User talk:P.M. Kernkamp
Thank you for expanding this article. Could you please provided detailed references for your information. According to WP:RS and WP:ATT, unreferenced information can be removed from wikipedia at any time. thanks --Merbabu 15:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- i was under the impression that I DID provide reference by stating my sources under "references". I have now added the exact recors numbers. Will that do it? P.M. Kernkamp 10:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, i must have missed that. But thanks for the additional detail. I always think that inline citations are better as most articles will be rework many times over, and with just general references, eventually we lose track of what part came from what reference. But nice to see people like you providing good new info. It's a very interesting topic. I've been to Ambon and also read the book Nathaniels Nutmeg. Kind regards Merbabu 10:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for taking an interest! I got involved, so to speak, in the Amboyna Massacre very recently when I found out that one of my ancestors acted as a judge in the affair... He is the one that came back in Holland in 1625 and had to remain under house arrest until the final verdict in 1631! P.M. Kernkamp 18:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, i must have missed that. But thanks for the additional detail. I always think that inline citations are better as most articles will be rework many times over, and with just general references, eventually we lose track of what part came from what reference. But nice to see people like you providing good new info. It's a very interesting topic. I've been to Ambon and also read the book Nathaniels Nutmeg. Kind regards Merbabu 10:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- i was under the impression that I DID provide reference by stating my sources under "references". I have now added the exact recors numbers. Will that do it? P.M. Kernkamp 10:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok!, I'll do your petition. And thank you for expanding this Art. Thanks Rosarinagazo (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Pieter Cornelisz Kunst
[edit]Thanks for your addition to the article Pieter Cornelisz Kunst with the comment "rewrite; removed references to Van Mander, added reference to Bangs". I have restored the references to Karel van Mander and the RKD that you dropped. Please be aware that non-English references are also perfectly reliable sources on the English Wikipedia, especially when these are original sources (such as Van Mander). Jane (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Karel van Mander is incomplete and inaccurate, therefore definitely not reliable. Maybe historically interesting, but that is it. Quoting Van Mander as "the last word" on Kunst is useless because outdated. Bang´s research is far more extensive and reliable.P.M. Kernkamp (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Though Karel van Mander may be incomplete and inaccurate, this is not the case for the RKD database. Also, the data I added from these two references are not different from your source at all. In fact, the data you added was only to do with his marriage and you didn't change the other information, which came from my two sources. As to reliability, the RKD data is more up to date than Bangs, as Bangs book is much older than a live database. The RKD is used as a source for the Getty databases. Please do not revert edits if you want to discuss this, but discuss this first please. The fact that Kunst is mentioned in van Mander is historically important and of value to Wikipedia. I disagree with you wholeheartedly on this. Jane (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- That may be, but the fact that Van Mander wrote something is NOT a proof of anything, except that he wrote it. Bangs has proved through his archival research that Kunst had painting brothers, and thus there is more proof than whatever Van Mander, who has been proven as not entirely reliable, wrote. Of course you can say that Van Mander mentions Kunst, I do not dispute that, but by saying that he mentioned Kunst had these two brothers, you suggest that either you deem him the definite word, or you did not do any serious research yourself. Or, on the other hand, it can also make it appear as if you doubt Van Mander, as in: "Van Mander says ...., but ...". So the problem I basically have, is the way you wrote the lemma. Dubious wordings, and not the latest available knowledge (which is a MAJOR flaw when writing a lemma!).P.M. Kernkamp (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. Actual the quote was simply that he was one of three sons of Engelbrechtsz, which is completely correct and I still see nothing wrong with it, as it is historically correct and an original source. You did not answer my question about the RKD as source. Why did you delete that reference? Jane (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- De verwijzing naar Van Mander dient m.i. dus geen enkel ander doel dan te stellen dat Van Mander het (ook) schreef. Maar als je zegt "According to Karel van Mander" en niet verwijst naar daadwerkelijk archiefonderzoek waardoor datgene wat Van Mander beweerde wordt bewezen, dan