  Thank you.


 * Iterator12n  Talk  15:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Iterator12n, but what you seem to misinterpret, is that a rather general dissatisfaction with the Old Church and a growing sympathy for and popularity of various forms of protestantism, does not mean that the majority of the population or even its leaders were already declared protestant or could be called anti-catholic. Israel only stresses that there was a widespread readiness for reformatorial ideas. That he may abundantly illustrate. Nobody denies that. Of course, Israel is not to blame, only his writings deserve to be read and interpreted right and carefully. He certainly would not state that the Low Countries were already protestant dominated at that time, only that they were on the verge of being lost for the catholic sake, which is something else. Quantitative data are less relevant here. Ad43 16:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ad43 or somebody else, pls provide one or two translated quotations from the Rogier work so non-Dutch speakers can judge the strength of the evidence. -- Iterator12n  Talk  17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no access to Rogier; but that work seems a bit outdate (1954 1st ed) anyway. However, Ad43 reasoning seems acceptable (although the "common knowledge" agument is really eally bad). The Nazi's, for example, never where a majority in Germany; still they caused some trouble. On the other hand the sentence: "The Netherlands were not predominantly Protestant in the 1560s [8] [citation needed], but Protestants constituted a significant minority, with Calvinism showing the most powerful potential." could be rewritten so it avoids this issue as "The protestant community, predominantly the Calvinist, had become a significant influence in the Netherlands by 1560". Arnoutf 17:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Arnoutf, thanks. I go for the compromise statement. --  Iterator12n   Talk  18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmz. P. Limm, in The Dutch Revolt, 1559-1648, p. 54, says, speaking about the Act of Abjuration [Italics mine]: "The Catholic 'obedient' provinces countered the defiant claims of the United Provinces with a flood of pamphlets and polemics. Even within the lands controlled by the rebel States there was opposition: from Catholics who still constituted the majority in most areas; from Anabaptists who were against the swearing of oaths; from Lutherans who were anxious about the legality of resisting a properly ordained authority. Even some Calvinists found it difficult to take the new oath, especially office-holders and lawyers." So, according to Limm, even in the early 1580's there was no Protestant majority in the United Provinces (although his in most areas might still allow for a different interpretation). I have not been able to identify the sources that backup his comment though. I think Arnoutf's compromise is fine too. Iblardi 18:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Before focussing too exclusively on Rogier, although he was one of the most prominent Dutch historians in the period 1945-1970 and certainly the nr. 1 expert in the history of catholicism during the Dutch Republic, it would be intresting to documentate the communis opinio in the Low Countries in this matter. For instance, Verwey (1976:318 states) : Yet the calvinists made no more than a relatively small part of the population in the Netherlands provinces in 1566 and Bauer (1994:130): The adherants of the Old Church of Rome clearly remained the majority. Across the board, Calvinism was never embraced spontaneously. Rather, it was the 'terror' by the 'Geuses', that for the main part brought the old national church in a state of collapse. This are only two arbitrary quotes. You may equate Calvinism with Potestantism here, not only as a representative pars pro toto, but primarily because they were the single militant and most activist group. It would be very time consuming for me too collect and translate an overwhelming lot of written evidence, but that would be an easy job otherwise. It really is common knowledge in our countries. You can trust me. Ad43 21:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Verwey gives no reference for this 'common knowledge'. It would be interesting to know where it came from. Iblardi 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And here is another one. Frijhoff (1979:38) uses almost identical phrases as I repeatedly did above. I rephrase: After 1566, it took far more than the Eighty Years for protestantism (read: the reformed church) to become the numerically greatest denomination in the Republic. In 1566 less than 10 % of the population was consciously and convinced antagonist of the catholic religion. One and a half century later the latter only amounted between a quarter and one third. What happened in the mean time?. I will look further for you, as long as it demands no special efforts on my part. Only the lowest hanging fruits (like these) will be picked, believe me.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad43 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Or take this one. Schöffer a.o. (1985 (3rd): 121) also uses phrases almost identical as I repeatedly did above. I rephrase: This all (e.g. Williams declared preference of calvinism in 1573 etc.) did not mean in the least, that in the rebellious provinces the entire population immediately turned calvinist or got an official membership. It is plausible that a big majority made the best of it, be it reluctantly or not, but still for a long time remained attached to many catholic reminiscenses and traditions. Thus, still for a long time to go, also in the rebellious areas, only a little minority could be called convinced calvinist, although they seemed the strongest kernel within the revolt.


