Talk:Third Anglo-Dutch War

Untitled
See Triple Alliance. Unless two treaties with the same name have been made shortly after another (which a hardly likely) the reference to Triple Alliance here is a mistake. Reference removed.

Erik Zachte


 * I've made Triple Alliance into a disambiguation, since there seem to be several treaties going by that name.

What were the results of the War? Nik42 00:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * None.

--MWAK 13:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be great to have some more sources which are available in English. 90.11.218.173 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

seven provinces or ten?
"....leaving the Allies in possession of only three of the in fact ten (despite the number traditionally given of seven[28]) Dutch provincial areas"

Footnote 28: The Seven United Netherlands consisted of Holland, Zealand, Utrecht, Guelders, Overijsel, Friesland and Groningen, but in fact the territories of Drenthe, North Brabant and Limburg were also part of the Republic

The United Seven Provinces, as The Netherlands were formally called at this time, consisted of the seven provinces listed in the footnote. Drenthe was indeed an independent administrative area but was deemed an insignificant backwater so did not get even standing with the other provinces upon Dutch independence. Some of what is now North Brabant and Limburg was part of the Staten Landen, lands ruled directly by parliament as they had been conquered subsequent to Dutch independence from Spain. The Provinces of Drenthe and North Brabant only became provinces in 1815 after the defeat of Napoleon and Limburg did not become a province until 1866. The use of Limburg would certainly not have been applied to any Dutch held lands at the time of the 3rd Anglo-Dutch War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pytter (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You have a point. North Brabant can be better called Staats-Brabant. Staats-Overmaas can replace "Limburg".--MWAK (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "The United Seven Provinces, as The Netherlands were formally called at this time,". This is incorrect, there was never a formal name of this kind - in fact, it appears to have been applied in retrospect when the Kingdom of the Netherlands had already been established. The formal name was "De Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden" or, in English, "The Republic of the United Netherlands", as an abundance of contemporary sources and later historiography establishes. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Rewrites
(1) This article substantially dates from 2007. It remains a C grade and has a citation request. That means it is, in the opinion of other Wikipedia editors, deficient. More importantly, our understanding of what constitutes a well-written and relevant Wikipedia article has moved on; so simply reinstating large chunks of the original is not a response. Plus, I put a lot of work in this (and yes, I realise you did too) but simply dismissing it seems unjustified.

(2) My Dutch-skills are non-existent, so I emphasise with people writing in a second language but at present, it reads like that eg the son of the beheaded Charles I. More importantly, it contains many words that are non-neutral eg humble, pleading, graciously etc.

(3) I'd like to understand the comment that as a subsidiary article, more detail is 'mandatory.' Does that mean articles on the battles (which are subsidiary articles) need to repeat all the detail provided elsewhere?

(4) Dutch language sources are of course fine for Dutch language articles; my reference was to English-language articles.

(5) I tend to pick articles I know something about but not in detail; the more research I do, the more debatable many of the statements contained in the original become.

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's first see what the policy demands.


 * Style should be concise. But see Writing better articles: Conciseness does not justify removing information from an article.


 * It's often hard to determine the level of detail needed. The policy says in WP:Summary Style:


 * Many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section).
 * Others need a moderate amount of information on the topic's more important points (a set of multiparagraph sections).
 * Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles).


 * It would seem to me that the article is roughly at the second level. The information can be grouped, without any contorted over-splitting, into sections with several paragraphs, while the length (hardly excessive by present Wikipedia practices) can be justified by the importance and complexity of the war, which make a unified treatment of events useful. Therefore no child articles are necessary. Should it be thought otherwise, however, the correct reaction would not be to remove information. The mandatory procedure is: The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This does not go on forever: very long articles would cause problems and should be split. So there would be only one allowed reaction: to create child articles. These obviously need not to repeat all the detail of the parent article nor all the content in their child articles.


