Talk:Van Rensselaer family

JGVR (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

is the DuChateau family related to Alexander that’s my family and my grandma said that I was related 174.102.183.47 (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about link to deleted article

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Red_links Legitimate red links should not be resolved simply by delinking (by removing the brackets). If a red link is within the context of the article, and it is a topic with the potential to eventually be a neutral, verifiable and encyclopedic article, then the link should be kept.

JGVR (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I quote from WP:MOSDAB, "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics." The article in question (Philip P van Rensselaer) has been deleted for lack of notability, already. Kraxler (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

so I take it YOU and you alone are the final arbiter of this decision? If you never heard of them it aint worth writing about!?

I failed to find any link that says any editor - alone - is able to decide NOBODY will be interested in a topic so long as any single individual arbitrarily decides it is not EVEN neutral.... let alone notable. I did find though in that link I provided above that it is encouraged because it has been shown red links have contributed to the rapid expansion of wiki. JGVR (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Please correct the errant edit. .JGVR (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)updated above link to

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Red_links JGVR (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The page has been proposed for deletion by one user, and deletion has been endorsed by two other users, none of them being me. The page was deleted, end of story, no possible "expansion" here. Your link does not apply here, this is a disambiguation apge, and WP:MOSDAB (the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages) applies.

Stop being disruptive. If you start an edit-war about an absolutely uncontroversial issue, then it will be time to take it to the proper authorities. I asked you already several times to stop trolling. Kraxler (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Name calling and personal attacks are not an acceptable way to resolve this issue. Anyone can plainly see that the deletion was proposed, and as the creator I personally at that time had no information to add so i deleted the article (as I assume many experienced editors would be able to see) To take upon yourself to arbitrarily choose for all other users of wiki that THEY would certainly have no interest in creating the article is rather bold. I am merely encouraging you to repair your error since the above link AND this link Wikipedia:Red_link will clearly demonstrate my position, I do not want to feel baited into an edit war. I feel it is giving readers the dirty end of the stick and depriving a potential article being created via the encouraged red link. Meaningful contributions are always welcome. ...JGVR (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You can always add a blue link after the article has been re-created, and notability has been established. Besides, you say "so i deleted the article (as I assume many experienced editors would be able to see)" That's not true, the article was deleted by User:Tide rolls. Any experienced user can check taht out easily. I urge you to stop trolling. If you add the link again, or send me any more troll messages, I will take it back to the noticeboard, and we'll see what happens. Kraxler (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

you are wrong on two points

• this is not a disambiguation page as you can plainly compare the qualifications with the WP:CSC which clearly says this is a list of surnames and the entry that you erroneously deleted is not only red linked in other page it qualified because it also had a link to where more information could be gleaned by anyone interested in creating th article
• Deletion was suggested by someone else and page cleared by me.

Your correction of your error will be welcomed JGVR (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed {{WP:CSC}} to [[WP:CSC]] in your comment; the braces had the effect of transcluding the other page here. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggested solution

This does not seem to intended as either an anthroponymy article or a disambiguation page. It would be better to move this over the redirect to Van Rensselaer family, in common with similar articles here, e.g. Rockefeller family, Brontë family, etc. Moving it to that title and developing it along those lines would eliminate the style problems such as red-linking, etc. which are not suitable for disambiguation and "surname" articles. This was a very prominent family and there is plenty of good material available to develop the article (just one example). Another advantage of a "family" article , is that it allows the addition of information about some of the members who are probably not notable enough for stand-alone articles and/or lack sufficient reliable sources to ever be more than a very short stub. Voceditenore (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There really are no style problems as explained in the links describing this list of less than 100 as described in the manuel. the deleted red was also within the Guide... it had another link to familiarize a reader with the context. I didnt put the anthroponymy on but being a list of surnames i figured why not.... because that is exactly what it is a list of names. The problem is not where or style, it is a person. one is actually working on an article and another deletes information for absolutely no reason, other than spite. He had no clue that Tryon County militia was absorbed by Albany County when he deleted the tag connecting Tryon with an Albany militia cat tag. I just want the chasing on my heels to stop errors are one thing Im down for that, but just plain old deleting without thinking is another ... look at the history for Henry van Rensselaer you look at this page and say there shouldnt be a DAB for that name just like all the others that HAVE DAB pages (which this is not) JGVR (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ with you. An article about the family with with a list of its members can be appropriate. But if the article has this title, i.e. Van Rensselaer (surname), then the contents and formatting are inappropriate. Also, please familiarise yourself with the appropriate way to format your talk page comments, as well as the tone you should use. WP:TALK has guidance on this. Voceditenore (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

