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

Moved from main page, alt text

 * Several images need alt text: File:West-Indisch Huis.jpg (1), File:KiliaenVanRensselaerPortrait.jpg (2), File:KiliaenVanRensselaerSignature.svg (3), File:New Netherlands Seal Vector.svg (4), File:Mark of Rensselaerswyck.svg'' (5).
 * I've added alts for 1, 4, and 5; since 2 will most likely be removed per discussion above, I skipped that. As for 3, it doesn't seem like Infobox person allows for alt text for a signature? If that's not right, I just need guidance on how to do it, then I'll add the text.  upstate NYer  15:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For 3, please use the signature_alt parameter of Infobox person. Eubulides (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done Again, the lead image will most likely be taken out soon, so I haven't added alt text to that.  upstate NYer  20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I struck everything but that lead image; after it's removed I'll strike that . Eubulides (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead image has been removed, so I struck all my comments. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please mark all instances of File:Wikisource-logo.svg and of File:PD-icon.svg with "linkalt" as per WP:ALT .
 * DONE  upstate NYer  15:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "it's" should be an "its" in the alt text.
 * DONE  upstate NYer  15:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The alt text for File:Rensselaerswyck Original Map Small.png gives a lot of detail that I can't verify by looking at the image. Please limit it to what can be verified by a non-expert, and move the rest of the alt text to the caption. (See WP:ALT .)
 * Done Hopefully that meets your expectations.  upstate NYer  15:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eubulides (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the alt text fixes. Only the lead image and the signature image remain. By the way, to save you work next time, alt text need not be quite so long and fancy as what you've written. For example, the alt text for File:Mark of Rensselaerswyck.svg can be written assuming the reader has already seen the alt text for File:Mark of Kiliaen van Rensselaer.svg. For more, please see WP:ALT and WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; I'll keep that in mind for next time. To note, the Mark of Rensselaerswyck is in a template, so it's now in a bunch of articles, so no work will have to be done there either.  upstate NYer  20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved discussion of Original Research and 2c in relation to VRBM
Initially from fifelfoo, pasted to reduce mainpage size. 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1c: This article is Original Research. as an example: fn1 "^ a b c Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 32" at usage b establishes a fact "Interestingly, letters saved by the van Rensselaer family show that Kiliaen van Rensselaer never visited his colony in person." Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2c: Short citations lacking Author / Editor. Cited Manuscripts lack a document, author, date for the MS cited.  (But this should not occur at all, as it is OR).
 * I'll try to be tender with you as well: I don't think you've fully read the article and examined the sources. If you go to the Bibliography section, both your issues will have resolutions. First, this isn't original research. It would be if I had found all the primary documents, translated them, and compiled and essayed about them, but the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts (VRBM) is a book (not a literal collection of manuscripts), published by an historian, working for and published by the University of the State of New York in 1908. As for the citations, they are consistent, as discussed above. The book citations are kept short, limiting to title and page (with direct link to page at google books), with the full citation listed under the Bibliography section. Think of the bibliography section as a list of global variables and the references section a list of local variables.  upstate NYer  03:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are working out of Primary sources. This is Original Research.  It doesn't matter if your primary sources are manuscripts, or translations, or compilations of primary sources in a source book.  They are primary sources.
 * Thank you for the metaphor on what a footnote and a bibliography are. Your variable names are non-standard to the point of being out of style.  Complex variables should be calling subroutines, but aren't. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not working out of primary sources. The book is a biography of KVR that also includes its referenced documents (translated); it's quite handy really. I make no judgement, inference, or interpretation in the article that is not first stated by the author of the book. (And while on the topic, if you go to No original research, you see that the policy is stated as such: "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Note: this was published by a University press...) As for the citation style, here's one FA that uses the exact same system.  upstate NYer  03:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That FA that you indicate cites Authors, not work titles.
