Jump to content

Talk:Dutch East India Company

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.103.144.218 (talk) at 22:05, 28 June 2011 (→Jewish East India company?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:FAOL

Correct naming

On Google Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie gets more hits than Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie which is correct? Mintguy

The official name is Geoctroyeerde Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie. The name used on printed shares was Oost-Indisch Compagnie with the name of the Chamber.

Total revenue and earnings estimates for the company's history?

Despite Google's reliability, I as a Dutch person, was always taught at school that it was the Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie.

At the time there was no official spelling; several forms were used. Of course "Oostindische" conforms to the present prescripts.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 16:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Overromanticising

I find the the article is a bit too romantic towards the VOC. There was no "trading" done in Indonesia. When you trade, you take something and give in return. The VOC plunderd Indonesia and enslaved the people. No mention is made of this. Of course, they rarely teach this in Dutch schools.

"No mention is made of this. Of course, they rarely teach this in Dutch schools." oh -please-, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Please don't hate us out of ignorance.
Since when do we care whether someone hates us? That's very unDutch. Yuk. For those who feel a need to hate us out of knowledge: as a historian I can affirm that the whole system of the VOC was based on the structural perpretation of acts that both the valuesystem of today as of those days would describe as "extortion" and "mass murder". However they do teach this at Dutch schools. Quite a lot even. Sanctimoniously lamenting the past, whilst turning a blind eye at the present wrongdoings, I fear :0S

MWAK--84.27.81.59 16:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as they wound up becoming penniless Muslims, seems to be they were better off as the bitches of the Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.237.133 (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that this page overly romanticizes the company and it's founders. If nothing else it fails to take a tone appropriate to an encyclopedia, describing the exploits of the founders not in a dry factual manner, but in a somewhat exciting narrative. I think that not only Indonesians, but perhaps Spaniards and Portuguese could be offended by this page.

The novel Dune, inspired by the exploits of the V.O.C.

Thta´s interesting, but in what way are those related? there is nothing about this on neither article. We need more information to confirm this...--Alexandre Van de Sande 22:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A great story drive in Dune is monopolies and resources, and how a faction/company controls it. Also, how these monopolies are actually 'awarded' to a certain faction features in Dune as well. Bertus 11:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting theory, but are there any articles written expressing this point of view? Timhud 04:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

"The Chamber of Rotterdam’s raise of capital did not run so smoothly. They brought in f. 173.000 which satisfied by far, the expectations. A considerable part was originating from inhabitants of Dordrecht."

If the expectations were satisfied, how the the raise of capital not run smoothly? Dstarisbeastin 19:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

A related topic, spice trade, is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support or comment on the nomination there if you are interested.--Fenice 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Globalization

I would like to extend my appreciation to you for this page. Despite the negative comments by others (cough) the VOC and the Netherlands itself stand as the most prolific mercantile empire before the British. Not to mention the first modern economy. Please feel free to contribute to History of Globalization. Thanks

~Andy

Andy, I agree with you, but please keep in mind the comments of John Adams, who tried (and failed) to get Dutch funding for the young "United States" in Amsterdam in 1781. He said (and I quote from a letter he wrote to his wife Abigail from Amsterdam dated May 22 1781):

"We are anxious to hear further of Green and Cornwallis. Tho Green lost the Field on 15 March, it seems Cornwallis must be in a critical situation. I know not what this People will do. I believe they will awake, after some time. Amsterdam, Harlem and Dort have represented the Necessity of an Alliance with America but when the rest will be of their Mind, I know not. If they neglect it, they and their Posterity will repent of it. The Trade will turn away from this Country to France and Spain if the Dutch act so unwise a Part, and indeed, according to every Appearance, this Country will dwindle away to nothing. Other Powers will draw away all its Commerce. By an early Treaty with America and active Exertions they might save it: but they seem little disposed as yet. My dear Nabby and Tommy how do they do? Our Parents, our Brothers, sisters and all Friends how are they? If I could get back again I would never more leave that Country, let who would beg, scold, or threaten. As to Peace, mark my Words, the English will never make it with Us, while they have a ship or a Regiment in America. If any one asks whether there is like to be Peace, ask in return, whether G. Washington has taken New York, Green Cornwallis and Charlestown, and Nelson Arnold and Portsmouth? Rodney has lost most of his Statia Booty. De la Motte Piquet has taken it. The English East India Possessions seem to be going to wreck -- their Trade is torn to Pieces, but all is not enough. If Congress and the states execute their Resolution of cutting off all Communication and Commerce, directly and indirectly with America, this will affect them more than any Thing. But how the Authority can prevent British Manufactures from being imported from France, Holland, Brabant &c. Is the Question."

Adams eventually forced Dutch "recognition" of the US in 1782 (the bicentennial of which was celebrated with a commemorative stamp in 1982), but only succeeded in obtaining meagre funding from the Dutch in 1783. By the time he was done, he hated Holland and felt the country had damaged his health forever, complaining he had contracted 'Amsterdam fever'. The biggest loan the Dutch eventually made to the US was not negotiated by Adams, but by Jefferson, and enabled the Louisiana Purchase, not the war efforts. The Dutch were always big investors in land purchases (for obvious reasons).

Dutch Colonial Possessions Picture

Can anybody very whether the Netherlands owned Ireland as a colonial possession. The

File:NetherlandsEmpire2.png

says the netherlands did. But I can't remember that from history classes. When William the III of Orange was King of England he sent his army to Ireland, but the image does not include all English colonial possession around 1700. If no-one reacts I'll upload the image that is on Dutch_colonial_empire

.

user:C_mon January 18, 2006

Haha, no, Ireland was never a Dutch colony. Wikipedia strikes again.... 87.210.35.24 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


same thing goes for Guangzhou (Canton) which is coloured pale green on the map. (It's the little dot in southern mainland China) By the time VOC is around, Canton is already a major city in China with population close to 1 million. I have never heard of Dutch processing Guangzhou, and I doubt it was possible for them to colonize a city that size. Oscar Liu Jan 13, 2008

