File talk:Nieuw Nederland and Nya Sverige.png

Summary

Map of New-Nederland and New-Sweden ca. 1650 (The interposition of New Sweden is not a map of ca. 1650 but is meant to show someone's interpretation of ca. 1650 conditions. The map has been made recently, likely by someone of the 20th or 21st-century who is trying to illustrate a story - a New Sweden story thus NOT New Netherland history as that person doesn't know much about how New Netherland came into being and how it disappeared even though its culture survived. The visual depiction is not factual and is historically and geographically an incorrect representation. It bears no relationship to the text of New Netherland and belongs to text about New Sweden).

March 7, 2006; the map of New Sweden interposed on the New Netherland Wikipedia entry is not contemporary. It is of recent creation which (if at all, because of its interpretive purpose) belongs to an entry on Wikipedia about New Sweden (definitely not on the New Netherland page) which was established by various disenfranchised and disgruntled members of the Dutch West India Company (including Willem Usselincxs, Samuel Blommaert and Peter Minuit) under the auspices of the Swedish king. Petrus Stuyvesant had been ordered by the States General to retake the area which he did on September 25,1655, with a fleet of seven ships and a force comprising 317 soldiers and over 300 sailors. He was told to do "his utmost to revenge this misfortune not only by restoring matters to their former condition, but also by driving the Swedes at the same time from the river as they did to us". DEKONING

The map ought to be removed from the New Netherland site.

DEKONING

More relevant than your three points, New Sweden was based on military control. I believe it was demonstrated that New Netherland was incapable of controlling their claimed territory, so how then is the territory actually theirs? — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC) That is an entirely different issue because what you state is that no one has a right to exist or to territorial integrity if incapable of defending oneself. Andorra, Luxemburg, Monaco, Estonia, even New Zealand etc. would be gone tomorrow. All I am pointing out is that New Sweden was inside New Netherland and not next to it. Hence, the map is wrong as a reflection of historical fact. March 19, 2006

Perhaps my argument may best be explained by the analogy that, during the cold war, a part of West Germany, in the form of West Berlin, lied INSIDE East Germany. I.e., Geographically, West Berlin was not adjacent to East Germany. Perhaps it could be so depicted as a complement to East Germany if one were to draw a colored population density map instead. America, like all sovereign territories, is defined by its geopgraphical reality and not by population distribution. The modern New Sweden map is neither a historical geographical map nor a population density map. It commingles those issues and by default is an erroneous depiction. Berlin was geographically defined by borders. So was East Germany as well as New Netherland. New Sweden was not geographically defined.

For those who care about visual and textual accuracy, the erroneous New Sweden map does not belong on the New Netherland site as it distorts (deliberately?) the historical reality. New Netherland’s southern border started at Cape Hinlopen, just south of the Delaware Bay and was so surveyed and mapped by Cornelis Jacobsz May in 1613 and 1614. The river itself, though, from top to bottom, was surveyed and charted by Cornelis Hendricks on the ship Unrest between 1614 and 1616. May became New Netherland’s first director in 1624. Samuel Godijn, a director of the West India Company, had a patent for the west side of the South (Delaware) River where he built a fort and established the colony of a few dozen men at Swanendael in 1630. At least 32 of them if not all were killed by the Indians in 1632. The colony’s focus had been on the whaling industry. Another director, Albert Coenraetsz Burgh had received a patent for the east side of the river. After Stuyvesant had dislodged the Swedish presence, the west side of the river fell under the jurisdiction of the City of Amsterdam (rather than the West India Company) which started the colony of Nieuwer Amstel. The origin and disappearance of New Netherland and New Sweden are very different. As certain Wikipedia editors seem to insist that they know better than the facts, or are unwilling to understand the facts, or accept the map without analyzing what the map is supposed to mean, or uncritically presume that this map is a geographical representation, I am leaving Wikipedia as mentioned on the talk page of the New Netherland site unless visual and textual accuracy is pursued by the respective Wikipedia editors (and the map is removed). DeKoning March 20, 2006

