Talk:Peter Minuit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Peter Minuit is part of WikiProject Delaware, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Delaware. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
An event mentioned in this article is a May 24 selected anniversary.
Contents |
[edit] Years (Dates)
Several of the dates are or were presented in the article as two years, and it reads like either/or. The dates themselves are not ambiguous, but this is the result of interpretning older text that reflected the fafct that they changed year on a different calander, as is explaned at Old Style and New Style dates. I am altering the article to only present years based on our current calendar. Another method might be to present them as 1632/3, but then this article would also need to repeat the date explanation. We ought to have a clear, short biography here. Lou I 14:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't do things like that: it sacrifices accuracy for simplicity. Now we'll have to look through and undo it. - Nunh-huh 01:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 60 guilders for Long Island
I have heard, and hope that someone else can verify this, that the tribe he bought Long Island from didn't actually have any claim to it--they were laughing at the stupid white guys, while the Dutch were congratulating themselves for their bargaining skill. I thought I had read this in "Lies My Teacher Told Me," but I could very well be wrong. It also sounds a bit like the selling the Brooklyn Bridge scam, so it could just be a continuation of this story, or wishful thinking. I like it, though; it's a good follow-up to the story, anyway. Has anyone else heard this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.39.254 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 24 May 2006
Yes I read that, and it makes a good story. Don't spoil it if you discover that it didn't happen. By the way, it was the Canarse Indians (native Americans?) not the Algonquin. So I changed Algonquin to Canarse. The Canarse were exterminated by the Mohawk after the Canarse refused to pay tribute to the Mohawk. Greensburger 18:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
peice of dumb shit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.132.102.1 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 2 October 2006
[edit] Technically speaking
Technically speaking the Minuits were not Walloons but from Tournasis. However the term "Walloon" was often used at that time to mean persecuted French speaking Protestant from the Low countries, and later with the Hughenots who often fled through Wallonia to reach the Netherlands and possibly America. Nowdays it is also refering to the whole set of French speaker in Belgium, although technically speaking they just are under the Walloon Region but remain different groups. The Tournaisis being out of technical Wallonia but part of the Region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.210.14 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 October 2006
[edit] German?
..Peter himself was born in a time of great upheavals and struggles by Protestants against Catholics, which culminated in the Thirty Years' War and finally led to an exhausted Peace of Westphalia a century later..
- Eh, yes Germany was thoroughly exhausted and destroyed by the 30-year war, but what has that got to do with the Dutch republic? In the last 30 years of its 80 years war, the republic developed into the richest (capitalist!) state of Europe... In 1648 it was by no means exhausted.
Jcwf (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Misleading sentence in introduction?
"However, the Canarsee were actually native to Brooklyn, while Manhattan was home instead to the Weckquaesgeek, who were not pleased by the exchange and later battled the Dutch in Kieft's War." The wording implies that the war was a result of a dispute over ownership of Manhattan, but the article on the war mentions nothing like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugsywwiii (talk • contribs) 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm...maybe we're supposed to take it as an aggravating factor rather than the sole reason for the war. I've never seen that given as the primary cause of Kieft's war, especially since it doesn't explain why they'd wait almost twenty years to dispute the transaction. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