 * Primary: Dutch West India Company (1629): Article XXVI of the Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions
 * Primary: Van Rensselaer, Kiliaen; Samuel Godyn, and Samuel Blommaert (1629): Notification by Samuel Godyn, Kiliaen van Rensselaer and Samuel Blommaert that they send two persons to New Netherland to inspect the country
 * Primary: States-General of the United Netherlands (1621): Article XI of the Charter of the Dutch West India Company
 * The article is written from inappropriate material. No secondary sources post 1919 have been used. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Bowler manuscripts involve his raw letters, although the first section is written by teh historian who sums up his findings and is not primary. It is very old however. The raw letters are primary though. On another note, in teh notes, Bowler etc have to be itaclised as they are the names of the books  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see your point there, but like I said above, no judgement, inference, or interpretation is made without it strictly being stated in the writing of Van Laer. But as policy states, referencing primary sources for direct facts is not against the rules here. I'll go off and do some italicizing...  upstate NYer  04:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Every one of those comes from the VRBM. See the source section at each Wikisource page. And as for format of citations, your colleague Ealdgyth has made it clear that the format is not the important part, the consistency is. My preference comes mainly because I've yet to see the VRBM cited as "Van Laer"; it is always cited as "Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts". Originally I had cited VRBM by its title but everything else by its author. I changed that per request above, but because this book seems to be unique in the way authors cite it, I found it more important to keep with that reference type. Either way, only one book reference doesn't link directly to the page at Google Books or a similar online service, regardless of the reference style.  upstate NYer  04:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could the alleged OR be pointed out more specifically? I've glanced through the prose and accompanying sources, and haven't discovered anything blatant. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, the OR is fairly glaring. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Absence of correct attribution of commentary chapters or commentary to the work's editor as opposed to the manuscript: necessary assumption from citation as given, that the works (ie, the MS) are cited
 * When citing a commentary, it is necessary to indicate that the commentary rather than the text is being cited, this is to prevent the reader assuming that the verification material originates in the MS.
 * For example, Doe, John (ed.) "Introduction" in VRBM, p.32. Or Doe, John (ed.) "Commentary on Bill of Sale 1630" In VRBM, p.400.
 * This is an example of poor 2c work causing the appearance of OR, and appearance here is actuality: As I, like most readers, don't have a copy of VRBM handy, I can only verify off the citations provided. The citations clearly indicate OR.  Citations are meant to provide verification: these citations do not provide verification, as they claim to be primaries.
 * ^ a b c Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 32
 * ^ Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 43
 * ^ Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 42
 * ^ Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, pp. 43–44
 * ^ a b c d e Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 45
 * ^ a b c d e f g h i j Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 46
 * ^ Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 47
 * ^ Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 154
 * ^ Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, pp. 53–54
 * ^ Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 54
 * ^ Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 53
 * ^ a b Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 55
 * ^ Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 49
 * ^ a b Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscript, p. 319
 * ^ Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 876
 * ^ Van Rensselaer Bower Manuscripts, p. 49
 * ^ Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 854
 * You do have a copy of VRBM handy. To view Wikipedia, you need an Internet connection, and with that Internet connection, you can click the link to the page that is being cited (you left out all the links when you copy+pasted above). These links bring you directly to the page that is being cited. Therefore you do have a copy of the VRBM at hand. It's literally a click away.  upstate NYer  04:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Snippet View"? I think you're assuming that US access rights in Google Books are universal.  An appropriately full citation is sufficient, and verification even when links rot, and IP policies prevent people from accessing material. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So you trust the unlinked A History of New York State (ref #45), which you most likely don't have a copy handy, but the one in which 300,000,000 Americans have free access to (thanks to Google) from a coffee joint with a computer you question? For those that have access, the link is there; if not, too bad. That's not my fault or problem. I'm still citing a reliable source, nay the reliable source on this issue. Whether or not you have it handy is not my problem. I'll point you to Joan of Arc again, in which they use they same system (author rather than title, but still limited to only one of those, plus the page number). I actually used this as a guide for many of my recent articles... because it's an FA. Why the double standards?  