It is a pity that there does not seem to be a better map available in wikicommons. There is a slightly better French map: Image:Commerce_VOC.svg, but the legends are in French there, and also it shows the whole of present-day Indonesia as "VOC-territory", including Irian Jaya and Kalimanten. In reality, most of the "green" areas were never administered by the VOC, because they were not commercially interesting. These areas only became Dutch-administered in the 19th centrury. This objection also applies to the map currently displayed. Even worse, it includes areas that were possessions of the WIC. Of course, non-VOC possessions are not relevant--Ereunetes (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought: as currently legended in the article, the paler green on the map is supposed to represent holdings of the VOC. Surely the Netherlands themselves don't fall under that category? 130.245.253.243 (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very complex matter. I think most of the territories were never actually "owned" by the VOC in the modern way of the word (the forts and town were, but the serving countryside?). Furthermore, this map shows holdings of VOC and WIC together. After these companies folded the government took over the properties (in the early 19th century) and did so in the much more modern way of ownership. All the dots (including the Nagasaki dot in Japan and the Canton dot in China) appear to be trade colonies - ie bits of land leased by the governments of e.g. China or Japan to the VOC to build their trading post. Many of these did not revert to the Dutch state. Also, when the Netherlands was conquered by the French in early 19th century, the English took over the colonies, which were returned to the Dutch after Waterloo, but with changes. The Dutch possessions on the Malaysian peninsula (green) were swapped against English possesions on Sumatra (also green), and Cape Colony (South Afrika) was not returned.
In other words this map shows all of the areas where there has once been a Dutch influence, either VOC, WIC or Dutch govt, regardless of time. I think it would be much more usefull to create a series map of VOC/WIC property at the top of their power (say 1650), just before the European dissolvement of both in late 18th century (say 1790). (We could use dark green for actual possessions and hatching for controlled areas?). And I would add the Dutch colonies in about 1820 after the Dutch Government had come in charge of all that was left. That would give a good overview. Sad to say I am not good enough with graphcs to pull it off myself, but do you like this approach? Arnoutf (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last part is indeed the rub :-) I'm no good with graphics either. But on the matter of principle: as this is a map that goes with the VOC-article, I think it should show just the VOC settlements that were at one time or another in its possession *up to the date the Charter expired* (i.e. 1800). The point is: we don't need a map of *all* Dutch colonial possessions; there is a different article dealing with those. I do agree, however, that the map should just show *actually* controlled areas (i.e. not the whole of present-day Indonesia as "VOC-controlled", in other words, as this is clearly an anachronism). I think we should use the trade-routes map that the French-language article uses (that covers only East Asia) and amend it using the "Dutch and other European settlements in India"-map as a model (this map does not need replacement, by the way). The map could show the years in which the posts were under VOC-control to avoid misunderstandings. I hope this just involves changing the legends in the map and does not cause copyright problems. As the "French" map is already in Wiki Commons it may be easier to obtain permission for the changes from the copyright owner. Would this be a practical solution?--Ereunetes (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean Image:Commerce VOC.svg, then no permission is needed (it's GFDL and cc-by-sa). If you guys agree on what you'd like done, I can make any image modifications. But I would probably create a new map based on the French image (in this style) — it'd be easier than removing all the captions, since they're placed over lots of stuff. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you could do a completely new map, it might be a better idea to start from scratch with a map of South and East Asia and superimpose all VOC settlements on it. To find those you could use the Atlas of Mutual Heritage of the Dutch national archives (click on "browse: locations, regions and countries"). This is a nifty database that might be included as an external link also, I think, but it is a Flash apllication, so I can't give a direct link to a map.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't know much about this subject, I need to clarify what we want here. Would you like territorial possessions colored in addition to settlements marked? Also, they've got significantly more locations in India than the French map, which makes me suspect they're including dinky trading posts. Would you like all them marked, or only fortifications (or some other criteria)? Also, there's a lot of locations in the Mid East and Africa shown, would you like one map with all that, or region specific so you can make out things in the thumbnail? — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dinky trading posts? A little more respect, please:-) Seriously, the Image:Commerce VOC.svg French map shows mainly trade routes, with only a few main trading posts. What we (I think) are looking for is a map which at least shows the main trading posts (which probably means all in present-day Indonesia, Malaya, Taiwan, and Japan). The posts in India and Sri Lanka (dinky or not) are already represented on the "Dutch and other European settlements in India"-map in the article (which might provide another inspiration). The posts in present-day Thailand and Myanmar, and the Persian Gulf are indeed less important. So I would propose a map on the same scale as the "French map", but with a neutral color for Indonesia, not suggesting "territorial possessions". Though I agree in principle that such territorial possessions (parts of Java, Ambon, and the Banda Islands) could be marked out, the problem is finding an example that everybody could agree on (a problem that we don't have with the locations of the trading posts). I hope this is useful?--Ereunetes (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batavia massacre 1740

From 1720 on the sugar market slowly collapsed. The European markets became satisfied; moreover the competition from Brazil (which was cheaper) became bigger. Dozens of Chinese sugar tradesmen went bankrupt and with them the koelies. This way great unemployment arose and this almost automatically led to revengeful gangs of koelies who, without money or food, saw no other way out. Evidently nothing was done by Batavia to lessen the problems because that way their own corrupt practises would be discovered.