 * Now let me ask Iterator12n again: do you really stand your ground? Is this really worthwhile? All these indications point unambiguously to the conclusion that, from any honourable editorial point of view, my moderate and careful formulation of that sole sentence in the article was, and still is, 100% justified, right and trustworthy. So you made a pseudo-issue out of this. Either you were misunderstanding or only extrapolating Israel. It is only you who wants to make a point out of this. There is no sufficient external motivation. You did not and will not get real support in this case. It won't help to put your individual struggle further now. Ad43 09:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point, let’s just say that we disagree about the evaluation of a complex, fluid phenomenon and that the statement offered by Arnoutf nicely circumvents any false appearance of certainty one way or another. Cheers. -- Iterator12n   Talk  14:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It was you who put this issue on the edge and now it is you who tries to take the sting out of it. Now you suddenly prefer a halfbaked compromis. You made a lot of noise for almost nothing. Be fair and withdraw your unjustified and disproportional reservations completely. Ad43 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Iterator12n, I agree with your reservations up to a certain extent, but most of the sources do seem to indicate that the Netherlands were not predominantly Protestant by the 1560s - this appears to be the consensus. What is the problem with mentioning this consensus in the article? Iblardi 23:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Iblardi: The problem is that the consensus of current research (primarily British research, and research by British transplants) seems to indicate that we don’t know for sure one way or another. By itself, this is not strange because we are talking about a true revolution! (something dropped quite early from the Dutch narrative, revolution is dangerous and unpredictable etc.) and we are talking about definitions of Protestant and Catholic. Adding to the uncertainties: (1) we know for sure that there has been, to some extent, an immediate backlash to the iconoclasm – now, do you count “Protestant” (assume we can agree on a definition) before or after the backlash; (2) we know for sure that over a longer time there has been a roll- back where there was substantial Protestantism in 1560, witness, for example, present-day northern France without substantial remnants of Protestantism. With backlash and roll-back, numerical data from the early 17th century, which does exist, is no indicator for the early 1560s. Also, we are projecting our own attitudes –for example, individual responsibility for declaring our beliefs or otherwise– on times when these things often were decided by say the master, the king, whoever. If your ruler said you were Protestant, you often WERE Protestant. And we are largely ignoring spatial differences, that is, differences between this region of the Netherlands and that region. Altogether, I think it’s dangerous for an history article to declare certainty where there is not (not yet?) certainty. By the way, our discussion now in 2007 about the spread of Protestantism in the Low Countries is nothing else than a continuation of a discussion that started some 200 years ago. So much for hoping that one can now come to a conclusion one way or another. Therefore the sentence that I submitted earlier in the day. HTH. Cheers. -- Iterator12n  Talk  00:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for my information. What does 'HTH' mean and why do you end so often with that Cheers? It sounds a little triumphalist to me. There is no reason to be so proud of your only reluctant admittance. Ad43 08:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like Iterator12n does have a point here. My knowledge on the subject is rather limited, but I found an article by J. Spaans from 1999 entitled Catholicism and Resistance to the Reformation in the Northern Netherlands which may offer some valuable information on modern trends, and I am going to work through it as soon as I have the time and opportunity. Iblardi 12:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article is available online at http://www.knaw.nl/publicaties/pdf/981100_10.pdf. Iblardi 12:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This can be very useful. I'm curious. Ad43 17:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles V's language
In Charles V's own article one find:


 * He spoke French as mother language and Flemish from his childhood years, later adding an acceptable Spanish (which was required by the Castilian Cortes as a condition for becoming king of Castile) and some German. [1] Indeed, he claimed to speak "Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse."

This is in contradistiction with this article which claims


 * He was raised in the Netherlands and spoke fluent Dutch, French, Spanish, and some German.[3]

This contradistinction should be solved. Vb 09:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is (IMHO) what the article says. He was raised at the French speaking court (hence mother language; ie fluent) but as he was often in Flanders he became fluent in that language (ie Dutch) as well. There is agreement about the German. The only contradiction maybe whethe "acceptable" Spanish should be labelled as "fluent", but it is reasonably subjective when acceptable becomes fluent. Arnoutf 19:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems the order is not correct. From the text it seems his best known language would be Dutch.  That may be true but maybe also false.  I think we need some reference with explicit quote on this point. Vb 10:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The order is alphabetical, it is also an article about the Dutch revolt, so that would be 2 arguements in favour of the current ranking without making any inferences about his language skills. If the article ranking is to be reordered in relation to language skills, that would require a reference. Arnoutf 11:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Felipe II and Milan
Felipe II was duke of Milan too, but that is not in the map of the posessions (there was no King in Milan, but it was under his rule). --SPQRes 08:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC) SPQRes

