Talk:Willem Janszoon

Untitled

Please edit this and add some information About Willem Jansz Please note that the name of the gentleman in question is Willem Janszoon.(pronounced Yahns- zone) Jansz. is the abbreviation that was common in the 17th century in Holland but not there-after, in 17th century documents one finds the name Jansz. note the dot (.) . Unless the Wikipedia, known as bit old fashioned and there is nothing wrong with that..., is still in the deliborate custom of abbreviating surnames (such as Say Abraham Linc.), you must change this. Compare currently us writing the notion "etc." there is a dot behind it, but when PRONOUNCED we say Et Cetera. Everybody knows that. Similarly everybody knew in 17th century Holland that when pronounced on says Janszoon. So unless we operate in a society that knows that Jansz. Cornelisz. etc to mean Janszoon, Corneliszoon, etc. we should write the full name, if only out of respect for the historical figures who were the first to map a coast of Australia. (Do you write Christopher Culumb.!? You don't: Janszoon was his historical collegue, so why sort him out like that?)) Regards, Peter Reynders , Canberra (where there is a Jansz. Monument), Australia If you do not share my priciples here, OK; but at least add the dot.

Propose move to Willem Janszoon

I agree with the above, that his 'proper' name should be Willem Janszoon, not Willem Jansz which is an abbreviation. As far as his name is recognised today by English speakers, both forms seem to be in roughly equal usage, tho' perhaps favouring Janszoon. Therefore, I intend to move this article to Willem Janszoon, and have this page redirect there, and will do so in about another five days' time, if there is no further objection raised here.--cjllw | TALK 02:48, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

I have now moved the main article to Willem Janszoon. --cjllw | TALK 02:52, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

anon comment (transferred from Willem Jansz)

Good article about Janszoon, including the explanation that that's his full name and that Jansz (as some non-Dutch historians called him) is the abbreviation (=abbreviated patronymic), so not wrong but confusing and for english readers misleading in the sense they do not recognise it as an abbreviation and that his name is a two syllable word. (compare JFK. Deviating. Good also as it is this year 400 years ago that he landed in Australia. I would like to propose that the VOC (Vereenigde oost-indische Compagnie) be translated with the United East-Indies Company, as that is what it means (with or without indicating they were Dutch or 'from The Netherlands'), rather than the Dutch East India Company. When the company was formed ( 1602) it combined a number of smaller companies and pooled its capabilites, spread over 6 towns. Hence the 'United' part. They were targeting the east-indies, particlularly the spice islands, not what we know to be East india, even though later the Company developed trade at the Coromandel Coast and much of Asia, from Persia to Japan. Indeed the Dutch notion 'Oost-indie', does sometimes refer to the Far East in general and to the Indonesian Archipellago in particular. It does not refer to the east of India specifically. Even though there had been an (English) East India Company founded some 14 months earlier and it may have had an influence on the format or timing, the English company clearly named itself after what was known as East India, rather than the east indies or so I understand. So to translate the Dutch name to English by bringing in the word Dutch and remove the 'united' bit then have it aligned with the EIC in its engish naming seems rather incorrect. It looses some depth and meaning of the name. Not that I loose sleep about it. peter reynders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.39.225 (talk • contribs) 28 January 2006

VOC

"Nothing is known of Willem Janszoon's early life. He is first recorded as entering into the service of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) as a mate aboard the Hollandia, part of the second fleet dispatched by the Dutch to the Dutch East Indies in 1598."

This is not possible, the VOC was founded in 1602. Therefore he must have been in the service of one of the pre-companies. unfortunately I have no idea which one. EDIT: Now i do have an idea, the Hollandia wsa sent out by the Oude Compagnie. Zotlan

Incorrect Image

The image provided is not Willem Janszoon the navigator, it is Willem Janszoon Blaeu, the cartographer - it says so right on the image. It should be removed but I don't know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeographicusMaps (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. Removed. Aridd (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, that image is the cartographer Willem Janszoon Blaeu - 9 years, on, it's still the incorrect image, kvalvik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:39:FFAA:1:8450:8166:539A:C5A (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Date of discovery of Australia

As Willem Jansz's logbook was lost, how can we be sure that the landing at the Pennefather River was actually 26 February 1606, as shown in the article? Some authors on the topic have either suggested that it might be early March, or have omitted it altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutus johns (talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)