There happened in 9 0ctober 1974, this kill more 5,000- 10,000 victim fell during three day masscare.[1][2]Daimond 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I understand something happened in 1740 that maybe worth mentioning. But this needs much better writing before inclusion in the article; and much better references (especially the Website is highly antiDutch). Outright copying from awebsite is copyright violation even if referenced to that webstie so that should be avoided (anyway the text on the website is badly written as well - slow collapse??? - contradictio in terminis). Furhtermore there is definitive antiDutch pov in this section which needs to be neutralised (the weblink has this same pov; while the book referred to is not in English or Dutch so hard for me to judge on quality - so still prefer better refs. Note also that the references tab has not yet been used in this article, soyour refs don't show in the back). I tried to rewrite - How about something like this (but please come up with good references before posting):
From 1720 on the market for sugar from Indonesia declined as the competition from cheap sugar from Brazil increased and European markets became saturated. Dozens of Chinese sugar traders went bankrupt which lead to massive unemployment; which in turn lead to gangs of unemployed coolies. The Dutch government in Batavia did not adequately respond to these problems. In 1740, rumours of deportation of the gangs from the Batavia area lead to widespread rioting. The Dutch military reaction got out of hand and a large number of innocent Chinese were killed. This incident was deemed sufficiently serious for the board of the VOC to start an official investigation into the Government of the Dutch East Indies for the first time in its history. Arnoutf 18:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is much better but still needs a little work. ie "got out of hand" is also more is a bit vague and commentary in style than pure statement of events. But, I'd say it's good fo the article, and it can be further "polished" from there. Nice work to both of you--Merbabu 01:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I agree it is still a bit vague. I have no personal knowledge of these events so I try to do the best possible with what I could find, rather being vague than making unfounded claims. I'll put it in in a few days, and see where it goes. Arnoutf 10:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the strength of Wikipedia. Two people have two different things to add (info & prose), on their own they can't do it, but with collaboration - voila! SOmething good comes out of it. I think the sources should be confirmed first, then we are right to go. --Merbabu 14:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I found a (fairly neutral) reference, which I added. I put (a slightly modified version) in the article. Arnoutf 22:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch technical term for this pogrom is "Chinezenmoord" (sometimes with "1740" added, though this seems superfluous). When I googled this, I got 179 hits, some even in Bahasa Indonesia, but mostly Dutch. Personally I think the description in this article is adequate for the purpose. Maybe someone could start a separate "Chinezenmoord" article and we could have all have a nice brawl?--Ereunetes (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Belay that last remark. Apparently the "official" wikipedia term is "Chinese massacre". I have added a link to that page giving the history of the incident. Also, on that page I have added a link to the "Adriaan Valckenier" wikipedia article that was still sadly lacking (apparently such things are not automatically updated?)--Ereunetes (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know there two side few from my side and other side so i add book reference, let them know there two version and scale the information about that by themself. Daimond 11:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not completely understand your point above. Problem with the book is that it is not in English; so English readers cannot use that information to judge the information; so I removed it again. Furhtermore I think there are not necessarily 2 sides: It is clear there was a horrible massacre plain enough from whatever perspective (to my shame I never heard of it, but I am convinced it is not a major issue in the Netherlands to deny it at this moment). Arnoutf 11:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if I add reference this picture it's okay, soory if my english are bad. and i still few month in here. If you look carefulyy there a information about a canon aimed the big house in a row. that house of chinese kapitan, and looking from this picture you can figure why the river change the name become angke or red river, not only that few name has change according this ancident but the river name are the more clearly change until now, cause still bear that name after the ancident until now.Daimond 13:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC) http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/amh/detail.aspx?page=dafb&lang=en&id=1897#tab0[reply]

I gather you are referring to the renaming of the river. I think we should carefully consider whether the renaming of a river after the massacre should be in the VOC article. I fully agree the atrocity/massacre is relevant for VOC history (that is why I put t in) but I do not think the actual renaming of the river is very relevant (that part is probably better for Batavia or Java articles). Arnoutf 14:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The massacre may be relevant for the VOC-history, but the context you put it in (decline of the company) seems a bit contrived. I don't think the temporary decline in the sugar market in the 1740s was really a big factor in the decline of the company, especially as sugar was just a minor business for them, compared to the main spice trade. I think the "decline"-section could be enhanced with references to the activities of other European companies that undermined the VOC monopoly. I think the massacre does not merit more than a link to the "Chinese massacre" wikiarticle in this general article. Or you could start a new section "VOC atrocities". There are plenty you could mention:-)--Ereunetes (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joint stock

  • Dutch East India Company - founded 1602
  • British East India Company - founded 1600
    • Our article says - "the [British East India] Company was founded as The Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies by a coterie of enterprising and influential businessmen, who obtained the Crown's charter for exclusive permission to trade in the East Indies for a period of fifteen years. The Company had 125 shareholders, and a capital of £72,000."
I am pretty convinced VOC was first. Perhaps in the British case something to do with the royal charter, or non-tradable stock???? Can someone sort this out in depth not my area of expertise, would n't know where to start looking. The joint stock article lists the VOC as being first and does not mention BEIC Arnoutf 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This and this and this suggest that the British East India Company was funded on a per-voyage basis until 1612, when it started to issue temporary stock, and only issued permanent joint stock from 1657 (presumably copying the VOC). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Multinational corporation the debate is between VOC and Knights Templar for first multinational... So no go for BEIC there either Arnoutf 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go and do the tour of Lloyd's of London they will show you their treasures room, which shows the oldest check in existance and their list of governors. The writer of the oldest check and the first 15 or so governors were Dutchmen. The oldest joint-stock company was in fact the original team efforts of dukes and farmers in Holland to build dikes. These cooperative efforts led to the first finance projects for building ships that made shipping endeavors like the British and Dutch East India Companies possible. From Amsterdam it was (and still is) a short days sail to London. Jane 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British East Indies Companie rather than VOC in Pirates of Caribb

According to me Pirates of the Carribean Dead man's chest refers to the British East Indies company rather than the Dutch one. The inclusion of the Flying Dutchman may have given cause for the confusion I think. Arnoutf 07:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish East India company?

Can the company be called the jewish east india company instead of the dutch since jewish people mostly owned it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.1.30 (talk)

No, we can't even if that is true. Wikipedia just reports on the actual name, the official name, and the most common name. We don't just make up stuff even if it might seem reasonable. Merbabu 01:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, what would any discussion page be without the requisite neo-Nazi/Jewish conspiracy theorists? I found one reference that estimates that Jews may have controlled 25% of VOC stock, which is hardly "jewish people mostly owned it" as the anonymous poster suggested. It should also be remembered that Amsterdam was a destination for many early modern Jews, given its relative tolerance to persons of the Jewish faith. Still, given the fact that full citizenship was not extended to Dutch Jews until 1657, Amsterdam was hardly a Jewish paradise. Historymike (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well now that that's settled the obvious thing to do is change the title to the gentile east india company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.111.25 (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it should be called the jewish east india company since it was actually jews who owned and operated it. The company had nothing to do with the germanic dutch people.