English Language for Placenames
This is the English language wiki. We don't call Rome 'Roma' nor do we call Munich 'München', Majorca 'Mallorca', so why has Brill been rendered Brielle? I feel that it should conform to the standard English spelling throughout the article.Jatrius (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please consider we are discussing the Dutch town Brielle, not the English town Brill. If you think the Dutch town is named in error, you should discuss that at Brielle not here. Please consider that for the English name to be used there needs to be a colloquial use of the English name. Arnoutf (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I return to my original point. This is the English language wiki. Brill is the name of the town in English, colloquially and otherwise. It actually states this in the first para of the entry for the town. All the history books I have ever read in English, by English authors such as CV Wedgwood to Dutch authors such as Pieter Geyl in translation, have referred to the town as Brill. I shall therefore amend accordingly. Jatrius (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am not familiar enough with the English usage to be sure which is in colloquial use. From your argument it seems you are right; so changes are fine with me. Arnoutf (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a big source of heartache. Most places that have a commonly used English name (besides the ones already mentioned above other examples are Malines for Mechelen, Bois-le-Duc for 's-Hertogenbosch, Cleves for Kleve) are represented in the English wikipedia with articles that carry their actual names. That implies that one needs to use the double referral "Den Briel|Brill" in wikilinks to honor sensibilities as the one expressed above. But wait, there are other sensibilities if places in Flanders are concerned. Certain vigilantes will not let you use "Malines" or "Tournai" (both perfectly correct English), but insist on Mechelen and Doornik, even if one uses this wikilink-trick. Could we please stop being childish, and accept the titles of the wiki articles?--Ereunetes (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

section Nobility in opposition
I had to change the incorrect assertion that Philip appointed sundry high nobles to the States General (which were a body representing the Estates of the several Habsburg duchies and counties) to the correct designation Raad van State (Council of State). Philip could not appoint anybody to the first, nor would this have been useful to him. However, the Habsburg collateral councils: Privy Council, Council of State, and Council of Finances, were the actual governing bodies of the Habsburg Netherlands, formally advising the Regent. See besides Geyl also 🇦🇹 (2001) ''Monarchies, States Generals and Parliaments. The Netherlands in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries'', Cambridge U.P., ISBN 928-0-521-04437-0 paperback.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

War, battle, revolt
Arnoutf, I'm not sure that I agree with your reasoning behind the change in picture, restoring the Relief of Leiden. Comes to mind some general's definition of war: Months of boredom, hours of carnage. The Eighty Years' War had a number of battles - I leave the "classical" out because I don't know what that means. Through all this plays the confusion between the Dutch Revolt and the Eighty Years' War, but we have been there before. In summary, I would restore the Slag bij Nieuwpoort picture. -- Iterator12n   Talk  20:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Casualties
Is it possible to get some sort of estimation of casualties on this conflict ? I skimmed through the article and there's a noticeable lack of deaths and casualties, only battles and its effects. I understand that's a long and complex conflict, and that no original research is allowed, so I assume i'd have to find an estimate somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprafa (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

from GA-start with hardly any changes??
Compare the article from the time it was a good article with the current status (assessed as start). I think the current article is in general better, nevertheless its appraisal has dropped two levels...... What's happening to the assessment system? Arnoutf (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading this discussion page is fascinating:-) But to get to Arnoutf's complaint: as far as I can reconstruct the history of the evaluation process the article was downgraded from "GA" to "start" in one fell swoop in September, 2007, after fair warning by the appraiser. Personally, I think this was a bit harsh (and apparently only a negative grade on the first criterion for B-class prevented it from becoming reclassified as B-class), but I have to agree the article as it currently stands does not deserve GA-status.