upstate NYer  05:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The link is irrelevant; the citation is the core of verification. You cite it as, "Ellis, David M.; James A. Frost, Harold C. Syrett, Harry J. Carman (1957, 1967). A History of New York State. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. ISBN 6720587." which is an obvious secondary source.  Had I heard things about Cornell University Press which led me to believe the press was unsound, then I would worry, but I haven't. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which leads me to ask again: why the double standard? I cite the VRBM as "Van Laer, A. J. F. (translator and editor) (1908). Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts. Albany: University of the State of New York." Have you heard overly terrible things about the University of the State of New York? It's only responsible for the NYS Library, NYS Museum, NYS Archives, and educating every public school student in the state.  upstate NYer  05:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * VRBM is in your bibliography as (now) the lengthy title. It is still a collection of primary sources.  The standard of difference is between PRIMARY and SECONDARY sources. Your short citations need to read something like "Van Laer, A. J. F. (ed.) "Index to" Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 854." Van Laer, A. J. F. (ed.) "Introduction" Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 54" (If that is infact part of the introduction).  And for "Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscript, p. 319" depending on what it is, Van Laer, A. J. F. (ed) Footnote commentary on "Document actually commented on" Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, p. 319 fn. 54.  See how those examples indicate clearly that you're citing the SECONDARY portion of VRBM and not the PRIMARY portion? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the whole book and tell me that it's solely a collection of primary sources. It's not. It's a secondary source with a few reference documents at the end. It's like an American history textbook that contains the Declaration of Independence and Constitution at the end for reference. How it's not like that is the fact that all these documents were interpreted by the editor (from Old Dutch to English; btw Old Dutch is not easily deciphered by current speakers), which means he gave it his best shot at an English translation; this is technically his work. And it was published by the University of the State of New York, a more than well respected institution. This is a book, and nothing less. What you're asking is far above and beyond the expectations here on WP; you're way too picky.  upstate NYer  04:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Citation of primary sources directly
 * These are archival or documentary sources. They are being used to establish facts and narratives.  They are not used under the reasonable primary source exemption of direct quotes for illustrative purposes (ie: like a photograph).
 * ^ States-General of the United Netherlands (1621): Article I of the Charter of the Dutch West India Company on Wikisource
 * ^ States-General of the United Netherlands (1622): Amplification of the Charter of the Dutch West India Company on Wikisource
 * ^ a b States-General of the United Netherlands (1621): Article XII of the Charter of the Dutch West India Company on Wikisource
 * ^ States-General of the United Netherlands (1621): Article XI of the Charter of the Dutch West India Company on Wikisource
 * ^ States-General of the United Netherlands (1621): Article XVIII of the Charter of the Dutch West India Company on Wikisource
 * ^ The Dutch in New Netherland and the United States: 1609–1909, p. 26
 * ^ Dutch West India Company (1629): Article XXVI of the Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions on Wikisource
 * ^ Dutch West India Company (1629): Article VI of the Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions on Wikisource
 * ^ Dutch West India Company (1629): Article XXV of the Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions on Wikisource
 * ^ Dutch West India Company (1629): Article XXX of the Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions on Wikisource
 * ^ Van Rensselaer, Kiliaen; Samuel Godyn, and Samuel Blommaert (1629): Notification by Samuel Godyn, Kiliaen van Rensselaer and Samuel Blommaert that they send two persons to New Netherland to inspect the country on Wikisource
 * ^ Van Rensselaer, Kiliaen (1630): Instructions to Bastiaen Jansz Krol from Kiliaen van Rensselaer (January 10, 1630) on Wikisource
 * ^ Crol, Bastiaen Janssen (1630): Contract of sale of land along the Hudson River from the Mahican Indians to Kiliaen van Rensselaer on Wikisource
 * These all come from the VRBM, and are cited as such at Wikisource. These are not the actual documents; they are interpreted by the editor/author of this book, which assumes at least a level of editorial discretion. That said, I don't see this as primary per se, though I can see where you're coming from. But policy states clearly (which I mention above, but which you don't comment on) that "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." These sources are being used precisely as permitted by policy. No interpretations are made about the text save for what is stated in plain language (after the interpreter's work). So far no policy restrictions are affected by this.  upstate NYer  04:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "With a total of 31 articles, the document spells out many requirements of these patroons, primarily stating that each patroon must buy or barter the intended land from the local Indians,[23]" 23 ^ Dutch West India Company (1629): Article XXVI of the Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions on Wikisource => "Article XXVI: Whosoever shall settle any colonies out of the limits of Manhattes Island must satisfy the Indians of that place for the land and may enlarge the limits of their colonies if they settle a proportionate number of colonists thereon. " (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Freedoms_and_Exemptions#Article_XXVI)
