Talk:Adriaen van der Donck

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AmericanInAmerica.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Article on same subject

There is an article on the same subject: Adriaen Van der Donck

Alan Pascoe 22:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's rather annoying - it's only two weeks younger than this article. I've put merge tags on, so hopefully it'll be sorted out quickly. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the other article should be merged into this one, there's a lot more info in the other one, it would make a pretty good article if its merged properly. — Wackymacs 20:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've started merging. Since no specific facts are cited, I'm moving the nonoverlapping references into a Further reading section until I take a look at them. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm satisfied with the merge, so I've removed the tags and made Adriaen Van der Donck into a redirect. There's quite a lot of material there that I thought was a bit much, but it's all still in that page's history. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Chronology issue

It seems that the dates for Van der Donck's acquisition of Yonkers, which were based on Jerimiah Johnson's 1841 book according to Adriaen Van der Donck, don't jive with modern sources (in particular I've just checked Van Gastel's "Rhetorical Ambivalence" and Gehring's introduction in In Mohawk Country). I thought I'd checked all the dates in Adriaen Van der Donck before using them but apparently not, so the chronology is adjusting accordingly. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit protect?

Any way we could get this article edit protected ASAP for a while to try and stop the vandalism? I'm not quite sure where to post the request. Hbackman 04:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've requested protection at Wikipedia:Requests for protection. You might get a faster response contacting an admin directly though via a talkpage or IRC. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Yonkers" derivation?

The article says Yonkers is named after van der Donck. How so? Is it the "onk" sound?.. I've heard a completely different explanation for the town name. JDG 04:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's explained in the body as deriving from the title he was called by, Jonkheer. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah-- I was told that a more accurate rendering of the Dutch is "young heir", as opposed to "squire". There was also something about the land sitting tenantless for a while because the person it had been willed to (presumably van der Donck) was on business in Europe, so people would refer to it as the "Young heir's" place. And "heir" referred literally to the land being granted as a stipulation in a will. JDG

Never heard that one before. It sounds suspicioiusly like a folk etymology, but then again all I know is what I've read about Van der Donck. — Laura Scudder ☎ 07:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I was born and raised in Yonkers, and that has always been my understanding of the origin of the city's name. --Nelson Ricardo 11:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

From the city of Yonkers's webpage:

In the late 1640's (about 20 years after Peter Minuit bought Manhattan Island), Adriaen Van der Donck received grant of land from the Dutch East India Company which he called Colon Donck (“Donck’s Colony”), and built one of the first saw mills in the New World at the junction of the Hudson and Nepperhan Rivers. Van der Donck was referred to as Jonk Herr ("young Gentleman" or "young Nobleman") by reason of his status in Holland, and these words evolved through several changes to the Jonk Heer's land and The Younckers, The Yonkers and finally to the present Yonkers.

The "young heir" surely originated as a misinterpretation of the Dutch Jonkheer by later English-speakers. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Re Vandalism: There needs to be an IP block, quick

Somehow we need to block a certain range of IPs from editing and creating new accounts. Though this will probably block legit users as well, this is just too silly to allow. Greentubing 04:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Re "Yonkers" derivation?

Dutch is my native language. "Jonkheer" is indeed a rank of lower level nobility, pretty close to "squire". RB

Jonkheer is a predicate, not a title or rank. It is given to all members of the Dutch nobility, only the ones without title use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.180.36 (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

References

I believe that featured article criterion 1.(c) is not met, since there are several paragraphs without clear source reference. – Ilse@ 09:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article is largely unreferenced. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Adriaen van der Donck image and its caption

The image accompanying the Adriaen van der Donck article is a detail of a portrait that has been in the collection of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., since 1947. When it entered the collection it had the title "Adriaen van der Donck." However, this painting and the larger group of portraits of which it was a part were extensively researched and many were found not to portray the person identified in the title, or to have been painted by the artists assigned to them. The portrait illustrating the Adriaen van der Donck article was one of these, and since the 1960s the National Gallery of Art has called the painting simply "Portrait of a Man" painted by an anonymous French 17th century artist. See: http://www.nga.gov/fcgi-bin/tinfo_f?object=34147&detail=lit Use of the image to illustrate an article about Adriaen van der Donck perpetuates an error that was discovered over 40 years ago, and the image should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.232.55 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree that File:Adriaen van der Donck 2.jpg is incorrectly labeled as it is unlikely to be Adriaen van der Donck. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think if we take it off we should move some image up to the top, to draw readers in. What would be your choice of image? Laura Scudder | talk 20:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Did 75.198.232.55's information on this portrait prove to be false? I see that the photographic detail of Portrait of a Man as used in this article is still labeled "Presumed portrait of Adriaen van der Donck".

I looked at the painting's webpage at the National Gallery of Art. The Provenance section calls the painting "Adrian Van Der Donck by Jacobus Gerritsen Strycker" in its 1928 entry, but not later. The Exhibition History section does the same in two entries from the 1920s, but not in the 2009 entry. The Bibliography section likewise mentions "Adrian Van Der Donck by Jacobus Gerritsen Strycker" in the 1928 entry, but not later than that. Further, entries in this section bat the area of origin back and forth between America and Europe. The final 2009 entry is for "French Paintings of the Fifteenth through the Eighteenth Century".

Unfortunately, there's nothing here about the examination of this painting that resulted in a change of designation, origin, or subject.

• If the portrait was truly painted in France, was van der Donck known to have traveled there long enough to do the sittings? His focus on that trip to the Netherlands was to present the Remonstrance and gain the colony's freedom from Stuyvesant's company tyranny. The article does not mention France.

• Van der Donck was murdered in his 30s. I personally think that the portrait is of a man who was older than that. (Shorto wrote in 2004 that natives killed him and others in retaliation for Stuyvesant's attack on the Swedes.)

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)