 * A last point is Anglo-American focus. Such a focus is a violation of the NPOV principle. Obviously, in an Anglo-Dutch war, a certain focussing on English aspects is natural. However, this should not lead to an exclusion of Dutch aspects. The Dutch are not irrelevant to their own wars :o). Internal English politics are mentioned, as is right and proper. The same standards should be applied to the Dutch politics — especially as they were pretty spectacular by any standards. Certainly the dealings between Charles and William and their mutual peace proposals are highly pertinent to the subject and therefore should be adequately treated.


 * As an aside: WP:NONENG: Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. Obviously, it's highly preferable to have an English source as well — and I deeply appreciate your hard work in this respect.


 * The C-grade had been based on the old condition of the article, before I added many sources. The single citation request was a minor issue. Obviously, no article is perfect. What I undid was the removal of very large chunks of information, after which I replaced your excellent additions. I have no qualms with the creative aspects of your activities, just the destructive ones ;o). The words you mention are not non-neutral per se, but admittedly, can be too loaded. It is certainly a problem that many English books (that glance up)on the subject are riddled with error. Dutch sources can correct this. On the other hand these tend to see Charles as manipulative, greedy and vindictive. What I myself fear is that the way I analyse Louis's motives in the text tends to overstate the coherency of his plans. I strive for coherency but those 17th century monarchs didn't :o)--MWAK (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

--MWAK (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * We both share an interest in improving this; as I've said previously, even when I disagree, its helpful to consider how and why. So I appreciate your patience with this process as I think through it :)


 * One point I've come to see is that the Triple Alliance was taken far more seriously than I thought; that changes how we view actions taken by the Dutch and the English were


 * I'm not trying to diminish the Dutch element; it does need balance. I don't see the need to go through the land war in huge detail because it wasn't part of this war and its covered in the Franco-Dutch article.


 * My concern is too much detail diminishes the value of the article because people don't read it. We have to distinguish between detail we find interesting (which is lots) versus making it readable and digestible; if you look at my own articles, I'm always tinkering with the wording to reduce it.

11:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Many English politicians took the Triple Alliance completely at face value. But does any source claim that Charles was sincere? Apart from such sources that don't understand this is an issue in the first place.


 * Trying or not, you did diminish the Dutch element. "Balancing" on Wikipedia should be attained by adding information on aspects which were overlooked. There was no "huge detail" on the land war to begin with; I've transferred most information that indeed had its proper place in the Franco-Dutch war. The reader must be informed, in short, how the military situation developed, so that he can understand how Charles could hope to become master of Zealand and Holland, what the relevance of all those sea battles was, and why the English despaired of victory in the Fall of 1673.


 * I presume most people who consult Wikipedia fall into four categories. By far the most numerous group must be those who encounter some unknown term and then quickly want to determine its meaning. They use it as a glorified dictionary and the first sentence really suffices for this purpose. Then there are those who want to know a bit more. They need an adequate lead (which this article still lacks). The third category consists of the really interested. They want a rich main text. The fourth group uses Wikipedia as an oracle. They need to know some precise fact. The last two groups are best served by long articles. So the "we" who are interested in details, are to be found in the total set of readers also.


 * You want to serve some two and a half group. They exist and the policy acknowledges this. However, you are not supposed to reduce the general information level, unless a child article is created. Also, if you define "relevance" as "the least negative effect on reader numbers", this is not the "relevance" which decides whether a fact should be in Wikipedia at all.--MWAK (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite of 'Merlin' episode - key points

 * This is a misleading heading; it contains many value statements with no back up but more importantly aren't relevant.


 * Comment on Temple has a citation needed flag dating from 2015; so it needs to be provided or removed.


 * Describing Downing as an 'intriguer' is non-neutral


 * Though De Witt tended to believe the repeated diplomatic assurances by the French and English that they had no invasion in mind.. debatable (particularly if you review the Triple Alliance) and needs a citation.


 * In the English navy, however, Admiral Edward Spragge had grown jealous of supreme commander Prince Rupert of the Rhine. Also, Spragge broke formation in two battles to seek out his personal enemy Tromp, having vowed to kill him for having insulted his wife. Possibly relevant for the Second Anglo-Dutch War, and while its certainly true Spragge swore to defeat Tromp, not the same; the suggestion he 'broke formation' is debatable at the very least, and finally, so what? Needs a citation.