 * What is wrong with the article? Where to begin? First of all, I think the renaming to "Dutch Revolt," while leaving the contents of the article basically the same, was a mistake. The problem here is one of historiographical tradition. In Dutch historiography the designation "Eighty-Years' War" is traditional (though not uncontroversial) for the entire period of the Dutch War of Independence (a term that nobody uses, by the way). Unfortunately, English and American historians did not follow the Dutch in this interest for the entire period. Where the term "Dutch Revolt" is used in American historiography, only the period between the start of the Revolt (which may be put at 1566, or 1568, or 1572, as the Americans don't have the hang-up about the execution of the Counts of Egmont and Horne, which made it an even 80 years between start and finish of the conflict) and the beginning of the Twelve Year Truce was denoted. The reason for this was that the Truce marked the moment at which the Republic was diplomatically recognized by even the Spanish Crown and hence the Revolt as such ended. Now, the Anglophones may be "wrong" about this delimitation, but the fact remains that "Dutch Revolt" (the English term) means something different than "Eighty-Years' War" and arguably even does not cover the Dutch term "Nederlandse Opstand." I realize that the name change was extensively debated, but I missed this aspect in the discussion. As this is the English-language wikipedia article, my suggestion would be to go back to the original title (a translation from the Dutch designation, though this arguably has no meaning in Anglophone historiography), thereby introducing an explicitly "Dutch" categorization of the subject. This would not be Dutch POV, just as speaking about the "American Revolutionary War" in the English-language wikipedia does not represent American POV. The alternative would be to leave the title as is, but to follow the Anglophone practice by limiting the article to the 1566-1609 period. This would leave the remainder of the 80 years dangling, however :-)


 * As far as the contents of the article are concerned: I have looked at the requests for citations that are still extant (a new one was added yesterday) and my impression is that most, if not all of them are not really quibbles about facts, but about interpretation and stated opinion (this may be an abuse of the "citation needed" tag, but there may be no alternative if one wishes to lodge a protest). I have to say that I often would agree with the implied protest; I could add a large number of such protests myself. I also would take issue with a number of important omissions (in which cases a "citation needed" tag is not possible). The omission of Vrancke's 1588 Deductie, which marks the assumption of sovereignty by the States, would be an example. I realize, however, that one can always disagree about what should be included and what should be left out.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it is not good enough for Good Articles, it is indeed the downgrading two levels that I think was overly harsh as most start articles I have seen are classes worse than this one.
 * Thanks for the elaborate comments, these will definitely help improvements. Arnoutf (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't do anything yet :-) Seriously, judging by this discussion page, the article's "fall from grace" took place within the span of a fortnight back in Septermber, 2007, when the reviewer, Nethrams, apparently put a number of citation requests in the article and then found those insufficiently addressed in his opinion. This then apparently issued in the downgrading. In view of the warnings given I think it remarkable that nobody replied to his concerns at the time (see the section "GA Sweeps Review" above). I can't retrace what his concerns were exactly, and from what I have found in the article I suspect that at least a number of his citation requests have been taken care of. Maybe an easy solution might be to address the remaining ones (often a simple rephrasing might suffice, as most of the requests appear motivated by hurt non-Dutch feelings about certain claims made :-) If the object is to get the rating upgraded, that may be the solution in the short term.


 * However, a long-term solution probably would require a more fundamental approach. The current article is an unabashed English-language version of the "Tachtigjarige Oorlog" article in the Dutch wikipedia (which has received a "gold star" by the way, as an "excellent" treatment of the subject). There is nothing wrong with that, but that model is "Dutch-centric" by its nature, and as such open to accusations of non-NPOV. I therefore would like to suggest another approach that would appear to be more "objective" to non-Dutch eyes (though true objectivity is unattainable). To attain this objective it might be a good idea to rewrite the article using English sources (after all, who could be more 'objective' about the Dutch than their hereditary enemies :-) I would recommend Jonathan Israel (Dutch Republic), H.G Koenigsberger (Monarchies, States Generals and Parliaments), James D. Tracy (The Founding of the Dutch Republic), and Geoffrey Parker (The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road) to name only a few reputable, modern English-language sources (and add Martin van Gelderen with The Political Thought of the Dutch Revolt, though he is Dutch :-)The story would in essence remain the same, but as long as one stayed closely with these sources any imputation of non-neutrality could easily be deflected (I think Motley is not only outdated, but far too much influenced by Groen van Prinsterer's Orangism).