onthoud je de lezer belangrijke gegevens. Volgens mij moet de verwijzing naar het schilderboek dus uit de tekst, en kan de verwijzing naar Van Mander gewoon bij de ´links´ onderaan de pagina. Inderdaad, Van Mander had hier gelijk en dus is het historically correct, maar het blote feit dat Van Mander het zegt, is geen bewijs. Het is niet meer dan een original source, die door nader onderzoek moet worden gecontroleerd/aangevuld. P.M. Kernkamp (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your reply. I patiently wait your response about the RKD reference. Thx Jane (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, forgot about that! I have no idea, really. I think I did that inadvertently. I made a dutch version of this, and in that I DID add a reference to the RKD... Sorry about that. My bad! So, how about I add the references to Van Mander and RKD to the list of references (´links´)? P.M. Kernkamp (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- De verwijzing naar Van Mander dient m.i. dus geen enkel ander doel dan te stellen dat Van Mander het (ook) schreef. Maar als je zegt "According to Karel van Mander" en niet verwijst naar daadwerkelijk archiefonderzoek waardoor datgene wat Van Mander beweerde wordt bewezen, dan onthoud je de lezer belangrijke gegevens. Volgens mij moet de verwijzing naar het schilderboek dus uit de tekst, en kan de verwijzing naar Van Mander gewoon bij de ´links´ onderaan de pagina. Inderdaad, Van Mander had hier gelijk en dus is het historically correct, maar het blote feit dat Van Mander het zegt, is geen bewijs. Het is niet meer dan een original source, die door nader onderzoek moet worden gecontroleerd/aangevuld. P.M. Kernkamp (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. Actual the quote was simply that he was one of three sons of Engelbrechtsz, which is completely correct and I still see nothing wrong with it, as it is historically correct and an original source. You did not answer my question about the RKD as source. Why did you delete that reference? Jane (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- That may be, but the fact that Van Mander wrote something is NOT a proof of anything, except that he wrote it. Bangs has proved through his archival research that Kunst had painting brothers, and thus there is more proof than whatever Van Mander, who has been proven as not entirely reliable, wrote. Of course you can say that Van Mander mentions Kunst, I do not dispute that, but by saying that he mentioned Kunst had these two brothers, you suggest that either you deem him the definite word, or you did not do any serious research yourself. Or, on the other hand, it can also make it appear as if you doubt Van Mander, as in: "Van Mander says ...., but ...". So the problem I basically have, is the way you wrote the lemma. Dubious wordings, and not the latest available knowledge (which is a MAJOR flaw when writing a lemma!).P.M. Kernkamp (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Though Karel van Mander may be incomplete and inaccurate, this is not the case for the RKD database. Also, the data I added from these two references are not different from your source at all. In fact, the data you added was only to do with his marriage and you didn't change the other information, which came from my two sources. As to reliability, the RKD data is more up to date than Bangs, as Bangs book is much older than a live database. The RKD is used as a source for the Getty databases. Please do not revert edits if you want to discuss this, but discuss this first please. The fact that Kunst is mentioned in van Mander is historically important and of value to Wikipedia. I disagree with you wholeheartedly on this. Jane (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Karel van Mander is incomplete and inaccurate, therefore definitely not reliable. Maybe historically interesting, but that is it. Quoting Van Mander as "the last word" on Kunst is useless because outdated. Bang´s research is far more extensive and reliable.P.M. Kernkamp (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
That would be fine, but please add the references in-line, as is the custom with biographical articles on the English wiki. I already tried to re-establish this, and added your reference in-line, but you clearly prefer another wording, which you are welcome to change if you insist. I must insist however, that both the van Mander and the RKD references are included. Thx. Jane (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Hi, I am glad to see I changed your mind about the Mander & RKD references. The next step is to put those references in line, since as you pointed out, Karel van Mander is not complete and neither he nor the RKD mention the marriage. If Bangs agrees with all three statements, you can leave that as a general reference, but the other two need to go back in line. Thx. Jane (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, your silence regarding the comments above indicate 1) you are on vacation and unable to respond, or 2) you feel that no response is necessary. I just wanted to confirm you won't revert my edits again if I put the references back in line. I have done many of these painter biographies (more stubs than biographies, but they at least serve as placeholders for information