 * Charles had intended to make William his creature by raising him from a position of unimportance to that of nominal ruler, ensuring his subservience to the English king; non-neutral

etc etc.

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, the heading wasn't mine :o). The Temple quotation is historical but I haven't been able to find the source I got it from; it's not so important. Spragge swore in front of Charles to kill Tromp or die trying but again this is more anecdotal than essential. Value judgements per se are not excluded by policy. In the case of Downing, it's better to present the facts than the qualification. The intentions of Charles were either correctly described or not; but if correct, the wording is correct too.--MWAK (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Latest rewrites
First I don't know what 'Summary style' is and what it covers but with respect, I don't understand the relevance. I've gone to considerable trouble to cover the salient points (condensing takes a long time) - the rewrite is not a summary.

Second, my original interest arose because the article is too long. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; the original is about four times longer than the entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica and contains a number of debatable points. Doing a rewrite, then including the same basic content in far greater detail makes zero sense. I cannot see how that improves the article.

Third, Dutch land operations against the French are a contextual element of the Third Anglo-Dutch War, which was a naval war. It doesn't need the level of detail contained in the original (especially as its also covered in the Franco-Dutch War). That's not just my view.

Fourth I think I've been respectful and tried to include points you've reiterated; if you tell me what you think is missing from my rewrite, then I'll do my best. Simply re-instating the original content isn't the same.

We've had this discussion several times now. I don't want to keep fighting the same battle; if you want to reinsert the same content, do so and I'll happily move onto something else.

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * First of all, read WP:Summary Style, the policy that governs this issue. From it we can learn that Wikipedia does not strive to emulate the Encyclopaedia Britannica. This was basically a printed project, for technical and commercial reasons limiting the information provided. Wikipedia is only limited by the relevance of the information and the individual articles are only limited by the practicality of presenting this information. So, Wikipedia basically works this way: you add ever greater detail until a point is reached that the text becomes too long. Then you split off child articles. You're not supposed to remove the detail from Wikipedia, you move it. Now, by present standards, this article is not really too long. So we can apply the "news style" which is what you perceptively describe as "doing a rewrite, then including the same basic content in far greater detail". Wikipedia is ordered as a information hierarchy, from the simplest to the most complex. Most readers are served by a single opening sentence, many by a longer lead, fewer need an abstracted coverage, an elite desires full detail. Given the amount of information, the "news style" would seem to work best here. Obviously, the summary should not contradict the detail, which no doubt can be improved on many points.


 * Militarily, it was a naval war. The conflict however, had far more profound diplomatic and political aspects. Events entailed a revolution in the Republic and ultimately caused the Glorious Revolution in England. Charles' diplomatic actions cannot be understood outside of the context of the land war, which therefore should be adequately covered. There is inevitably a modicum of redundancy with the Franco-Dutch war but policy accepts such redundancy. The reader should not be forced to constantly consult the other article in order to fully understand this one. But I have already moved information to other articles and will continue this process of critical evaluation ;o).


 * You are an intelligent, knowledgeable and industrious contributor. You have corrected and expanded this article in a most useful way. But, unless you grasp what policy dictates about the value of detail you will "fight the same battle" evermore! It is emphatically contrary to policy that all longer articles should be "condensed", half of their information being lost. Don't try to be the Wikipedian Thanos!--MWAK (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources missing
Several sources are referred to but are missing. Geyl 1936, Childs 2014, Kitson 1994, Clodfelter 1992, Rowen 1978, Holmes 2008. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I've got them all in now, thanks. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Head of State
The Dutch head of state in this war later became the head of state of the other side, in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This is peculiar enough to deserve a mention? 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:2015:E8DF:BB56:1E27 (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

St. Helena
Captured by the Dutch in January 1673, needs correcting. Also, the English re-captured it in May 1673, which is worth a mention. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:B4D5:421F:52D6:27C8 (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)