Date of dissolution

Was the dissolution of the company in 1798 or 1800? The article says 1800, but [1] claims that is occured in 1798. Several other websites also claim it to be in 1798, but the United Nations UNESCO page for the company, [2] lists the company as being liquidated in 1795 D Morlo 08:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reynder notes that the VOC was nationalized in 1799, and that the Herren 17 were replaced by a 'Committee for East Indies Trade' in 1795. I'll keep digging; I suspect that Charles Boxer's The Dutch Seaborne Empire will be the best source to settle the debate. Historymike (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably me who inserted the reference to 1 January 1800 citing Ricklefs - on Indonesian history he's going to reasonably reliable, rather than websites that may have picked up a wrong date from somewhere (even wikipedia?). No doubt that was the official dissolve planned in advance after several months (years?) of moving towards that. The source:
Ricklefs, M.C. (1991). A History of Modern Indonesia Since c.1300, 2nd Edition. London: MacMillan, p.110. ISBN 0-333-57689-6.
--Merbabu (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I just ensured that the word "formally dissolved" were included. Does that help? --Merbabu (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Ricklefs is authoritative and knowledgeable.Historymike (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch language wikipedia page gives March 17, 1798 as official dissolution date. Doesn't that count for something?--Ereunetes (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When there is no reference for that date on the Netherlands page, but this page uses one from the Indonesian history standard text, then no – it doesn’t count for much. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, the date "March 17, 1798" is given in many places, most convincingly the Dutch state archives. However, that is actually the date on which the VOC was "nationalised", to use a modern term. So it depends on what you mean by "dissolved" formally or not. The affairs of the company were continued for a while (under new management) till apparently December 31 (not Jan 1), 1800. See http://www.tanap.net/content/voc/organization/organization_end.htm which is not only a reasonably authoritative source, but also in English. (I suppose it doesn't count if it isn't in English?)--Ereunetes (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now found the relevant explanatory note concerning the VOC archives on the web site of the Dutch national archives. I suppose this is what the TANAP story I supplied earlier is based on. This is the link http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/webviews/page.webview?eadid=NL-HaNA_1.04.02&pageid=N101B5 Unfortunately it is in Dutch. I suppose that makes it Highly Suspect, but I persevere nevertheless in noting that the text says that the Charter of the VOC finally (after several extensions) expired on December 31, 1800 (not Jan. 1, pace Ricklefs). Now I don't want to get in a fight I don't have a dog in. I'll therefore not edit the date myself but leave this to the "owner".--Ereunetes (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since my last comment someone put a lot of nonsense about the "revisions" of the Dutch state in the Napoleonic era around the disputed dissolution date of the VOC. I have now replaced this with something more cogent. Fortunately there were plenty of wikiarticles that could be referenced. I have put in the expiration date of the VOC's charter with a reference to the TANAP site that is supported by the Dutch National Archives.--Ereunetes (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting format of text and images

I was perhaps overly bold in re-formatting this article; but this is a work in progress. If anyone else views this formatting differently, I'd expect to see it changed -- no problem, no worries.

There is something to be considered beyond mere matters of visual preference: How best to let the array of images tell a story in themselves, supporting the body of the text across the full span of the entire article. This won't be easy, of course; but it's worth considering. Do you see my point?

How best to convey as much as possible in as clear a way as possible? --Ooperhoofd 15:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, Merbabu's recent edit is a clear improvement -- fine work, nicely done.
  • (1) The map at the top right conveys the geographic extent of the VOC and the image of a VOC-backed bond underscores the mercantile fucntion of this early multinational corporation. Then the eye is drawn to a consideration of the effects of VOC expansion in the context of one specific national history -- Indonesia. The graphic linkage tells a story which enhances the serial developments in the text.
  • (2) The initial image on the left -- a view of the VOC headquarters in Amsterdam -- is followed up on the left with a similarly-sized thumbnail view of Batavia. Again, it seems to me, the visuals tell a story which unfolds as the eye scans down the page; and the evolution of this visual presentation mirrors that march of events in this article's expository prose. --Ooperhoofd 15:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tag

I took the liberty of removing the citation tag on the page after adding extra references. I suggest that from this point forward users use the {{Fact}} tag on individual passages, since there are several dozen citations now on the VOC page. Historymike (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formation, growth and decline sections

Looking at these sections I think they could be much improved. First of all, there is a subsection at the end of the "formation" section that is about the abortive attempts of the English EIC to gain a foothold in the East Indies. Strangely, a similar subsection is missing in the article on the EIC. I think that therefore this subsection could be moved to the EIC-article, so that in this article (which after all is about the Dutch company) an internal link would suffice (if anyone would feel a need for it, for instance in a paragraph about rivalries of the VOC with other companies).

This, however, is a minor point of criticism. What I think is lacking in the three sections, is an economic approach to the life cycle of what was after all a business concern. What made the VOC succesful in its formative years and its growth period, and what caused its decline and eventual demise? The formation and growth sections at least make a feeble attempt to answer these questions, but the two incidents mentioned in the decline section are completely irrelevant in this respect. I don't wish to censor people who wish to say bad things about the VOC (heaven knows there are plenty of things that can be brouhgt up in this respect), but could they at least be put in a meaningful context? Surely nobody could seriously ascribe the decline of the VOC to a minor battle in an area that was not central to the VOC's business?

I think the following periods could be discerned:

  • 1602-1630 Formative years, in which the VOC gained its foothoold and built its trading capital (especially by setting up a profitable intra-Asiatic trading system);
  • 1630-1670 First growth stage, in which the VOC attained self-sustaining growth; this period ended with two events that happened coincidentally around 1670: the embargo on silver and gold exports from Japan which the VOC had previously used to finance the spice trade; and the price war with the EIC in the pepper trade after the Third Anglo-Dutch War (with almost brought about the EIC's bankruptcy in 1683 by the way);
  • 1670-1730 Restructuring of the VOC trade from the low-volume/high-profits spice trade to a high-volume/low-profit commodities trade that the French and English companies had already pioneered;
  • 1730-1780 Slow decline because the VOC business as a whole had become unprofitable, while dividend payouts were maintained at a too-high level;
  • 1780-1800 Demise, as a consequence of the company in fact going bankrupt, though it was kept afloat by government hand-outs till the Batavian Republic finally nationalised it.

