Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kiliaen van Rensselaer (Dutch merchant)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:18, 29 November 2009.

Kiliaen van Rensselaer (Dutch merchant)

 * Nominator(s):  upstate NYer  04:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is my first FAC, so gentle please. :) I've put together what I think is a very thorough and complete biography of Kiliaen van Rensselaer, a jeweler and director of the Dutch West India Company who founded the only successful patroonship in New Netherland. Going a lot by the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts (a translated collection of primary documents and subsequent early-20th century discussion), along with info from the New York State Museum and other various sources, I've brought this article to GA status and expanded WP's knowledge of this important colonizer. I also think it's well illustrated; considering the guy died in the 1640s, I was able to secure some great photos and have svg copies of his merchant's mark and signature made. This person is important to the history of my local area.  upstate NYer  04:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: The picture that illustrates the article is claimed (in the article) to be the Kiliaen van Rensselaer of the article, painted 100years after his death. This seems unlikely to me, since there were two later Kiliaen van Rensselaers that it could be, most probably the one who was born in the 1660s.
 * The picture is not "100 years after his death". The costume is consistent with the last decade of the 17th century, ie about 50-60 years after his death.
 * If the painting remained in a particular family for a length of time, it is quite possible that they knew the name of the person, but later generations presumed it to be the first and most famous man of that name, rather than a later one.
 * So the question is, who said that the painting represented this particular Kiliaen van Rensselaer? and did they really know? I would think that the fact that it was so obviously painted many years after his death negates the fact that it represents him.
 * If, on the other hand, the family commissioned an artist to paint an imaginary picture of a deceased ancestor, it is most unlikely that they would depict him in current costume, or show him as quite so youthful. Amandajm (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes me think of the painting of Shakespeare that was done years after his death. The quote from the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts (p. 32) states, "It would have been appropriate to add a portrait to this voluminous collection of writings of the first patroon, but unfortunately none is known to exist, that which is occasionally represented as his likeness being clearly of about a century later than the time of the patroon." The image itself, which if you go to the image page, shows the source of the image as well as the source for the preceding quote, is from the Schenectady Digital History Archive. The way I interpret the quote from the book is that the author didn't include this because it 'wasn't worth anything due to the date of its creation' or something, while I think it's still important as being an image commissioned to represent him by the family. As for his outfit, I could see the contemporary artist putting him in the elegant outfit of the artist's time or what he thought was appropriate for Kiliaen's time, no?  upstate NYer  22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I disagree with your interpretation. The writer here is telling you quite clearly "none is known to exist" and "the one ...occassionally represented as his likeness is clearly about a century later", in other words, too late to be him. It is most unlikely to be a picture commissioned later to represent a deceased family member. It is much more likely to be the man who was alive at that time and who had the same name. This is fairly obvious. The term "represented as" means that someone has said it is him, but they are not necessarily correct.
 * As for the painting of Shakespeare, the Chandos portrait, probably painted about six years before his death, has been the source for later images. Because Shakespeare is 'enormously famous there are statues of him all over the world, but all based on this portrait.Amandajm (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's a fair interpretation. Is it kosher if I used a version of File:Replace this image male.svg, but with just the outline, then have a caption that states "no image of this person is known to exist"? Bummer.  upstate NYer  14:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is any point in doing that. You have the statement that "none is known to exist". It needs to be made clear on the uploaded image that this is cannot be a portrait of the man, because of its date. Otherwise, you will invite someone who knows nothing about the history of costume and this discussion to insert it at a later date. Amandajm (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the caption on the uploaded image. Amandajm (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But you think the image should be removed from the article, right?  upstate NYer  11:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course it should be removed! It is most unlikely to be the person the article is about. It is 60 years too late, and there was another man of the same name as patroon at the time the picture was painted. Amandajm (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is hard to imagine that even a portrait intended to represent a dead ancestor would not have given him a ruff etc. If it had that it might also be a copy of a lost original - there would be nothing unusual in that.  By the way, KvR is exactly the sort of person one expect to have had one or more rather good portraits painted, but it/they or its identification has evidently been lost.  Having this image can only mislead. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeez, I'm not sure how I missed this, but the source that I have on the image page (under source, not description) does claim it's this Kiliaen and even points out who owned the painting in 1903 (Howard Van Rensselaer). Is there anything about this painting (maybe the style, or the clothes or something) that leads you to think that it is European (and not early European American), because this was the only patroon named Kiliaen that lived in Holland; the rest lived in New York.  upstate NYer  00:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind; confirmed by a curator at the Albany Institute of History and Art that the portrait is in their collection and is not the Dutch KVR. Bummer again.  upstate NYer  22:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Welcome to FAC! I'll try to be gentle!