The modern map above has no geographical or historical signifance. One needs to find out who drew it as it was drawn to mislead the unsuspecting Wikipedia reader. To continue the use of this map as a population distribution map by solely changing its caption to reflect that new thought, is a covert attempt at continuing the use of the map as a Trojan Horse. As a population map the map is not credible as New Sweden had just about 200 colonists in 1648. I would like to see contemporary sensus statistics that would then justify the shading of this map relative to the purple shading which makes, after all, no sense at all. Furthermore, if the false caption were to be changed as proposed by Zello, i.e., purporting to show New Sweden's relative population position to New Netherland, why doesn't he show its relative population position to Virgina? He will have to do a lot of people counting and figuring out where they lived. The map is a hoax. DeKoning

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Sweden"

The map is a disingenuous creation or an amateurish concoction. It doesn’t belong on either the New Sweden or New Netherland site. The New Sweden map wasn’t even on the New Sweden site so that is where I moved it to. Why then did a group of self-appointed Wikipedia editors, apparently more versed in computers or language rather than New Netherland history, insist on putting the map back on the New Netherland site and not on the New Sweden site? The map evidences the dictatorship of ignorance with which these pages and New Netherland history are permeated. March 24, 2006, DeKoning:

The only map of New Sweden which would make sense would be to choose a year and then fill in all the locations of the Swedish forts and show them relative the New Netherland forts and the Virginia forts. Then it would be a map to show forts rather than one attempting to depict a population distribution or geographical reality. DeKoning

(1) New Sweden was an ephemeral insert in New Netherland. The latter was founded on very specific principles which didn’t include armchair claims, military conquest or trespass. The three-step process of discovery, intensive and systematic exploration and mapping, followed by initial settlement was the basis for the geographical claim of New Netherland between the 38th and 42nd parallels. (2) New Sweden was not founded on those principles and therefore didn’t have defined geographical borders. The geography of New Sweden can therefore not be drawn on an imagined geographical map made in the 21st century as it couldn’t be drawn in 1650 thus. The New Sweden map is therefore spurious. (3) A modern map, perhaps meant to show New Sweden’s population (of a little over 200 persons), would require precise knowledge of the location of each house, if they ever lived in houses rather than forts. There are no population records based on a New Sweden census. Hence, a population distribution map can also not be made. (4) Therefore, what remains is the possibility of making a map that depicts the position of the various New Sweden forts only. Such a map, however, belongs on the New Sweden article and not on the New Netherland article. For example, the Wikipedia New England article should not be required to carry in its text oversized geographical or fortification maps of New France and New Netherland as they would be impertinent to New England. (5) This tenet should be valid for the New Netherland article as well. For those Wikipedia editors who feel strongly about vandalizing the New Netherland article with an incorrect and fraudulent New Sweden map, they ought to be held accountable for providing a fully supported, convincing rationale as the basis for including such an intrusion. DeKoning April 6, 2006

Contrary to Zello’s belief, Wikipedia articles are not based on majority rule. One thousand colorblind editors asserting that grass is red will lose against one contributor who proves it to be green based on historical and scientific precedent. Removed map put up by Zello because he didn't substantiate the placement. DeKoning April 7, 2006; Removed again because of Big Adamsky's unsubstantiated posting.DeKoning April 7, 2006. Because the map is neither a cartographic portrayal of New Netherland nor of New Sweden, the caption “relative location of New Netherland and New Sweden” is nonsensical. Reversed Zello's misplaced, erroneous New Sweden posting. DeKoning April 8, 2006.

manif@hotmail.com vandalized again the New Netherland article by posting an untrue New Sweden map which is falsely created and an unequivocal historical corruption. This intrusion by “manif” cannot be justified in any way on scholarly or geo historical grounds. The map’s flawed creation, its erroneous caption and its unjustified insertion on the New Netherland article is either a deliberate attempt to corrupt the article and to deceive the reader. “Manif” must prove that the map is errorless as a geographical depiction, that its caption can be defended academically and that placing an erroneous map in the wrong article is a Wikipedia objective. The New Sweden map was removed. April 8, 2006, DeKoning