 * My most "revolutionary" suggestion would be to make the article a "framework" about the rise of the Dutch Republic, with one large article about the "Dutch Revolt" proper (the years between 1566 and 1609 to follow the American convention, as the Dutch "Opstand" seems to be limited to the period 1572-1588) and another article devoted to the second part of the conflict (1618-1648) as an extension of the Thirty Years War in the European Theatre (where the Republic acted as both paymaster and arsenal for the Protestant side) and a low-intensity "world war" with the Luso-Spanish Empire elsewhere. Such an approach would help elevate the treatment of the subject above Dutch "parochialism." --Ereunetes (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again thanks, although I am Dutch myself, I have been worrying about the Dutch centrism of this article myself. We should be careful however with English sources too as they were basically protestant allies. What's really lacking is the Spanish/Catholic point of view. My problem is lack of time, which limits my mainspace editing time (even though I have a copy of Israel (in English) sitting on my shelves). Arnoutf (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not worry about the neutrality of the modern English historians "because the English were allies" :-) In as far as English historians write English history (in which case their neutrality would be most impaired) they take pains to minimize the Dutch contribution anyway (viz. the treatment of the Spanish-Armada story), but as long as there is no threat to English primacy claims, they are commendably generous to both belligerents. For the Spanish view, I would recommend Henry Kamen's treatment of both Philip II and Alba. As far as lack of time goes: I would recommend losing the entire "Aftermath" section. That should take only a few seconds :-) Seriously, I have just finished peppering that section with citation requests to mark some highly dubious claims. For instance, I would contest the claim in the "Political Implications for Europe" section that the Dutch Revolt was a precursor of "liberalism" in modern governments and of the French revolution (though I could support a claim that in a very tenuous way it played a role in the English Civil War and the American Revolution). My point is that, if anything, the Revolt was a conservative reaction against "modern", centralizing tendencies from the Spanish crown. Most telling is the fact that Francois Vranck's 1587 Exposition explicitly rejected the claim by the English member of the Council of State, Thomas Wilkes that "sovereignty" resided in the Dutch people. His claim that "sovereignty", to the contrary, "had always been exercised" by the town governments, and had been delegated to the States, became the basis for the ideology of the States Party, as espoused by, first, Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius, and later John de Witt and the De la Court brothers (and was antithetical to the monarchical Orangist ideology). See James D. Tracy, The Founding of the Dutch Republic. Oxford U.P. 2008, pp. 291-295. In any case, I think dragging the "divine right" controversy into this would be an anachronism, as the English and French debates postdate the Dutch Revolt and use their own arguments against the Stuart and Bourbon absolutist claims. And I could go on and on:-) The Aftermath section as it now stands could be eliminated without any damage to the article. It does not add anything valuable and only irritates because of the unsubstantiated claims.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to help solving some of the issues raised, but for me, too, opportunity for editing the encyclopedia is limited, and I contribute to this particular article only sporadically. I do agree that there is still much room for improvement, especially concerning the "Aftermath" section. I doubt though whether the article is really in such a very bad shape. It certainly has been improving gradually over time. Much of the factual information and some of the analyses are supported by, or were derived from, non-Dutch mainstream sources such as Israel and Parker. The application of the term "Dutch Revolt" to the totality of the Eighty Years' War has a precedent in the English language in the form of Peter Limm's book The Dutch Revolt, 1559-1648 and could be defended. Iblardi (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bulut Book
The book by Bulut is not seen as a WP:RS as a source at the Sea Beggars-page. Unless someone disputes this claim there (which has not been done for at least 8 months), it will be better to remove all claims that were sourced by this book.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Project for complete rewrite
In the previous subsection I started up a discussion about ways to upgrade the article to its Former Glory. However, on closely reading the current article and comparing it with the Dutch model article, I think it is beyond salvation. It contains so many factual errors that only a complete rewrite would help. However, I suspect that so many people are emotionally invested in the current product that this probably will land me in an edit war. Life is too short:-)

Which made me think of an alternative. Like I said before, the title Dutch Revolt actually refers to the first part of the Eighty Years War (the title of the Dutch article in translation) and to the political and social ramifications of the period. Putting the second part of the war in such an article causes a conceptual mismatch (which is not the case in the Dutch article, as the Dutch title corresponds with a periodicization in Dutch historiography). I therefore propose to start a new article that appropriates the title "80-year war" (which already exists as a redirect page to this article, fortunately with only 3 links which I will be happy to replace). In this new article I propose to treat the war as a "proper war," like the Hundred Year War and the Thirty Year war. In other words, leave the political ramifications of the first part to this article, instead concentrating on the military aspects. The second part (which would be described as a conventional war between the Dutch Republic and the Luso-Spanish Empire) would come more into its own and that part could be deleted from this Dutch-Revolt article. There would be a large number of subsections, but these could be short, because in the first part I could refer to this article and other already existing articles. I could also discuss the military novelties, like the "a-symmetrical warfare" character (tercios vs. trace italienne), Dutch innovations in fortification, Maurice's military reforms, the Dutch "fiscal-military state", which help explain why the Dutch could succesfully withstand the Spanish might.

