Talk:Cornelis Evertsen the Youngest

Lede
— Part of the last lede statement is a bit redundant, as we have a 'not to be confused' link for Cornelis Evertsen the Younger above the lede, but also a statement to this effect in the lede. It would seem the most practical way to address this is by adding Cornelis Evertsen the Elder to the 'Not to be confused link'. Also it doesn't seem appropriate to make a statement about their military service in the lede, so making it in the Biography section, per family background, would seem better placed, which is how the article reads now. If anyone disagrees go ahead and revert. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks. Ereunetes (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Ketch & Sloop
, actually Shomette & Haslach, 1988, p. 150, says about the vessel in question that, "It was little more than a small ketch, or yawl ...". 'Little more than', not actually a ketch. Brodhead, 1871, v. 2, p. 205, which is the source I was going by when I indicated Sloop, says that the vessel was a sloop. A ketch and sloop are very similar-- small vessels. In any case, no big deal, we can leave it at ketch.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Unintended consequences of "improvements" in phrasing
The change of the title of the subsection "Admiral in the service of the Zeeland Admiralty" to "Admiral of the Zeeland Admiralty" may seem innocuous, but betrays a basic misunderstanding of the relations in the Dutch navy. The "Admiral of the Zeeland Admiralty" was an office belonging to the stadtholder of Zeeland (i.e. in this case Wiliam III). The same goes for the other four admiralties. They all had an "admiral-general" and that was the relevant stadtholder (William III in most provinces, and the Frisian stadtholder in the case of the Frisian Admiralty). This also explains that and why no one else could ever rise to the rank of "admiral". The highest one could climb was to "lieutenant-admiral". So the new subtitle is misleading. However, "Admiral in the service of" can be understood as covering the range of flag ranks from commandeur to luitenant-admiraal. That is why I changed it back. Ereunetes (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to lay this all out. While we're at it, sources for Evertsen, specifically, are a bit difficult to come by. There are some items in the article that still need citations, and as of yet, I've found no sources that can cover these things. There are several works written in Dutch, i.e.Van Nimwegen, 2020, Gerben Graddeszoon Hellinga, 2006, and I can only wonder if they'll fill in the citation gaps in question. If you're of a mind, and assuming you speak Dutch, could you look into these matters? Admittedly, most of Dutch history is sort of new to me, but I was drawn into it because of their involvement at New Amsterdam. When I read about Evertsen's reply, that his 'commission' to retake the fort was stuck in the barrel of his cannon, I had a good laugh that lasted more than a moment. Cheers, from this side of the Atlantic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I live on the same side of the Atlantic (Washington State). But I do speak and read Dutch. I don't think Van Nimwegen's book has been translated into English, and I don't think you can read it online, but maybe I am mistaken. However, the quote in the article refers to the Battle of Beachy Head (1690) and in the Aftermath section you'll find the same narrative, referenced with Anglophone sources (and Van Nimwegen again). The book of Hellinga is in google books, but I don't think one can get into it. However, I found this source (Dutch again) that also states that our Evertsen (there are oodles of namesakes) died unmarried and without children. . The part of the footnote that I quote is actually in the continuation on page 51. In general, if you are confronted with a Dutch text you can easily get a translation into English if you use Google Chrome. Left-click on the page to get the focus, and then right-click on the focused page. You ought to get a dropdown menu that gives the option to translate the page into English (provided that is your default language). This works only if the text is in machine-readable form, so as html-text, or pdf. It doesn't work with facsimiles in jpg. form, like most text in google books, unfortunately. I hope this is helpful. Ereunetes (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, you may practice with this biographical entry: Feel free to add this source to the article (I wonder why nobody else did this) and use the translated text as your crib for a rewrite of the article, if you are so inclined. My trick works here as it is html. You can just copy and paste the translated text. And then paraphrase it a bit, to avoid plagiarism. Ereunetes (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll look into these things. Yes, I tried google's translator (and others), but one can only copy so much text at a time before it's 'pasted' into a translator, so it would be sort of a tedious undertaking to do this with each page of an entire book. Be nice if there was one that could translate an entire book in one pass.
 * The google books weren't any help -- can't be viewed, but there are some available at archive.org.
 * Other such works can be found here
 * Other such works can be found here
 * Other such works can be found here
 * Other such works can be found here


 * I'll start by getting this work translated, and see what breaks. Thanks again for your help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, the Dutch text on Evertsen copied from from  this work. is translated and can be read here  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Located the Biographisch woordenboek der Nederlanden text:.