Once again, DeKoning, I ask you to assume good faith and not attack other editors' motives. It seems to me others think that this map is helpful to the reader even if it is not perfect, and would like to see it in the article until a better map is presented. Personal attacks are not an effective way of convincing other editors. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Scudder, This has nothing to do with personal attacks. It is as I said before: "the map is neither a cartographic portrayal of New Netherland nor of New Sweden, the caption “relative location of New Netherland and New Sweden” is nonsensical". —the preceding unsigned comment is by 162.83.224.88 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 9 April 2006

My comments on your behavior were entirely aside from the map issue. I am simply asking that in the future you try to limit yourself to the issues and leave off attacking other editors' motives. — Laura Scudder ☎ 01:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about editors' motives as long as the information they post is correct; i.e., fully substantiated or supported with reason in the face of being challenged factually. My behavior is solely about the issue itself and certainly not personal. If one takes it personally, that is not my problem. My efforts are directed at achieving a sense of historical integrity for which I am holding these editors accountable. Power games and threats by these editors who seem to insist on not wanting to know, to understand or, alternatively, are unwilling or incapable of understanding should be discouraged. If their posts (like the New Netherland/New Sweden map) are purely for reason of personal motive rather than the Wikipedia readers’ edification, that's fine with me. Yet, they should not be relieved from having to embrace what is truthful or supportable. I.e., personal motive AND gobbledygook are out. The entire discussion above is about ONE issue only: the editors' appropriateness of insisting on posting a map which even Big Adamsky finally admitted is wrong. He thinks however, like the other editors seemingly, that it is fine to post wrong information until the right information comes along. Frankly, that is appalling and unacceptable. Must Wikipedia readers be presented with gibberish (which therefore is a deliberate deception) until correct information becomes available or, in this case, a "correct map will be available". I have only one question all along during this discussion: What could possibly justify the insistent posting of a nonsensical New Netherland/New Sweden map? Why are you insisting on knowingly posting a distorted cartographic fabrication? April 10, 2006 DeKoning —the preceding unsigned comment is by 162.83.224.88 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 10 April 2006

Hi, I'm not at all aware of this conflict, I just patrol the recent changes and assumed the anon was removing a picture , to test his edit options, that's why I reverted. manif@hotmail.com —the preceding unsigned comment is by 162.83.224.88 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 10 April 2006 [1]

This reply from Manif@hotmail.com, upon my inquiry to him, demonstrates the haphazardness and carelessness by which these Wikipedia articles are composed. Manif put the flawed New Netherland/New Sweden map back on the article while not having seen it or participated in the discussion why it didn’t belong there. He had no understanding of the subject matter and probably had never even heard of New Netherland or New Sweden. Yet, his post of the map is seen by others as legitimate input. I suspect that this is valid for lots of editors without fundamental knowledge of New Netherland because, not too long ago, the New Netherland article was an embarrassment for an encyclopedia. Yet, most new input, founded in academic, archival knowledge, was questioned, attacked or removed. The New Netherland article was mostly defined by external and peripheral stories such as, for example, stroke-of-the-pen armchair claims by an English king, an Italian explorer who had never explored, a modern New Netherland-New Sweden map with fabricated geographical borders. These tales had nothing to do with New Netherland and therefore should not have been posted on the article. Moreover, the text was plagued with fragments from historical novels and subjective or culturally biased judgments from secondary sources about the main historical characters. The legendary heroes who had dealt with unbelievable adversity to build the foundation of this nation and its largest city were disrespectfully insulted or dismissed as extraneous: Whether it was Verhulst, Minuit, Van Twiller, Kieft or Stuyvesant, they were all ghastly people, unpopular and apparently intently resented by the population, so much so that the 1664 English invasion was welcomed by the population with open arms, if you would like to believe the article. The fact that the disputed New Sweden map is back on the article is confirmation that there is no one out there willing to maintain even a minimum standard of credibility that is worthy of an encyclopedia or to take the New Netherland article seriously. DeKoning April 10, 2006