I propose the following outline:
 * Prelude and causes
 * The Dutch Revolt
 * Insurrection (1566-1572)
 * Rebellion (1572-1576)
 * Pacification of Ghent to Union of Utrecht (1576-1579)
 * Secession of the North (1579-1589)
 * The war of sieges (1590-1600)
 * Stalemate (1600-1609)
 * Military revolution
 * Twelve Years' Truce
 * The war recommences
 * Dutch intervention in the German Empire (1618-1621)
 * The Republic under siege (1621-1629)
 * Turn of the tide (1629-1635)
 * Alliance with France (1635-1640)
 * Endgame (1640-1647)
 * The War overseas
 * Peace of Munster and aftermath

I would appreciate comments.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your idea has a lot of merit. I have one problem as it stands; it mixes a timeline, with two topics "military revolution" and the "war overseas". This makes the structure less clear. I would separate timeline from the other topics (but do see why you mix them). Some tweaking of the 2nd level topics maybe needed; but we can do that once we start constructing the contents.
 * Especially the caption "military revolution" is a bit problematic in my view. While I agree Maurices innovations (standing army) were essential, the dual system of the regents raising taxes (van Oldenbarneveld) allowing this army is probably just as important, and innovative. Something like "Transformation to a merchant/military power" (not a nice title, I have to admit) would cover this dualistic development much better.
 * If you want to rethink the article name; that is a bit difficult. Including prelude is essential to understand Dutch revolt, but stretches it beyond the 80 years war, the peace of Munster and aftermath is also important for the republic, and has the same problem. If it were not too poetic renaming it to "The rise of the Dutch Republic" (cf Israel) would be a potentia article name. Arnoutf (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Subtitles are of course open for debate. I was planning to put Maurice's reforms in the Military Revolution section, together with the "fiscal-military state" stuff. Maybe that is a better subtitle. I would need the subsection to bring a number of developments together that do not fit well in the narrative sections. The same goes for the proposed "War overseas" section that would actually cover the 1600-1655 period (to bring the conquest of Ceylon and the Portuguese possessions on the Indian mainland in the mix). It is difficult to put "overseas" snippets into the chronological narrative sections.
 * As far as the overall title is concerned: I would like to avoid a "Rise of the Dutch Republic" approach in the "Eighty Years' War" article that I have now started (You may want to click the link 80-year war). In my view that would go much better with the "Dutch Revolt" article. In the "War" article I propose to adopt a narrowly military view, omitting much material that would better be included in the "Dutch Revolt" article. On the other hand, the "Dutch Revolt" article does not need each and every battle and military personage in it.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As said above, I think the proposed remedy is too drastic and, since it apparently entails a complete rewrite, denies the amount of effort put into the current article. Sorry, I misread. The idea is interesting, let's see where it leads us. Iblardi (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now more or less completed the Eighty Years' War project (misappropriating the former redirect page of that name :-) I have taken Arnoutf's advice and concentrated on the timeline. The originally envisaged sections on the Military Revolution and the War Overseas have been incorporated in other sections. I purposely concentrated on the military aspects of the war, glossing over all kinds of details that could better be treated in the Dutch Revolt article. Examples: the background of the Compromise of Nobles in the Prelude; the detailed story of the transfer of power in Holland between Brill and the first Rebel States meeting in 1572; Sea-Beggar atrocities; the Revolt in the other northern provinces; the intrigues around the Perpetual Edict and the hiring of Matthias as alternate governor-general; the coups d'état in Ghent, Brussels and Antwerp and their place in the politics of the States-General; the politics in the States-General leading up to the deal with Anjou and the constitutional implications thereof (in view of the Act of Abjuration); the Malcontents; the Landraden and the evolution of the Council of State; the detailed story of the Union of Utrecht and the Union of Atrecht; the revolt of the peasants in Drenthe; the tug of war in Overijssel around the loyalist cities, like Kampen; the Frisian imbroglio; the defection of Rennenberg; etc. etc. Despite all these omissions, the war article is still longer than I had hoped. However, it turned out that supporting articles like Twelve Years' Truce and Peace of Münster lacked even the most elementary details, which I therefore (for the moment) had to put in the war-article (I mean in the latter case details like: names of negotiators, content of the peace treaty, Zeeland's opposition to the peace). I did not mention every battle and siege either (though I put in a few important ones -Rijmenam and the siege of Schenkenschans- that seem to have been overlooked in the list of battles). The story therefore leaves unexplained why Hulst had to be captured several times (like Venlo and Roermond). In other words: the article could have been even longer :-) But it was along war.