 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's it. Using your sandbox is indeed best. But I have played dirty sometimes and just copied everything in the space for a new article and then commented it out, so it is impossible to see it. You can then work it out in a few days, taking a few paragraphs at a time. I suppose you know how commenting out works in html? I can demonstrate it as an example, but you'll have to look at my source to actually see it as it is invisible Ereunetes (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Speaking of new articles, Abraham Jacob van der Aa, Biographisch woordenboek der Nederlanden, 1859 printing covers Geleyn Evertsen, Cornelis' younger brother. As for copying and rephrasing, be careful, I've been taken to task before over WP:CLOP, even when the wording is not quite the same. Best to make use if several sources, that is, if you can find any. If you get a chance you might want to look into the other Dutch sources I posted above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We are always making excerpts of existing sources. Original research is frowned upon. So reworking a source is OK, as long as one references it properly. Of course it is better to use more than one source. The DBNL website has also the whole Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek of Petrus Johannes Blok and Philipp Christiaan Molhuysen online. That is as good a source as Abraham Jacob van der Aa's Biografisch Woordenboek der Nederlanden. If you would like to do an article on Geleyn Evertsen you could therefore also use for a source. You could mix the quotes up. And if your conscience bothers you, you could always use a text like this * . That is a template for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and I doubt if a similar template exists for the two Dutch biographical dictionaries, but you can copy the text for a similar disclaimer. I am sorry I don't have time to look at your other sources. But I hope this helps you on your way for doing some useful work on biographical articles on all kinds of deserving Dutchmen. It is always a good idea to check the articles the Dutch wikipedia may have on them. You now know how to read those :-) Ereunetes (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course we can use excerpts, (btw, statements of fact can not be copyrighted), and original research only occurs when someone draws different conclusions apart from what a given source has indicated, regardless of phraseology. As for Geleyn, though a somewhat interesting character, I don't see him as making any sort of impact on history that's par with Cornelis the Youngest, or his father, from what I've read thus far anyways, so I'm not inclined to crank out an article for him. -- Thought the task would be less tedious if created by someone who could read Dutch and didn't have to translate entire books or pages of text, as it seems almost all the sources for Geleyn are written in Dutch. The Netherland Wikipdia article for Geleyn doesn't cite any sources. As for the Cornelis the Youngest article, I'll work on getting the last few items in question cited. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry you don't think Geleyn Evertsen worth your efforts. You have to start simple; Napoleon and Michiel de Ruyter are already taken. Ereunetes (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not that Geleyn isn't worthy -- I'm simply not inclined to cover him as I am with his brother and father, and the prospect of spending time translating entire books certainly hasn't increased any incentive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Translating entire books? I hope not. That would be above and beyond the call of duty. And neither do you have to go dig into the archives, like the Nationaal Archief which has a very accessible website with text that should be translatable with the Chrome translate facility. No, I was just thinking of small subjects. Yesterday I did Frederick Christiaan van Reede, 2nd Earl of Athlone as a vingeroefening  ("finger exercise") (I was going to give you a wikilink to Wiktionary for this compound word. But you'll get the idea from combining vinger and oefening). The other day I needed a wiktionary lemma for geheimschrijver in my new article Abel Tassin d'Alonne and that didn't exist either, so I made the lemma myself :-) In other words, this makes being a Wikipedia editor fun, sometimes. I can recommend it. But it should not "degenerate into work" of course. This may be an example of a Batavism. Sorry :-) Ereunetes (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Continued...
If anything, Geleyn would certainly bring additional historical context to accounts about his brother and father, at least, so on that note, I may undertake the effort of which we speak. If you decide to launch that ship beforehand I'll more than likely be around to help. As you may know, I'm currently doing further research and editing with the Fort Amsterdam article, while sometimes tying in related articles, and continue to 'unearth' material that compels me to look further into matters. It's work -- but what fun. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There is already a Dutch, Russian and Norwegian Wikipedia article about Geleyn Evertsen. They follow the data in the two Dutch biographies I mentioned before. So they are quite short, and generally unreferenced. You may take a look at them through your Google spectacles (works also for Russian and Norwegian). So an English Wikipedia article need not be much work. I promise I won't pre-empt you on it. Did you look at for archivalia available in the US? (There are more volumes.Please click on the embedded link) for your work on Fort Amsterdam? Ereunetes (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No call for promises. As I hope was indicated, I'm willing to help should you decide to take the plunge. In any case, Geleyn didn't surface in the above linked source. As I don't care for creating stub articles it seems you're more acquainted with the sources in an effort that will hopefully produce more than a glorified dictionary account of Geleyn. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The source was intended to help you with the history of Fort Amsterdam that should appear quite frequently in it. I couldn't care less about Geleyn :-) Ereunetes (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)