 * Okay, first thing... a large number of your references (including the first 8) lack a publisher and last access date. Everything needs publisher and last access dates. I'll come back and review after all the websites have that. Right now, you've got a large number of your citations that have outside links, so I assume they are to websites. SOme, though, appear to be to online scans of printed works, which would mean that you treat them as printed works and would italicise them and given the conventions you're using, use the last name of the author to refer to them, not the title unitalicised.
 * I find the best way to cite (since WP doesn't offer an option for ibid. or anything like that) is to use the References sections for footnotes, usually using the author's last name as the source, along with a link to the document, which usually comes from Google Books, as this one does. That means the link goes straight to the page you want. Then the bibliography section gives all the additional information, such as publisher, year, etc. So all my references should have the information stored globally in the Bib section, not the Ref section. And does a citation to a book at Google Books really require an accessdate? Technically, I could be looking at a hard copy on my end and offer a link out of convenience, that which I never actually access. Seems excessive.  upstate NYer  22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We ask at FAC that the citation system be consistent. Either use the last name for the author ALL the time or the title of the work ALL the time. Right now, you've got some with last name and some with title, and that's not consistent.
 * I took the liberty of running the dash script over the article for you.
 * Sounds good.  upstate NYer  22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, what makes the 1888 Family genealogy book reliable? Most late Victorian family histories are ... iffy sources at best. Even if it's not fabricated (and a LARGE number were) it's quite likely to have been superceded by more recent works.
 * The same concerns on outdated sources for the Van Laer work from 1908.
 * And the same for the Spooner ref from 1907.
 * Hmm, well to be honest, I feel that the closer you are to the source, the more likely you are to have the primary sources to make verifiable claims. Many of the documents used in the general research of these works could very well have been destroyed in the 100 years since. The Van Laer work, which is known universally as the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts is the single best source for information on this person, being cited by almost any following work on the Van Rensselaer family. This is because it is a compilation of primary sources translated from old Dutch to English by an employee of the New York State Museum as a celebration of 300 years since Hudson discovered New York (1609). This is the closest anybody can (and most likely will) come to really knowing this man, since much of the document is made up of his correspondences, bills, receipts, etc. It also contains commentary which I think is probably coming from the historian that knew Kiliaen the best. I would claim that these sources are far from outdated since most of them are cited in future documents. Pretty much everything that is known about Kiliaen comes from two of the three sources you list, including the book The Van Rensselaers in Holland and in America (1956) which is currently out of print (and not worth $210).  upstate NYer  22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, the only thing in your references that is recent is the History of New York State. Historiography has advanced quite a bit in the last 100 years, so I'd expect to see more recent works consulted. Here is a google scholar search that should help you get started.
 * Will take a look; in all honesty, I trust the older works more than those from current historians. Unless they're basing their work on primary sources, I don't see them as "more reliable" just because they're more recent. The NYSM has vast amounts of info on the history of Rensselaerswyck, but nobody to go through it; apparently they're busy elsewhere, which is reasonable.  upstate NYer  22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, since there have been no fewer that 6 other Kiliaen van Rensselaers in the family, simple name searches don't produce much, especially since one of the Kiliaens (which evolved into Killian) was a Congressman. I'll definitely have a look at the google scholar results, but I don't expect to find much on the correct man. It's sometimes very difficult to keep a pair of Kiliaens that were cousins (grandsons or great-grandsons of the first Kiliaen, I believe) straight, which is why this article in particular has been difficult to research.  upstate NYer  22:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I noted that at least two of the articles were covering events in the correct lifespan for the subject of this article. I did not check much further than the first page. The second page has a couple of things that might be interesting and that are in the correct time frame also. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but has some problems :
 * Alt text discussion moved to talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eubulides (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review - The copyright of all of the images is fine. Awadewit (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Nl-Kiliaen van Rensselaer.ogg - You might want to add this sound file to the article. It is of a native Dutch speaker pronouncing the subject's name. Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I made a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Phonetics for an IPA version of the name to be put in, because I'm not good with the IPA system. Though if anyone here is good with it, I'd appreciate the addition.  upstate NYer  14:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * DONE  upstate NYer  14:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note, I changed your done templates to little bolded dones, see the FAC instructions, templates are discouraged at FAC because too many templates on the page can cause the page to break. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha.  upstate NYer  15:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Other than the lead image, which is being discussed above, I believe I've fixed all the issue brought up. What's next?  upstate NYer  00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Decline 1c (Original Research), 2c (Misrepresentation of items actually cited as another work: the work contained in). Nominator refuses to action actionable points.  Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)   I wish I could be more tender with you on this point, but archival research and production of material from primary sources is the job of a historian, not wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Due to length material has been moved to talk. 2c issues are primarily resolved, though Fifelfoo would prefer that VRBM chapters be indicated due to the mixed primary / secondary nature of the text.  1c issues with what Fifelfoo describes as primaries are unresolved, with Fifelfoo and the nominator presenting arguments on both sides which are fully explained at talk. (the nominator is free to amend this characterisation of the talk contents). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.