 * For the moment I don't know what to do with external links to other wikipedias. I don't want to mess up the existing links to the Dutch Revolt article. In any case, I think the articles could be made complementary and there could be an amicable division.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is really, would you write historical articles primarily split by aspects (like this proposal suggests splitting off the military aspect) or would you write historical articles primarily split by natural time periods (e.g. up to Union of Utrecht, from Union of Utrecht to Twelve Years' Truce) while covering all aspects within each time period. My personal feeling, for what it's worth, is that readers like the latter much better. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Guelders Gelre Gelderland
I think where it says Guelders, it should be either Gelre or Gelderland. Guelders is actually south of Gelderland, in current Germany, whereas Gelderland and Gelre are one and the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.53.253.51 (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Linguistically, all three (Guelders, Gelre, Gelderland) are the same. Historically, the southern part of Guelders (Gelre) remained under Spanish occupation during the Dutch Revolt and was thus separated from the bigger northern part that is nowadays called Gelderland. It was only at the end of the Eighty Years' War that this separation could be considered as permanent so the use of Guelders in this article about Dutch Revolt is entirely correct.Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge
2605:6001:E169:9000:9832:26B1:D464:F2CB (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you take the workload for merging a 65 KB and a 75KB into something of both high quality and not bigger than 100KB (for readability) - In favour. Otherwise, not practical. Arnoutf (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dutch Revolt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Mfwe5Lhp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.domkerk.nl%2Fdomchurch%2Fhistory.html to http://www.domkerk.nl/domchurch/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dutch Revolt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170329032322/http://www.pearsoned.co.uk/ to http://www.pearsoned.co.uk/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.domkerk.nl/domchurch/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Puritan27's long paragraph in lede
This paragraph by has been restored despite being challenged by  and without any citations (which is not unusual for the lede but the balance and statements must clearly match that of the rest of the article). I would ask that this addition to the lede not be restored for any reason, even if cited. It is a huge addition and overwhelms the lede for no reason. Protestantism is already mentioned below in "Background". The lede is not the place for in depth discussion of the background of events. Also this seems to be essentially a SPA for editing related to Protestantism which is not forbidden but it shows the tint being applied here. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. In addition to your reasoning, it distorts explaining the roots of the revolt, which were as much socio-economic (heavy taxation, for instance) as religious. However, it seems that Puritan27 has no inclination to enter in a conversation about his editing ... Sigh... - DonCalo (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. See MOS:LEAD: A good lead tells the reader the basics in a nutshell, and also cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. I do not see how this:

"Protestant and Reformed leaders that led this Dutch Reformation include Guido de Bres, Petrus Dathenus, Franciscus Junius, Jean Taffin, Peter Gabriel, Jan Utenhove, Nicolas Scheltius, and several others. Guido de Bres was the author of the Belgic Confession, which became the official Dutch Reformed Confession of Faith. Peter Dathenus was the author of the Dutch Reformed liturgy of public worship, as well as the translator of the Heidelberg Catechism into the Dutch language. Franciscus Junius was a leading reformed theologian and chaplain to William of Orange, as well as the author of A Treatise on True Theology, one of the first great works of Reformed Orthodoxy. Jean Taffin was a leading Dutch pastor and theologian and key adviser to William of Orange during the Dutch revolt. Jan Utenhove was a Biblical scholar who translated the Psalms and the New Testament into the Dutch language, which played a significant part in the Dutch Reformation as it made the Bible accessible to the common people."


 * fits in that description.Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, could anyone take a look at the Wim Kok-article? That has an oversized-lead-section too.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Fully agree, even without the long paragraph, the lead is already very (too?) detailed. And really mentioning details like the name of "Petrus Dathenus" might be considered trivia even in the body text and cannot be part of the lead. I removed it again per overwhelming consensus here. Arnoutf (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)