These subsections can be fleshed out with information from the relevant chapters in J. de Vries and A. van der Woude, The first modern economy--Ereunetes (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You present an elegant approach to this subject -- obvious, in a way that makes me wonder why I didn't see it that way.' Yours is an interesting and clear point-of-view which causes me to re-think some assumptions about the VOC .... -- Tenmei (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have started to implement the changes, hopefully in such a way as to minimally disturb the segments that were already in place. I do not propose to replace the current set up; just to supplement it in a way which makes historical events more understandable. I intend to write more in the decline section in the near future.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now implemented my proposed changes. The previously existing passage of the Battle of Colachel was successfully incorporated, I think :-) (though making it a footnote would be better; I do not want to hurt anybody's feelings, however :-) The passage about the Chinese massacre is unfortunately left dangling. I think this does not belong in this section anyway, as it is already covered by another article, and the affair did not really contribute to the decline of the company. But I do not want to appear to censor anything. Other "things to do" might be cleaning up the inconsistencies in the notes, but again I hesitate to meddle with other people's contributions.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Sources

Just adding in some new secondary sources for the article. I'm a new user, so I hope I'm doing everything correctly. Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Key Dutch Sources

I've found this section in the wiki code, and it seems quite detailed and vital to the section, but it won't show up actually on the article no matter what I try in a sandbox. Can anyone help? It's below 'Further Reading' in the code. I can get ti to appear above 'Further Reading', but now eher it currently is below it. Cheers Skinny87 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were commented out with this note:
These should NOT be listed as references when they were not actually used to write article. This is misleading as to the article’s origin. Rather, they could be used to form in line citations. Thanks
Hope that helps. J.delanoygabsadds 20:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's what means, sorry. Thanks for the help! Skinny87 (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch empire map

The first image is misleading. The green highlight in the Indonesian archipelago was Dutch National territorial possessions (Dutch East Indies) at their greatest extent in the early decades of the 20th century. They are not the territorial possessions of the VOC that was disbanded in 1800. They look more like the red in the second image I've provided.

I removed the offending map, but it was quickly replaced by its author, who I note has a history of pushing dubious unsourced information and when questioned justifies it by "reasoning", "guessing", or edit warring (for which was recently blocked). --Merbabu (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the caption of the map does not limit itself to imperial possession, but explicitly states "trading empire" in the new caption it does not even mention "colonial empire". I am pretty sure the Dutch managed to establish a monopoly on trade with the indonesian archipelado (ie not allowing English or Portugese traders in) even if they did not hold the land itself. As such "trading empire" is perfectly suitable.
Secondly the map caption in the map image explicitly acknowledges the light green Indonesia possession are "Light Green:Includes the Dutch East Indies at their greatest extent in the early 20th century". So the map maker does not refer to the VOC period at all.
Thirdly, being offended by such a map goes against the spirit of the project; especially the assumption of good faith. I think most editors agree a map is a good thing, if you think this map is not good, feel free to provide an alternative; but outright removal will not improve the article in my opinion. Arnoutf (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answering your three points:
1 - We can't just say we are "pretty sure" the Dutch had a trade monopoly. That's original research. The caption is misleading. Further, it should be noted that before my removal earlier today, the caption stated: "Light Green is the East India Company".
2 - "Light Green:Includes the Dutch East Indies at their greatest extent in the early 20th century". was written by me this morning to highlight the inadequacy of the picture. Perhaps we should put this into the image caption on the article? Further, if as you say "the maker is not referring to the VOC at all", then why is it being used on this page?
3 - Who says I was "offended"? Rather I am simply asking for some accuracy and verifiability. Putting, what we both agree is a map of the Dutch East Indies in 1942, on a page devoted to the VOC (before 1800) is inaccurate against and thus against the basic idea of wikipedia - at best the vague caption and the explanation tucked away on the image page makes the inclusion most misleading. Of course a map is most useful - I'm not sure why you are implying I can't see this. But, like any info in wikipedia this must be accurate/correct/verified. If not, it is better to not include it. No information is better than false information in which case "outright removal" would in fact improve the article. Further, unverified info can be removed at any time from wikipedia but there is no onus for the removing editor to provide alternative as I think you are implying. However, I have provided an alternative - and it's referenced! The second map in this section. I don't have the ability to update pictures, perhaps yourself or Red4tribe can update the image in question it rather than rely on assumptions mentioned in your point 1. It's the red patch we need. Oh, and I have no idea why you need to provide me a link to the assumption of good faith. --Merbabu (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is bound to be literature on the trade monopoly. I would not suggest it as OR.
Sorry, I missed that, you are right, you did put that in yourself; I fully agree with that cave-at. Note that "empire building" seems a 19th century idea, before that the Dutch colonial empire consisted in large part out of plantations and coastal posts, with limited effort to conquer whole landmasses. To be honest, I would prefer the world map to contain only pre 1800 VOC settlements/colonies/outposts as the current map has never been accurate an example being that the Malaysian outposts were exchanged with the English for their Sumatran colonies - so a map depicting both at the same time (as this one does) is historically inaccurate (also e.g. New Amsterdam was long lost before 1800 etc.)
Using the word "offending map" seemed a pretty clear indication of being offended I would say: "inaccurate" or otherwise would have been more neutral wording. But no problem.
The second map in this section would be great for Indonesia, however, the map in the article aims to show the global influence of VOC (although I agree another map there would be better, e.g. without WIC, and with corrected land claims). Why I asked you to have a look is basically for the same reason, I have no programs to work on these images. Arnoutf (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order, Arnoutf: "offending" in this context does not mean "offensive". An offender is someone who breaks the law, not someone who goes around being offensive. See meaning 3 "The offending map" is perfectly good English and is being (correctly) used by Merbabu to mean "the map with the problem". He did not write the "offensive map", which would convey the sentiment that you incorrectly inferred. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol - I think perhaps we are all getting confused on this "offended (offensive?)" comment. At least I'm confused. But it's all beside the point. Let's move on. cheers. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, as for my OR suggestion, my main point is we need to verify rather than surmise - it is very big generalisation/assumption - one I suggest is incorrect.
I agree completely if you are saying we need to restrict it to pre-1800. That's kind of my whole point. ;-) As for depicting inaccurately that everything was "owned" concurrently, I take your point, but there are ways around that - eg, different colours.
I have no problem with idea of Dutch influence in the VOC times, but it his historically incorrect to say that it extended over all of Indonesia. Sorry. Even still, influence is such a tricky idea, thus it would be much more useful to find something tangible. Even here on wikipedia, I spent a long time working with certain editors correcting their assertion that a 1603 trading outpost equated to colonial "rule" over Indonesia. That's an extreme case, but it has relevance here.
In the meantime, my suggested solution for inaccuracies is to remove the offending info, rather than keep it until something better is found. Thanks for your timely and considered reply. --Merbabu (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see your point. And indeed "influence" is pretty ill-defined, you could even say the invasion of Chatham by de Ruyter influenced the UK.... Seeing where you come from, I would agree to remove the map for now. It would be nice to have a map up later on. Arnoutf (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very good of you. really. thanks. Of course, a map in these articles are outstanding resources. I have asked for assistance from User:The Ogre who from memory can create good ones. My main bone of contetion was the Indo bit - the rest could well be fine. Let's get it verified - you've put the pressure on! A map should be like the written info - it can be updated and changed as better info comes to light - for now I suggest using the red part of the second map. Further, I will slowly go through Ricklefs and other sources over the next - um - hopefully few weeks. --Merbabu (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my issues with the map:

  • the extent of the colouring of South Africa, India, Ceylon and Formosa
  • the fact that the trading post in Thailand is coloured green
  • those green dots in the Gulf
  • the fact that it shows WIC areas
  • the aforementioned problem with the Dutch East Indies
  • the fact that Belgium is coloured in - the union with the Netherlands was not until after the dissolution of the companies
  • the fact that Malacca is a trading post, when it was actually a "proper" Dutch colony

It's got so many mistakes it should just be stricken from the record. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me we had this discussion before. I thought someone had put up a map showing a number of VOC settlements (to use a neutral term), but I can't find that version amid all the deletions for vandalism. Anyway, that seemed the best solution to me. We don't need a "colonial empire" map with this article: there is another article with that subject. Just putting in all the settlements, without any coloring suggesting "control" or other provocations to nationalist sentiment would be sufficently "neutral" in my view. As to the matter of the Dutch trade monopoly: I thought that was pretty settled in the literature. Have all those apologists for the EIC who exactly decry that Dutch monopoly during the Anglo-Dutch conflicts of the 17th century, lived in vain? But if you want a more modern source, how about J. Israel, Dutch Primacy in World Trade 1585-1740 (1989), pp. 244-258, especially p. 251, 253?--Ereunetes (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also reference

I noticed that Merbabu has entered a reference to his article about the VOC in Indonesia as general background material. Now, I would suggest to belay that reference, at least until that article has been finished. It seems to be very much a "work in progress" right now, and what has already been written is a duplication of the Dutch East India Company article. Possibly from a more Indonesia-centric perspective, though I think even that is muted. My question: is such a duplicate article really necessary? If Merbabu thinks the current article is too much "Dutch POV" that could no doubt be remedied? Surely we don't need a ghettoization of wikipedia where every nationality gets its own particular POV-version of the same material?--Ereunetes (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary - putting in the reference will raise the article's profile and thus hopefully improve its chance of being worked on by other editors. Indeed, it is barely started, but what part of wikipedia is complete? The idea is for people to work on it. Not much logic in deleting an article until it’s finished.
Your assumption is correct: i.e., the new article (which I actually didn’t start but had wanted to for a while) is intended to describe the VOC period in Indonesia. The current article goes into a lot of detail about the company, much of which has little to do with Indonesia. I don't know where you’ve got "Dutch POV" from – for me it’s certainly not a neutrality issue, if that was what you a thinking – rather the way I see it is a different topic altogether, albeit some strong over but legitimate overlaps with the existing. By no means a duplicate.
In fact, until about a year ago, this article was more about a period in Indonesian history rather than an commercial entity. This distinction has been discussed before and got some support but I cannot find it on the talk page.
For me, your last sentence misses the point completely – there’s a very particular reason I focussing on Indonesia and the VOC . Trust me – I’m not about to write Fiji and the VOC ;-) regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is just that I was surprised to see an article that clearly has not been finished and that in its present form just repeats what already is in this article, introduced as a general background article (your edit replaced a sentence where a reference to the article about the Economic History of the Netherlands was recommended as giving a background and perspective on the "history" section of this article). That is why I put my remark on this talk page. I don't want to interfere with what you are trying to accomplish in the article you referred to, and wish you every success in your efforts. But let me repeat that I hope it will not turn out as a duplicate.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend it to be a duplicate - I think there is clear distinction in the topic matter. And, I'm not trying to pretend it's anything but a beginning, or that it doesn't draw from this article. Also, don't forget I didn't actually start the article. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Tea

