|WikiProject Netherlands||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Cities||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Somebody is claiming in the first alinea that "It's most notable for having a high population of Indian descendants who migrated during the Indian independence movement from Great Britain", without giving any reference. So if it is correct, I would suggest to add a reference and besides: don't add it to the first alinea. Since I cannot find any proof -at all- for this fact it cannot be important enough for the first few lines of the wiki. Personally I suggest to remove this strange phrase.
BTW, the comment in the history says: "Unless you have a countersouce to the Indian migrants, please do not change this". How can this be done? Of course there are no articles stating that Breda is NOT known for Indian descendants". I don't get the point of this "fact". (My proof would be that I'm from Breda and never heard of it.) Bas90210 23:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Division in Population centres
Somebody changed the number of inhabitants for the city of Breda into 170,000 (from 140,000) while these are the numbers for the total municipal (the total of all the population centres should make 170,000 as it was before). But it might be better to just loose the population numbers altogether, because although the 'old' villages are (feel) still distinct from the city, their new neighbourhoods are more a part of Breda. Any thoughts? [26 Sept 2006]
"The Spaniards Hole still marks the spot where the peat-boat lay."
I removed this sentence because it isn't true, even though it's a popular myth. Fnorp 11:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
why dont they mention the headquarters for jaja smoking papers worldwide http://188.8.131.52/index-en-new.htm and the lego benelux headquarters? http://www.lego.com/eng/service/contactus.asp --> netherlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Poles Breda.jpg
Image:Poles Breda.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
William of Orange as first Stadtholder?
William I of Orange never was stadtholder of the Netherlands, he was stadtholder only of the provinces of Holland, Zeeland and Utrecht before the dutch revolt in and consequent secession from Spain. He was however not the first but he fourteenth to hold that position. With the arrival of Spanish troops commanded by Duke of Alba in 1568 martial law was applied and the office of stadtholder suspended. After the secession the Dutch offered the souvereignty of the dutch provinces first to Elisabeth I of England and then to the french Duke of Anjou. Only when these alliances failed it was decided to found a Republic with once again a stadtholder as its highest official. This position was offered to William of Orange but he was assasinated before he could accept.
Private sweety, do not revert a careful edit as if you know things better. Act like any good loser would do. Don't get trapped into hollow matters of prestige. Ad43 (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ad43, don't remove material without good reason. .:Pvt S:. 22:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be very irritated by my correct arguments and try to ignore them. You way of reacting is out of control. And then, you are evidently an outsider in this matter. Fortunately, I know exactly how the local situation is. Why then would you overrule my correct edits? Ad43 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- At no point have you offered sources in this matter. .:Pvt S:. 04:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
This is crazy. Some incompetent person can state something completely out of the blue, and then all you want to persist is maintaining and defending this nonsense. Your only rationale behind this can be never admit that you could be wrong. Continue asking for far-fetched proof for this, and keep the false feeling of triumphing at the last hand. Ad43 (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Neither argument here is particularly compelling. For best results, please keep discussions civil, and keep discussions focused on the article, and source-based. Per WP:V, anyone can remove unsourced information from any article, and then that information should not be added back, unless accompanied with a reliable source which verifies that information. --Elonka 05:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
"exiled Stuart pretender Charles II"
You can talk about Charles Stuart as "the exiled Stuart pretender" if you like, but it is not good history. No one else gained power as a monarch in England, Scotland or Ireland between 1649 and 1660. A "pretender" is a person who claims to be a monarch, but whose claim is illegitimate; Charles Stuart's claim to the throne was considered absolutely legitimate in all of Europe, in Scotland, Jersey, and Ireland, and by a very substantial party, quite possibly the majority party, in England itself. The de facto rule of Parliament and Cromwell was illegitimate in the eyes of most of the European world at that time, and was never a monarchy, despite the evident desire of some Cromwellians to make it so.
You can, of course, acknowledge the legitimacy of Charles Stuart's claim to the throne by calling him "Charles II."
What you really can't do is contradict yourself by trying to have it both ways, as in "the exiled Stuart pretender Charles II."