Talk:Dutch troops in England, 1688–1699

@DavidDijkgraaf Please consider finishing the second paragraph in the background section. It ends abruptly.

@DavidDijkgraaf Should i submit the article like this, or do you want to make any changes? GlobalReference221 (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I am still planning to edit it, but it looks like somebody already submitted it DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this really worth an article? Robinvp11 (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and that seems quite obvious to me. Why wouldn't it be worth an article? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The subject is well worth an article. But any article must meet the notability criteria. Significant (not in the sense of "extensive" but in the sense of "meaningful, pertinent") coverage of the subject matter must be shown in reliable sources. So a scientific article or at least a book chapter dedicated to this subject must be provided. If none can be found, its content must be merged somewhere. Not that there is a deadline. The most practical course of action is often inaction.--MWAK (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

There are a few things that don't make much sense:

1. The lead states that the occupation was for 18 months, starting 5 November 1688. How then can the short description state "1688-89"? And why does the quote at the end say 1688-90?
2. If the occupation lasted 18 months, why according to the lead were the troops still in the city until 1699?
3. The article seems to conflate troops in London, specifically, with troops in England, generally. The title suggests it's about London, but much of the discussion is actually about England (with an implication that it's about London).
4. What is intended by the "the Disbanding Act of March 1699"? Presumably the "Disbanding the Army Act 1698"? (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/10/1/enacted). MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The point is that it was for eighteen months forbidden for native troops to enter the London area. That constitutes the "occupation" aspect, not that a Dutch king had some Dutch forces with him.--MWAK (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

The title "Dutch occupation of London" and the section headings "Invasion of London","Occupation", "Thick wall of silence" create a highly non-neutral framing. Of course James and his followers considered this an 'invasion', but the article should neutrally cover Parliament's role and its views, and the views of the people, too. They are very different.

I have removed this sentence, as it makes a false implication and fails source verification:

• The diarist John Evelyn, who was in London at this time said: "this poor nation reduced to" in expressing his dissatisfaction of England's swift conquest and the lack of opposition.[4][5]

As an initial point, the direct quotation has been amended to fit in to the argument being espoused. It's easy to see from [4] that Evelyn's actual words were To such a strange temper, and unheard-of in former times, was this poore Nation reduc'd, and of which I was an eye-witness.

He's not talking about "his dissatisfaction of England's swift conquest and the lack of opposition" at all, but about the fact that, beforehand, the people "seem'd passionately to long for and desire the landing of that Prince whom they look'd on to be their deliverer from Popish tyranny". In other words, he's unhappy that the people wanted William to come.

The second reference, [5], does not support "England's swift conquest" either. Indeed, on the preceding page, page 129, Israel says "Marching through London on the 18 December 1688, and over the ensuing weeks, the States Generals army had been cheered by the populace." That doesn't much sound like the "invasion and occupation" line that this article is pushing. This whole issue has been the subject of a vast amount historical discussion, and the article presents opinion as fact and selectively quotes sources to advocate for one view without ever mentioning other viewpoints.

The article needs wholesale checking and revision. I am tagging it accordingly. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

The article was not yet ready when it was submitted by another user, but I don't think it is controversial to refer to William's military campaign as an invasion. Almost every modern historian of the Glorious Revolution does so. I have also not read historians who dispute that London was occupied by the Dutch States Army. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

You may well be able to deal with the concerns I mentioned in this section and the one above by developing the article. I did note that it had been submitted without your knowledge. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I've made a few minor adjustments today, but most of the problems still remain. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Given the concerns expressed above and in the AFD discussion, I have moved the article to the more neutral "Dutch troops in England 1688–1699". MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't look like proper formatting to me. I think it needs to be one of:

• Dutch troops in England in 1688–1699
• Dutch troops in England, 1688–1699
• Dutch troops in England (1688–1699)

...although I cannot find explicit MOS guidance. Srnec (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The general guideline is at WP:TITLE, with the rules for descriptive titles (which this is) at WP:NDESC. Nothing seems set in stone, but the addition of a comma, as in your second option, may help. Parentheses suggest there is something being disambiguated - implying that there is some other title that starts "Dutch troops in England". Happy to listen to other ideas. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: User:Shelf444, the user who took this article to AFD, has been blocked as a sock of LTA Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lam312321321 this afternoon. I see you were removing unsourced content from this article recently, you may wish to review Shelf444's edits before and after the AFD in case they removed or misrepresented anything that was actually worth keeping. Belbury (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Will do MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)