 * What reliable secondary source produced that interpretation. You've cited an article in a primary document. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is literally no other way to read "settlers must satisfy the Indians for the land" other than barter in some way (be it even good faith; no one said it had to be tangible). Reworded per your request, but the statement still holds true. This is the epitome of: "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims."  upstate NYer  05:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No wikipedia editor is a historian when they are editing wikipedia. This is grossly unacceptable with the implicit claim being made, throughout your use of primaries, that your cited documents actually reflect external reality as it existed then.  That is the job of an off wiki expert who's undergone a six year apprenticeship in documentary interpretation and legitimate use of sources.  Your claims supported by primaries are making claims about the social reality in Holland and North America that are nowhere supported by appropriate secondary sources.  You have mis WEIGHTED the narrative through a reliance on PRIMARY documents; this constitutes ORIGINAL RESEARCH.  If you seriously cannot live without these elements being in wikipedia, go publish in an appropriate venue (I'd suggest a Local History magazine known for at least checking document quality prior to publication) and then cite yourself, UpstateNYer (2010), pp. 34-37, and bring it back here with a reasonably worded conflict of interest notice.  The Local History magazine wouldn't be Highest Quality RS, but it would be enough to carry the elements of narrative which are currently OR. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * None of your analysis in the last post matters because I changed the wording to include a direct quote from the Charter. Do you have anything new to say? Because I'm not going to go get myself published. I have RL things to do. If you could actually stick to the topic at hand, I'd be interested to hear how you think I'm using original research (your words, I still don't agree) against policy; you have ignored that topic every time I've brought it up.  upstate NYer  04:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no. You're still advancing a claim about historical reality derived from reading primary sources.  You haven't displayed the care required in the least.  I'm going to cease discussing this with you as you obviously are refusing to action items brought up under FAC review which are clearly stated and actionable; I look forward to this article being in a state to support at its next FAC attempt. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's being done in a fair way that's permitted by policy. The problem still escapes me...  upstate NYer  04:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Issues with primary sources I have gone through every singe one of the citations to the original documents pertaining to this article. They come from an appendix of the Van Rensselaer Bowier Manuscripts, a book written and compiled in 1908 by an employee of the State University of New York. The original documents were interpreted (translated) by the author, and in many cases include footnotes. Originally (as noted in the long-winded discussion above), there were citations to these documents, which are hosted at Wikisource, and correctly attributed. Based on reading above, it may seem that most of them were directed solely to the "primary" secondary source (i.e. the interpretation of the primary document, complete with author notes). Actually, in most cases, these citations came with another citation to the editorial section of the book (typically at the end of a sentence, while the cite to an original document would, in essence, just be a pointer). Below is the list of all the Wikisource citations, along with the secondary source that backs them up. Citing the primary documents is a very good thing because it removes the middle man and proves to the reader that the information is indeed valid. A secondary source is still human and can make mistakes, while the primary offers no questions. That said, the secondary sources are there to back up the links to original documents. So, to clear up the confusion above, here is the "primary sources" analysis:
 * Citation #11 (Aritcle I): Backed up by citation #10 (VRBM p 46)
 * Citation #12 (Amplification): Also backed up by citation #10 (VRBM p 46)
 * Citation #15 (Article XII, first call): Backed up by citation #10 (VRBM p 46) at the end of the sentence
 * Citation #15 (Article XII, second call): Backed up by citation #14 (Van Rensselaer p 8)
 * Citation #16 (Article XI): Backed up by citation #10 (VRBM p 46)
 * Citation #17 (Article XVIII): Backed up by citation #14 (Van Rensselaer p 8)
 * Citations #23 (Article XXVI), #24 (Article III), #25 (Article VI), #26 (Article XXV), #27 (Article XXX): All backed up by citation #28 (VRBM p 51-52)
 * Citation #31 ("Notification..."): Just a pointer to the original document for further reading. Backed up by citation #32
 * Citations #35 ("Instructions...") and #36 ("Contract of sale..."): Both pointers to the original documents. Backed up by citation #37
 * Hopefully that clears up the issue with the "primary" sources.  upstate NYer  05:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since adding any citations could screw up numbering, this is the version I'm basing the analysis off.  upstate NYer  05:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)