General style issues. Even if this article is moved to "Van Rensselaer family", there are still many style issues to be sorted out. The personal commentary and/or meta-commentary is inappropriate and unencyclopedic. Red-linked people with assertions made about them, e.g. "James Van Rensselaer founder of Rensselaer, Indiana", require an inline citation to a reliable source with full bibliographic information, including page number if using a printed source. The editor who has created this article and several new stubs relating to individual members of this family still has a lot to learn about formatting, appropriate encyclopedic style, the style and referencing requirements of Wikipedia, idiomatic English grammar and punctuation, article title conventions, and much more.

Creating poorly formatted and poorly referenced articles creates a lot of work for other editors, made much worse when every suggestion or improvement from more experienced editors is rejected (often in a very combative manner). I strongly suggest that this editor create any new articles first in their own userspace and not place them into article space until they are in some kind of shape to be there. This is a prime example of what I'm talking about. And this in response to a lack of references is completely inadequate. It would also be advisable for this editor to get a second opinion on their drafts from more experienced editors before moving them to article space. Voceditenore (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The page Van Rensselaer (surname) is, under the naming conventions, a disambiguation page, although it may have some info on the origin of the name in its intro, or even the mainspace. Usually such surname pages have a list of people with this surname, which follows the rules for dab pages. The disputed red link Philip P van Rensselaer goes to an article which was deleted because of lack of notability, and thus should be removed. JGVR's argument about red links is out of order, since the guideline he cites applies to articles to be created, not articles already deleted. Besides, I wonder why he claims to have deleted the page; the link says that the page was deleted by user Tide rolls.

The page Van Rensselaer family could/should contain info on the members of the family, their relationship, and the general history of the family, in prose, possibly with a family tree added, to compare see Livingston family. Kraxler (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw now that he has inserted it again, with this edit summary : "(Vandalism repaired and reported to - info-en-v@wikimedia.org)" Kraxler (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity: this page is not a disambiguation page, it is a surname page and MOS:APO applies here, although the rules are the same about notability. Van Rensselaer family is indeed the right place for information about a specific family. Redirecting Van Rensselaer family here won't help because this page is not (and cannot be) about any specific family. LittleWink (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Indiana figure — I can't remember where discussion came up about him, so I'll leave this note here. I've looked around for as many Jasper County histories as possible, and I've found the following results:

• A few sketches (click the links on the left side)
• A county history, which doesn't appear to mention the guy at all
• The Jasper County Interim Report (a historic preservation survey), where he appears on pages 37 and 46 (most hits are for buildings on Van Rensselaer Street, a downtown street)
• Pages 29-32 of the form used to nominate the courthouse square for National Register status as a historic district

All of these uniformly use "James Van Rensselaer" when they mention him, and I've made sure to search in ways that wouldn't exclude "Vanrensselear" or "van Rensselaer". Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lede to this article as the tone was very unencyclopedic personal commentary. I've referenced James Van Rensselaer. There is probably enough material for a stand-alone article and having given his name to a town, probably qualifies for notability. However, I have removed Philip P van Rensselaer. There is no evidence of notability. He was one of 11 children of Philip Kiliaen van Rensselaer and does not appear to have distinguished himself in any way. I can find no reliable sources to even construct a biography, let alone establish his notability. Voceditenore (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

disagree

I had an inline internal link to cite my change, May I see yours?? in the meantime i will revert to the factual version JGVR (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC):"In Dutch"?? where did you get this from? The name came in its entirety (but for about 3 generations)to colonize in America. In the 1550s there were no arrogant immigration officials changing peoples names to "Americanize" them. If there is anyond in the Netherlands with this name it is because they descended IN america and went back.... all this Belgian confusion you add into the mix does not help people LEARN about this name, confuzing people with Belgian and Flemish versions of OTHER names is certainly of NO help. JGVR (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Again will clarify the facts for the benefit of the reader whilst keeping the links to a minimum as you rightly suggested. JGVR (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

