Talk:Economic history of the Netherlands (1500–1815)

[Untitled]

The use of "industrialisation" in this article seem to be a little liberal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.191.19 (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Liberal" is the most ambiguous word ever created in the entire world history, so essentially: "Yes, the stem 'industrial' occurs 28 times, which can be regarded as very 'liberal' reusage." ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Essay, not an article!

This article is less of an encyclopedic article than an essay. Example of essayish stmts:

some consider — (who?!, see f.ex. {{who}},{{fact}}, WP:WEASEL ...)

It is intended as a companion to the political and military (including naval) histories — not the format of an encyclopedia article, that instead requires independence as long as the knowledge prerequisits are known to the reader,

The VOC embarked on a period of "profitless growth." ― subjective opinion,

These features make it feasible to analyze this historical economy with modern economic concepts in a comparative way. ― this article is not a handbook in political historical economy analysis, this is fit for an article in political historical economy but an article on a topic (economic history) needs to concentrate on that topic (economic history), such sentences should be cleaned away or compressed here, to state something precise and factual with sources,

A counterargument against the "modernity" of the Dutch economy ― this is too much of a philosophical and scientific reflection that regards methodology, not the factual economical history, such sentences belong to articles about economical history theories, f.ex. Marxism and such,

The article instead is in heavy need from:

1. subdivision of stages, dates and fact sources,
2. historical events, f.ex. foundings of Dutch East India Company, wars, raids, piracy, inventions, etc..
3. dates for those,
4. general descriptions of the Dutch actors and institutions, company leaders, trading families, kings, Oldenbarnefeldt, family Orange,
5. conjunctures ups and downs, with dates,

IMHO ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Large amount of Antwerps' emigrants was Catholic

After the sack of Antwerpen it is written that large sums of capital and expertise fled northwards in the form of Protestant (Calvinist) merchants. I do not consider myself erudite enough to edit this article but merely wanted to point out that we here in Holland are told that a huge amount of the capital-exodus was indeed represented by a moderate, Catholic population, as even in Holland and Zeeland Catholicism was by far the most devulgated faith. I hope somebody could look in to the exact statistics and maybe add some preciser facts.

Although it was William the Silent's dream, an effective de jure freedom of religion was never achieved. There was, however some tolerance in which the provinces differed from other -mainly centralized- nations, which benefited the economy as not only moderate Catholics but also large Jewish and Mennoni... Why am I even writing this. Well, as I said, I hope somebody could look in to the statistics. Thanks!

Abel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artaynte (talk • contribs) 19:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. However, I am afraid real statistics are not available. I think the reasoning behind the claim that mostly Calvinists fled north is that Catholics had no reason to, at least initially. Parma drove out the known Calvinists, though he did it in a less objectionable way than his predecessors, by at least giving them the option of selling their real estate. But of course those assets went at fire-sale prices. The only buyers were Catholics who could stay in Antwerp. At first, those Catholics would have presumed that Antwerp would maintain its ascendancy over Amsterdam, unless they were inordinately prescient, so there was no reason from that point of view to move north. But it is possible that the northern blockade of the river Scheldt after the Fall of Antwerp, and Antwerp's subsequent decline, would have motivated Catholic Antwerp merchants to follow their Calvinist colleagues in later years.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Template removed

I have removed the Template:POV, put in place in 2016, because 1. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given; and 2. there has been an absence of any discussion in the intervening years, or at least the discussion has become dormant, both conditions for removal mentioned on the template page.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

First line: citing Jan de Vries

It seems weird to me to cite Jan de Vries and then refer to a book he co-authored. Either cite both De Vries and Van der Woude or none of them, it is weird and incorrect to cite just one of two authors \--Bpierik (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

As the original author I completely agree. If one compares the current version with what I wrote one sees that some editor apparently felt constrained to correct me by ascribing the assertion I made to a particular author. In itself I have no objection. Unfortunately, he did not refer to both authors of the book, as he should have, This kind of sloppiness had other unfortunate consequences. The original text of the article has been extensively rearranged in a way that has unfortunately played havoc on the references I originally put in. I originally had a "sources" section in which the De Vries/Vander Woude book appeared. This has now become the "Further Reading" section and the book by De Vries/Vander Woude is now the first reference. In itself this is OK. But the "cut and paste" technique used in the rearrangement of a number of paragraphs has caused some paragraphs to be divorced from the references I originally placed near them. One example out of many: I mentioned the invention of a new type of crankshaft for windmills by Cornelis Cornelisz. in the same paragraph as the explosion of the Dutch shipbuilding industry. I put a reference to De Vries/Van der Woude pp. 301-302 next to this paragraph. In the current version the crankshaft invention was included in the Technological inventions section without the accompanying reference, while the rest of the paragraph ended up in the Shipbuilding section with the original reference. This of course will not do. For me it is far too much work to clear up this mess. I invite the editor(s) who performed this rewrite to take care of the "orphaned" passages.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)