Talk:Capture of the Dutch fleet at Den Helder

To whom it may concern. This article contains numerous inaccuracies. In the first line it states The Battle of Texel. This was a naval battle one hundred years earlier in 1673. Thanks

Nonsense

This article needs a *major* overhaul. The event it describes never actually happened, this is just a legend based on the surrender of the Dutch fleet - the fleet wasn't actually "captured" by a cavalry unit. For comparison, the Dutch and German wikipedias describe the event correctly. (I don't think my English is good enough for me to do this myself.) - 195.37.166.248 (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Dutch and German versions of this article are unsourced, while this article has many sources. Blaue Max (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have re-opened the issue. -SabasNL (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The article at http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/battles/c_jonge.html, which is based on the work of J.C. de Jonge, looks pretty good to me. It suggests that the sources for the cavalry charge story are all later exaggerations/inventions, and that the only contemporary account (the log of the "Dolfijn", one of the Dutch ships) indicates that a small detachment of French hussars rode out across the ice to talk to the Dutch commander - and that there was no fighting at all. Piers Fletcher (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Poor sources, infactual nonsense

The Geschiedenis van het Nederlandse zeewezen by J.C. de Jonge, one of the given sources and the only academic one, tells a completely different story than this article does. All other sources cannot be peer-reviewed (unpublished sources? Really?) or seem to be very editorialised and do not give any sources themselves, and thus not credible. And no, the Napoleon fan site conflicts the very source it claims to use.

As the Dutch version of the article says, which is based on aforementioned publication by De Jonge, the Capture of the Dutch fleet at Den Helder is an exaggerated myth. The German version even starts off by saying that it is nothing but a myth. I found no academic publications claiming anything else than that the French cavalry arrived at Den Helder to make sure the Dutch surrender, which had already taken place, was officially enforced by the Dutch commander-in-chief and upon the Dutch Navy. --SabasNL (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It has taken long, but your criticisms were finally noted. I have added a link to de Jonge, Zeewezen in Google books. Also added de Jonge, Zeewezen under the references. Added footnotes about the most blatant nonsense, and extended the section about unhistoricity, with references. Also changed the nonsense about the fleet being bought back for 100 million guilders (that was the entire indemnity under the Treaty of The Hague (1795), the fleet would have been worth only a fraction of that). The best thing, of course, would be to delete the whole article, and change it to a paragraph in an article about historical hoaxes. But I am afraid people are too much invested in this kind of fairy tales:-)--Ereunetes (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, de Jonge was a 19th-century dutch patriot eager to clean the "stain on national honor", he must be taken cum grano saltis. No one is saying the French took the fleet by force, but capture, even without a fight, is still a capture. Prior to Lahure's intervention, the Dutch could sail forth (though probably with a great deal of effort given the ice), his presence changed things. 217.167.255.177 (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a capture. The French just confirmed the fleets loyalty to the new Dutch government. This article should probably be named 'The Den Helder incident of 1795' or something like that. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Capture of the Dutch fleet at Den Helder. 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/20150223201631/https://books.google.fr/books?id=eD9IcnW4iSsC&pg=PA36&dq=texel+january+1795&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=WmHrVMnHOsTN7Qa5y4CYCw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA to https://books.google.fr/books?id=eD9IcnW4iSsC&pg=PA36&dq=texel+january+1795&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=WmHrVMnHOsTN7Qa5y4CYCw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=texel%20january%201795&f=false
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150223201631/https://books.google.fr/books?id=eD9IcnW4iSsC&pg=PA36&dq=texel+january+1795&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=WmHrVMnHOsTN7Qa5y4CYCw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA to https://books.google.fr/books?id=eD9IcnW4iSsC&pg=PA36&dq=texel+january+1795&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=WmHrVMnHOsTN7Qa5y4CYCw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=texel%20january%201795&f=false

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

GGZNHN is past due to Monden and Boot, Mark my words

It’s obvious to me, Eline Beatrijs Dylan Lindenhovius 2A02:A45E:525E:1:C080:F63F:A785:8DD9 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)