JGVR is referring to this edit. In future please make it clear what you are discussing here. In answer to your question, the internal link is on the word van. All you had to do was click it and it takes you Van (Dutch). There is no need to link again, in the next sentence. Incidentally, that article also states quite clearly that in Anglicised versions of Dutch names the "v" is always capitalised, which you preemptorily removed. That article also points out that the "van" is sometimes concatenated to the following name (as in Vanrensselaer). You also removed that. You cannot simply delete the aspects of Van (Dutch) that you don't like and then claim it is a "citation" for your point of view. The "Van" is invariably capitalised in the names of the American Van Rensselaer's, as can be seen in multiple sources, including the name which appears beneath the image of the Van Rensselaer family crest which you added to the article. The reader needs to know that because they are being refered to English sources in these articles where the "v" is capitalised. Your writing is very confusing to the reader and is not in idiomatic English. The priority here should be to present accurate information, clearly expressed, not to further your own agenda. Incidentally, the reference which I added to the image caption is a rich source of information about the origin of the name, its variants, and the meaning of the crest. It also contains much biographical information about the various family members. The entire book is online. Voceditenore (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw no need to promote one person over any other it is obvious enough who the signature belongs to. That surname has not needed to be anglicized for hundreds of years what it the importance of it starting now? ..JGVR (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC) JGVR (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Once again, please make it clear what you are talking about. JCVR's comment refers to the image caption. See below. Voceditenore (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Image caption removal

JCVR, will you please explain why you removed the image caption and the associated reference? I have reverted you until you explain how removing it was an improvement to the article. Also, please do not make changes to an article without leaving an edit summary. Voceditenore (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you honestly think a reasonable person could not figure out to whom the signature belongs.... even if they might have to resort to refering to the short list below to get the EXACT SAME LINK??

....JGVR (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

JCVR, your "reason" above makes no sense at all. It does not "promote" any individual over another. It explains to the reader what the writing beneath the crest refers to, and no, the reader should not have to figure it out. It is the convention here to re-link in image captions. Also, can you please explain what you are trying to convey by "The "v" is written in lower case except as standalone." It is incomprehensible. Voceditenore (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I give up

JCVR once again removed the image caption and the reference. The reference is however valuable for referencing and expanding the entire article. I re-added as an inline citation in the text. He's removed it from there as well [1] with the edit summary: "he has gobs of links in his article they will see it when you add it to his article" which is frankly absurd. This article currently lacks a single reference for the text portion. The referenced book isn't simply about a single member of the family. It is about the entire family with valuable information on the origin of the name and the early history of the family. No doubt, JCVR will continue to edit war to remove it. Thus, I am giving up on any further attempts to improve this article. He has made it quite clear that he has no understanding of collegiate editing, no understanding of Wikipedia's requirements in terms of style, content, and referencing, and no intention to let anyone touch "his" article. So be it. It will remain a confusing, badly written, uninformative and unreferenced mess, and will almost certainly become even more so. Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

which is it you giving up? then why the warning on the edit?? JGVR (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The warning on the edit was my last warning. I have no intention whatsoever of editing this article again. Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

that may be what is best so unless I lost count since my first edit of the image you changed it 3 times just for the record JGVR (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did not re-add the image caption three times. I re-added it once. What I did the last two times was add a reference to the body of the text. In any case, it's now a moot point. Voceditenore (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Useful source and reference

• Van Rensselaer, Maunsell (1888). Annals of the Van Rensselaers in the United States, especially as they relate to the family of Killian K. Van Rensselaer. C. Van Benthuysen & Sons, p. 215

For any future editors wishing to expand the article I'm posting this reference here, as it has been continually removed from the article ([2], [3], [4]) on the very mistaken grounds that Wikipedia articles do not require references for the assertions made in them. The entire book is available online. The first chapter, "Early Family History, and the Settlement of the Colonie", has much useful information on the origins and variants of the name and on the original migration of the Van Rensselaers from the Netherlands to what is now New York. Voceditenore (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A paraphrase of what I did say:

• There is little need to keep adding so much emphasis on one particular individual (as the title says it focused exclusively on a particular LINE in the family name)
• It is obvious by the very impressively clear handwriting... who wrote/drew the picture.
• If those references are (in your accurate opinion) important for readers to see... then you should see to it they are integrated into the INDIVIDUAL'S article.