There's no explicit mention of what the Dutch East India Company actually did. Shouldn't that have been one of the first things included?Ratattuta (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, carrying out colonial activity is a bit vague, I'll think about it (btw as far as I know it was pepper, and other spices and not tea that moved the Dutch to Asia). Arnoutf (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a rather extensive treatment of the different types of trade the VOC conducted in the different stages of its history. The shift from exclusive spice trade to a broader scala of commodities (among which tea) in the early 18th century is explicitly mentioned.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ratattuta meant in the lead section. And I tend to agree that adding four words like (italic=added): The VOC was a trading company, which was established....... would already clarify much. Arnoutf (talk) 08:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section would benefit by a general cleaning up, I think. The unsupported assertion that the company paid 18% dividends during its entire existence (contradicted in the body of the article) should go. What are "colonial activities?" I think the quip about the acronym VOC standing for "perished by corruption" is not that hilarious that it bears repeating in the lead section (mentioning it once in the body of the article is enough). But I don't want to offend anybody by editing the lead section in this sense on my own initiative :-) I have to say though that the entire article looks a bit like a camel designed by committee. It appears to have suffered from the addition of a lot of factoids of dubious import (e.g. the "Chinezenmoord," and the Battle of Colachel, which are both better treated elsewhere). But I suppose attempts to remove those would provoke an edit war with the irate "owners."--Ereunetes (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comments, probably the reason the article received the lowly start class quality label (which I think does it justice in the current form). I for one would not at all be against a fairly heavy overhaul. Arnoutf (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you agree :-) I have looked at the French article, which received a commendation as a featured article, so that might be an example of how it should be done. I think it won't be that difficult to reach that High Standard, as most of the information is already in "our" article. The "organisation" section is put in a more logical place in the French article, but that could easily be remedied. I think the "economic history" part of the French article is actually a bit old-fashioned, as it leans heavily on Braudel and his conceptual framework. Things have progressed since then. I think "our" treatment of the same subject is better. A thing the French articles has that we lack is a section with "capsule" histories of the different main colonies of the VOC, like Ceylon, Formosa, the Cape etc. We have to tread carefully here, however, especially on the subject of the VOC's impingement on Indonesian history. I think we should all be agreed that the history of the VOC and the history of Indonesia between 1600 and 1800 are not the same thing and that each should have its own place. However, I noted that fortunately Merbabu has started an article Dutch East India Company in Indonesia which potentially (though not yet actually; it is a work in progress)covers the Indonesia part admirably. I trust we'll see a treatment of the Banten and Mataram imbroglios on Java and the "hongitochten" in the Banda Islands (and possibly also the "Chinezenmoord" in its proper context) in that article in due course, so there is no need for an extensive treatment here. Equally, there is no need to repeat the history of the English EIC in this context; that has its own article also. I think there is room, however, for a treatment of the rivalry between the companies, but one that is not limited to the Moluccas and Java between 1605 and 1629, but also and especially covers present-day India (as the rivalry was far more extensive there). The current article is sprinkled with factoids that some individuals deemed important, but that are treated better and more extensively in their own wikipedia articles. I would suggest that such references are deleted, but (to give everybody his due) that references to those articles are included in a "Related articles" section. I think it is important to agree on these points before anybody starts a major rewrite, to avoid needless aggravation.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a book that might form a good source for the potted histories in a prospective Territorial Acquisitions section (like the one in the French article) and a section on Rivalries with other companies. This is Lach, Donald F., and Kley, Edwin J. van (1998) Asia in the Making of Europe. Vol. III: A Century of Advance. It is partially accessible in Google Books. It seems reasonably neutral and unobjectionable in viewpoints. Any objections?--Ereunetes (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Solor.

There's something wrong with this sentence: "In 1613, the Dutch expelled the Portuguese from their Solor fort, but were expelled again in 1636 following a re-occupation of the site."

As is, it doesn't make sense; I checked the source, but there is no mention of Solor on page 25 of A History of Modern Indonesia Since c.1300 (Google Books). If anyone could shed some light on this, it would be helpful; thanks. · AndonicO Engage. 20:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On page 25 it says: "Nevertheless the Portuguese remained in occupation of their Solor fortress until expelled by the Dutch in 1613, and again, after a Portuguese reoccupation, in 1636." So the quote in the article is there, only slightly reworded. It is easy to miss it, however. I think this is one more passage that could be missed in this article about the history of the VOC. Lots of Portuguese and other trading posts and fortresses changed hands frequently at the time. This factoid might be more relevant in an article about Solor.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just realized I was checking page 28, no wonder. Thank you, Ereunetes; I'll reword the sentence slightly, but feel free to change it back if you disagree. · AndonicO Engage. 21:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "own" the sentence in question (someone else put it into the article). Unfortunately, both the previous formulation and your change turn out to be incorrect, if we are to believe the history section in the wikipedia article on the island of Solor. It is one more example of my thesis that factoids like these are more properly treated in their own articles, to which we could then put in a wikilink. I won't mess with the new edit of this sentence, though I hope somebody will excise it, or at least put in the correct facts. (See my edit in the previous section).--Ereunetes (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with the comments about including detailed info in the, well, detailed articles - ie, Solor. In this way it is actually the broad articles that are the hardest to write well - ie, what to include, what not to include, and how to link it to the detailed articles. --Merbabu (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


some parts of the VOC

some parts of the VOC have evolved into modern day dutch trade, yes they went bankrupt but people like in modern day russia ran off with the recourses. Markthemac (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, especially the colonies which were transferred to the Dutch state and the buildings in the Dutch cities. But how would this help to further develop the article? Arnoutf (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, yes

Peacocky stmt that should (IMHO) perhaps be reformulated:

It was also arguably [sic!] the world's first megacorporation, possessing quasi-governmental powers

I can understand the underlying meaning, but "megacorporation" is a term defined by William Gibson the SciFi author, and kind of anachronistic, and possibly also quite out of place. I think the underlying meaning is something: this company was one of the first enterprises with increasingly multinational corporation structure. Except it is arguable: the Hansa was more like kind of a union of trade houses than a multinational corporation, but exhibited similar traits, and trade nations like Venice and Genoa also was kind of similar but more full fledged nations. The prefix quasi+ once meant "one quarter" or some such, but today means something inbetween: "not fullfledged" and "amateurish fake", the later usage extremely common in university cultures. I think the sentence will profit from substituting prefix "quasi+" for f.ex. the suffix "+like". ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 09:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe the reality is that Dutch East India Company was one of the more prominent steps in a transitional series of organisations that step by step transformed old trade republics to modern multinational corporations. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 09:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasing date wrong?

According to 'Nederland' by historian 'Han van der Horst' the VOC cased to exist on 31 December 1799, after it's bankruptcy had been handled during the previous 4-5 years. Who's right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qense (talk • contribs) 18:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of Opium in the Dutch East India Company's Trade monopolies in Indonesia

I feel none of the wiki entries on the Dutch East India Company, the English East India Company or Opium properly reflect the role the V.O.C. played in stimulating the Opium trade and turning it into a prime monopoly. Here is just a small extract from something I found on the web:

Alfred W. McCoy 'Opium History Up To 1858 A.D.'

