Talk:Dutch–Portuguese War

message: The article needs an introduction... --HJV 02:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: :Image:Cochinel.gif 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.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Cochinel.gif

message: While it is quite clear the Portuguese were the victors in America, and the Dutch in Asia, who won in Africa? It currently says the Portuguese did, probably because of their success in Angola but the Dutch captured the Portuguese forts on the Gold Coast and would hold onto them until 1872. Wouldn't it be a draw then? Thoughts?-Kieran4 (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Who won in Africa

message: A source is needed that talks about one single long Luso-Dutch war spanning colonies in South America, Africa and Asia. As yet I have not been able to find one. This page is OR/SYNTH without one. Srnec (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dutch–Portuguese War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927060952/http://www.newberry.org/smith/slidesets/ss06.html to http://www.newberry.org/smith/slidesets/ss06.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says that the main motive is financing the  Dutch revolt. It doen not gave any sources and I think this motives is anachronistis and incorrect. The Dutch trading companies were founded with the explicit goal of making profit for the shareholders and harming the enemy. This is not the same as making a profit for the state with an eye on the finance of the revolt. Scafloc (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motives 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dutch–Portuguese War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205191440/http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/361/36100506.pdf to http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/361/36100506.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The description of the Santa Catarina under 'Casus belli' is at variance with the page linked to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Catarina_(ship)
Here, it says that the SC was a galleon and that the sale proceeds doubled the VOC's capital. There, it's a carrack and the sale proceeds increased the VOC's capital by 50%. This should be made consistent.
(I don't know what's correct either way.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.176.136 (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santa Catarina 

message: That would be nice
Ygglow (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone add an "Aftermath" headline 

message: They aren't military forces, they are traders coming for those sweet sweet spices (and murdering lots of Indians and Americans (as in the 2 continents)).
We were brutal, but anyways, the most military thing the VOC and WOC did was fight... Against slaves... Anyways, please continue this conversation, I will probably not return as I'm not a chad and go conversate on Wikipedia daily. Farwell great people! 82.169.236.182 (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Several expeditions such as the one to chile in 1643 consisted of separate wic United Province and voc units with different commanders under an overall commander I would say that makes them in the same vain of the enterprising Wallenstein of the same period. A private man/organization making war for profit more than expansion. Joeykev (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOC and WOC arent military forces? 

message: The Casus belli of the conflict was in 1603 and the peace treaty in 1661. It is true that conflict took place beyond those dates, but shouldn't we use the "official" dates instead of 1598-1663? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start and end dates