on these people), and I use original sources whenever I can. The advantage of doing this is cutting out the intermediate changes of interpretation in intervening centuries of documentation, as well as restoring a period vision of the world of painting of the 17th and 18th centuries. I am still somewhat confused about your opinion on Karel van Mander as a valid source for Wikipedia. If you feel he should not be listed as a source for artist biography pages in general, I am curious why you feel this way, since as I said in the beginning, I see him as a valuable source simply because he *is* the original source. Quoting his comments on painters' lives, whether he is correct or incorrect, is of historic interest and of added value to Wikipedia, in my opinion. When he is correct, he should be listed as the original source, and when he is incorrect, stating this simply along with the first indication otherwise is just as valuable as when he is correct. Jane (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- An Encyclopedic item should be based on the latest and most extensive research with the most verifiable data. The extensive research by Bangs supersedes the partly hearsay information by Van Mander. Of course Van Mander's schilderboek is an interesting source, but definitely not the latest or most reliable. Therefore I move that he be mentioned under References, but not as a footnote referring to the source of the information given in the lemma itself. All that information is given and proven in Bangs's book.P.M. Kernkamp (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Of course I agree that wherever possible, the "latest and most extensive research" should be used. This is why I always try to include a link to the RKD for Dutch and Flemish painters, since that database is the most up-to-date. Though Bangs may have done serious work on this painter, he wasn't mentioned under the literature heading in this RKD entry, or in that of his brothers (!). I checked Miedema and he does list him as the definitive source, though he quotes the other book: J.D. Bangs, Cornelis Engebrechtsz.'s Leiden, Assen 1979. It is this book which is also listed under the literature in the RKD entry for Cornelis Engelbrechtsz here. I will send a mail to the RKD about this. Meanwhile, I still feel that I need to do something about the Mander references, and I am considering a separate template along the lines of Template:Bryan, which is used on his brother Lucas' page. Jane (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply too. You might have a point there about the different publications by Bangs. I will of course check the copy of Bangs's book that I have at home (writing from the office right now) and get back to you on this.
- I have on occasion sent information to the RKD on various artists that lacked on their website. They fully admit that their database is not perfect and appreciate every (verifiable) additional information. P.M. Kernkamp (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Of course I agree that wherever possible, the "latest and most extensive research" should be used. This is why I always try to include a link to the RKD for Dutch and Flemish painters, since that database is the most up-to-date. Though Bangs may have done serious work on this painter, he wasn't mentioned under the literature heading in this RKD entry, or in that of his brothers (!). I checked Miedema and he does list him as the definitive source, though he quotes the other book: J.D. Bangs, Cornelis Engebrechtsz.'s Leiden, Assen 1979. It is this book which is also listed under the literature in the RKD entry for Cornelis Engelbrechtsz here. I will send a mail to the RKD about this. Meanwhile, I still feel that I need to do something about the Mander references, and I am considering a separate template along the lines of Template:Bryan, which is used on his brother Lucas' page. Jane (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- An Encyclopedic item should be based on the latest and most extensive research with the most verifiable data. The extensive research by Bangs supersedes the partly hearsay information by Van Mander. Of course Van Mander's schilderboek is an interesting source, but definitely not the latest or most reliable. Therefore I move that he be mentioned under References, but not as a footnote referring to the source of the information given in the lemma itself. All that information is given and proven in Bangs's book.P.M. Kernkamp (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
And you were right: I mentioned the wrong publication by Bangs. So sorry about that! I stand corrected and do apologize for all the confusion!P.M. Kernkamp (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi again, and thanks for your comments. I just dropped by to let you know I had an answer from the RKD to my mail enquiry and they updated all four records based on my mail (The Bangs ref is now in all of the sons' records, and it was removed from the Engelbrechtsz record because it was already listed under the library links for him). I just checked the RKD refs and you can see those changes, along with the links leraar-leerling for the father-son relationships (which were also missing). Happy editting! Jane (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)