....JGVR (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You have obviously not read what I just said, and you have obviously not read the source either and are completely ignorant of its contents. I was not talking about a caption for the crest. So please drop that stick. I'm talking about using the book as an inline citation in the text of the article for the assertions about the family's migration to America and for potentially expanding the article. You even removed that (3 times, reverting 2 different editors), leaving the entire text of the article without a single inline citation.

Once again, the book is not entirely about one person, despite its title. The first chapter has information about the name itself, its origins, and its variants which is highly pertinent to this article which is supposedly an anthroponymy article. That information belongs in this general article, not an article of one of the family members. How on earth you can claim that using the book (which you haven't even read) as a footnoted reference for a pertinent fact in the text (not in a caption) calls too much attention to one member is beyond me. It also has information on many other family members which you would find useful for the other articles you have created which, like this one, are very poorly referenced, incomplete, and not well written. But since you are determined to keep them that way, so be it.

I have also removed the which you added to my comment above. Do not refactor other editors' comments like that. I have already pointed you once to WP:TALK which has the guidelines for how to participate on article talk pages. Please read it. Voceditenore (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned by edit warring, which was warned about earlier this week by Kraxler, and by JGVR's refusal to listen VdT's patient and well-reasoned explanations, so I have raised JGRV's behaviour here and am about to notify JGVR of this on his talk page almost-instinct 09:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've stayed away from this for two days, just to see what happens. But I'm prepared to test whether it is possible to add a reference to an article or not. Kraxler (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion I refer to above was archived here almost-instinct 21:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference for capitalization of "Van" in anglicized names

• U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual, Chapter 3 - Capitalization Rules (Section 3.14)

Voceditenore (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Signature of Lt. Gov. Stephen Van Rensselaer

The "Stephen van Rensselaer" mentioned in Rule 3.13 may be Stephen van Rensselaer I or Stephen van Rensselaer II, as they lived in colonial times, and spoke Dutch, however it's necessary to ascertain this before making any definite statement; Lt. Gov. Stephen Van Rensselaer (also referred to as "Stephen Van Rensselaer III") used during his lifetime capitalized Van, see his signature. Also, the congressional bios, and the New York civil lists always use capitalized "Van".

The U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual states Chapter 3 - Capitalization Rules; Rule 3.14: "In anglicized names such particles are usually capitalized...but individual usage...should be followed." That's exactly the point. If the sources say "van," we write "van"; if the sources say "Van", we write "Van". Anything else would be WP:Original research.

Tha article now states "The use of a lower case "v" is explained here. The part "is explained here" is piped to a Wikipedia page which states: "Anglicised versions of Dutch names (e.g. Dick Van Dyke, George Vancouver, Martin Van Buren) ... it is always capitalised. which contradicts the statement.

The article also states "van is a Dutch preposition meaning from..." writing "van" with a lower case "v" at the beginning of a sentence, contradicting the editors previous statement here. Kraxler (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody objected, I have corrected the statements in the articles. I suggest to discuss here, before reverting any of these parts. Feel free to add other info. Kraxler (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Meaning

The most important question about what is in a name, what it means, is not answered in the article. Where is Rensselaer? Which modern town/area is it nowadays? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:1A05:21A1:1F4:E0CF:4C77:A2C6 (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Jewish?

Were they jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.22.80 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Family tree

BeenAroundAWhile, I fully acknowledge that Wikipedia is not a genealogical site and that some of the people included in the tree are not notable. However, I believe that there is intrinsic value and encyclopedic worth to including family trees in Wikipedia, especially in this case considering this family's undisputed prominence and long history of marriage with other prominent families, all of which can be easily demonstrated with a family tree that provides links and helps to avoid confusion as many of the family members do have similar names (which can be very confusing to a casual reader). Unfortunately, I am most disappointed that you simply deleted the entire "family tree" without any discussion in the article talk page. Additionally, you failed to include the notable people (many of whom have Wikipedia pages themselves) separately in the article after you deleted them from the family tree. If you have edits you would like to make that improve or better align the article with Wiki guidelines, I encourage such edits. I must respectfully disagree with your determination of the family tree worth and your approach of removing such large parts of an article as was done. Thus, I have reinserted the family tree, although this time in a hidden chart with sources, similar to what can be seen in other notable families as an act of compromise. I encourage you to made edits to the tree directly as opposed to removing it completely. DACC23 (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)