'Arriving in Asia a century after the Portuguese, the Dutch soon became active in the region's opium commerce. Instead of trading directly with China like the Portuguese, the Dutch established a permanent port at Jakarta in 1619 and began purchasing opium from Bengal in 1640 to supply Java's limited demand. As Dutch colonials won monopoly rights for Java's populous districts, their Company's opium imports from India rose dramatically from 617 kilograms in 1660 to 72,280 kilograms only 25 years later. Dutch profits from the opium trade were spectacular. Buying opium cheap in India and selling high in Java allowed the Company a 400 percent profit on shipments in the 1670s. Opium, moreover, proved to be a key trade good that drew Asian merchants to Jakarta. By 1681, opium represented 34 percent of the cargo on Asian ships sailing out of Jakarta. No longer a lightweight luxury or medical item, opium was on its way to becoming a commodity.'

Actually the profits were spectacular and lead to the V.O.C. acting as a power unto itself, causing intrigues and divisions throughout the Indonesian archipelago and finally leading to violent confrontations with British traders both maritime and in India.

None of the wikipedia entries adequately address the role of competition in the Opium trade in US led efforts to prohibit the Opium trade altogether, perhaps to enhance their own interests in Asia. Why for instance was the first Opium Convention signed in The Hague? Is it because the Dutch had lost their monopoly on Opium to the British and had nothing to lose from a prohibition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huasquero (talk • contribs) 07:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeland/Middleburg

Where all six chambers are listed, there are names of six cities. However elsewhere in the text, the chamber of Zeeland is discussed. Zeeland is a province, Middleburg is its capital. I assume Middleburg and Zeeland refer to the same chamber, but this is not quite clear. Does anyone object to changing Zeeland to Middleburg?  Randall Bart   Talk  00:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller investments, humbler investors

A student has discovered what is called the world's oldest share, a participation for 150 guldens in the VOC dated 1606[3]. The person mentioned was a servant (boode) in the Enkhuizen town hall, therefore not wealthy. Should the sentence: "The minimum investment in the VOC was 3,000 guilders, which priced the Company's stock within the means of many merchants." not be revisited in the light of this discovery?

Peterk2 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some wealthy people like the mayor of Amsterdam gave shares to their households... Including his maids for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.215.20.224 (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dutch involvement in african slavery

This article does not give any information on the dutch involvement in the black african slave trade. Alot of african people assume that the dutch who colonized parts of africa had also enslaved african people. Is this true? If so how extensive was the dutch enslavement of africans? How does it compare with other european nations?

African slave trade was the Dutch West India Company, although the information on that article is very limited. More likely to find that info on Atlantic slave trade. Joost 99 (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Dutch East India Company in Indonesia be merged into Dutch East India Company. The reason is that all the content in the "Dutch East India Company in Indonesia" article is, or should be, in the "Dutch East India Company", and the "Dutch East India Company" article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of "Dutch East India Company in Indonesia" will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. DeVerm (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed that background section recently and after some intensive editing/compacting rounds between editor Merbabu and me, we ended up with the current version which has not a single place/settlement listed anymore, with which I agree because it is just background for the article, which is about the post 1800 period of the East Indies.
I wonder if you would support the merge here instead, or would you oppose that? DeVerm (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the VOC article is about , well, the company. The VOC in Indonesia article was intended to be about that period of Indonesian history. This is a stand alone topic and notable in its own right. The article is not good quality but can be developed further, with time and effort. The existence of an article is based on notability alone. Not, based on article quality. Please see WP:N: Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence. Ie, the solution to a poor quality article on a notable topics is to fix it, not delete it.--Merbabu (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) I would go for a oppose, because it would break the History of Indonesia series, (although the article History of Indonesia points to the Dutch East-india Co article, and not to the separate Dutch East India Company in Indonesia). The best option imo would be to expand/improve the Dutch East India Company in Indonesia page, because that now just treats the period till 1620 (and also to avoid this article getting to large). But that is not something I would be able to do. Joost 99 (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Joost. This is exactly my thinking. There is indeed an attempt to keep periods of Indonesian history together. Indeed, calls to delete the "in Indonesia" article are ostensibly sensible with the article in such poor shape and the scope ill-defined. There is a degree of logic to the merge proposal, but it is not the full picture. However, it is notable, and it should expand it further. There is a lot in the VOC company article with little relevance to Indonesian history and one has to pick one's way through it to find bits related to Indonesia. (a list of VOC ships is completely irrelevant to Indonesian history as is most of the "Growth" section). There is no clear narrative from an Indonesian history perspective. Similarly, an Indonesian period article would have much that didn't necessarily relate to the VOC as a company. Ie, it's 2 centuries of Indonesian history.
Perhaps a name change could also help - say "Indonesia during the Dutch East Indies era"? Or even "Early European colonialism in the Indonesian archipelago" (and they're just the first two things that came into my head without much thought). The latter highlights that it initially it was not just the Dutch.
This is all good inspiration for me to develop the article further. In summary, one article is about a company. The other (was at least intended to be) about a period of history in Indonesia.--Merbabu (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and see Template:History of Indonesia for the context. --Tenmei (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't object to the title at all... I object to the article contents, no edits since 2008 when the "let's wait for expansion" argument was used, and the links to it that are put in other articles, especially when used for Main article links, because it is far from that for this period of Indonesian History. Also, a very disappointing reader experience when the main article has less detail and only a couple percent of history timeline compared to the summary that links to it. I did not go for delete because the VOC article could use better coverage of this subject too. However, I agree that expanding the article would be the best solution. DeVerm (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An immediate but temporary solution is therefore to link to the VOC article, because on balance, it is currently the better of the two articles, even if there is still a need to develop the other article as described above. Or better still, might be to do as you propose and redirect now - but temporarily. The history is there, and the redirect can be reverted once the article is developed. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect until article is developed sounds much better than hunting links now and again later when article has developed. I don't see any technical issues with it (link to redirect is okay, right?). I'll let this discussion run a bit more to cover timezones and if nothing changes, implement redirect and remove merger tags. tnx --DeVerm (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ok to me. Only question: where did the page go? Maybe a link to the work in progress would be nice so people can still contribute (although as I understand the article slept for the last two years). Joost 99 (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the page before it was redirected is at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dutch_East_India_Company_in_Indonesia&oldid=408995645 R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://home.iae.nl/users/arcengel/NedIndie/chinezenengels.htm
  2. ^ http://www.obor.co.id/DetailBuku.asp?Bk_ISBN=979-461-556-0
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dutch_East_India_Company&oldid=436748839"