Talk:Israhel van Meckenem

Untitled
According to the German Wikipedia version of this page, the "van Meckenem" family gets its name from the town of "Meckenheim" in Rhineland, near Bonn. "Van Meckenem" would simply be the Low German version of "von Meckenheim". The German Wikipedia states this as a fact (both in the article "Israhel van Meckenem" and in the article "Meckenheim (Rheinland)"). So, at least in the German-speaking Wikipedia, there is no question as to where Israhel van Meckenem was born. I'm not sure how this jives with the uncertainty expressed by the English Wikipedia article. 25 Nov 2006.

- Bear in mind the German version is written by Germans! No doubt when the Dutch get round to doing a version they will bring in Mechelen (Malines) in Brabant and/or Megchelen, now in Germany but only just. Van is/was not common as Low German for von, I gather. There do no seem to be any other refs to Meckenheim as Meckenem. It is a fact that a German art historian called Max Geisberg was happy with Meckenheim; beyond that there are no facts. All in Huchison ref., supported by others. Having seen the 2 articles, which did you think looked the more thorough? Johnbod 16:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

- One might add that Meckenheim, which according to the German page on it had a population of 8,000 in 1969, so presumably was only a small village in 1450, is not an especially likely place of origin for a goldsmith, unlike Malines/Mechelen, which was a prosperous centre for the arts then. Johnbod 19:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

- to be fair to Deutsche Wiki, the IvM article doesn't in fact say he was born in Meckenheim, just that the family came from there. I can't see anything in either of the articles on Meckenheim mentioning the family. Johnbod 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Johnbod 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, i'm glad you're not following me around
Once again, you are changing the meaning without (I imagine) any particular knowledge of the subject, using unidiomatic English (try "contemporaneous" in your style guides) & so on.

I think I have been very reasonable so far, but if this continues will take matters further. Johnbod 23:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

contemporaneous
The definitions of contemporaneous on the Web are, occurring in the same period of time being discussed, but the word it replaces, "contemporary", indicates "occurring in the current time period". A simple check on Google definitions will clarify that. I doubt that the choice of words is in error, please state how changing one word in an edit to something that correctly expresses the thought intended, could be the basis for a complaint. Again, this is related to an article and I will address edits on those pages. Please stop leaving notices that are related to editing articles on my personal page and let's stick to editing, I have no interest in a conflict with you, especially when you seem to intend to make it personal. 83d40m November 25, 2006


 * my dictionaries give virtually identical definitions (like the first you quote), but say that contemporaneous is normally followed by "with", which you do not do, so I will change it back. Whatever the dictionaries say, your change is much less idiomatic.

Johnbod 01:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I van M
Can't you see that:

His birth date is merely an estimate. Recent guesses range from the early 1430s to 1450. His father arrived in Bocholt in 1457, so his place of birth is unknown (MINE) - and: His birth date is merely an estimate. Recent speculations range from the early 1430s to 1450. The first reference to the family is in 1457, so his place of birth is unknown. (YOURS)

- are saying DIFFERENT THINGS. If it was only that there was no reference to the family before 1457, he might well have been born in Bocholt. As it is his father's arrival (which you put in a different paragraph) was specifically recorded in 1457, so he could not have been.

How can you think your version an improvement? I just don't understand. You are just making things vaguer, and unlike me (I imagine) you don't know the various further facts which I am condensing.

Please leave this here: 1) It is not about the article, & of little interest to readers of it, plus 2) it is bad practice to keep blanking this page as you do - it makes it look to others as if you have something to hide. I think there is a policy on this, which you should look at, among others. Johnbod 02:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can understand the point you are making and still disagree with your interpretation... however, if my (well intended) changes seem so wrong to you and you can defend the reason for reverting them, that is the way Wikipedia works... one can not know what another is thinking, and as you can see, I do not go and revert the things you feel strongly enough about to retain in the fashion you have constructed. I volunteer what I believe will improve the article, without a personal agenda, as they say, do not edit here if you can not brook other editors changing what you write. If you can show why your perspective is best, most editors will leave it and learn from you. If I still think it is flawed, I will attempt to raise the issue with you. I usually go to find out what I can about the topic myself in order to determine whether you are correct. I do believe that these discussions are most relevant to the articles, so I move them... nothing is deleted, it is moved for relevancy and I make a note of that. A record of the conversation continues to exist. As you can see, I do not use that page. I always check for additional edits where I have edited to see what others have to say about my edits, and obviously, because I am interested in the topic, don't you? I have always found the discussion about my edits on the article discussion page. There is no need for banners, tags, and shouting. (If you want to discuss issues unrelated to the articles, perhaps your own page is appropriate after letting me know that you have posted there, but I believe arguments about the articles should be on their discussion pages.) Where I challenge your work, you will learn to be more careful and the same exists for me. I hope to compliment your work, not to harm it. Please remember that I invest a good deal of time in the edit and want it to be successful also. On a lighter note, it matters more where his mother was, not his father, to determine the location of his birth! I recall a notation that he was born in Prague... now I can not track that down, have you ever read that?  83d40m November 25, 2006


 * I've never seen Prague mentioned - only the three places in the top section.

Johnbod 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israhel van Meckenem. 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/20090111185904/http://artsmia.org/directories/art-finder/art-detail.cfm?directory=0&artist=10346&id=47973&class_2=Israhel%20van%20Meckenem&class_1=Artists to http://artsmia.org/directories/art-finder/art-detail.cfm?directory=0&artist=10346&id=47973&class_2=Israhel%20van%20Meckenem&class_1=Artists

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) 18:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)