Jump to content

Talk:Peter Stuyvesant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Stuyvesant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion about Peter Stuyvesant's birth date

[edit]

In the information panel on the right it currently says that Stuyvesant was born in 1592, but this is not true. It is actually somewhat difficult to find out when he was born, but it is most likely 1610, 1611 or 1612. See also the Dutch version of this Wikipedia entry.

Note that there seems to be quite some confusion on his birth year. The Britanica for instance incorrectly assumes that he was born in 1592 in Scherpenzeel(https://www.britannica.com/biography/Peter-Stuyvesant) but most Dutch sources maintain that he was born between 1610-1612 in Peperga.

Note also that a birthdate around 1611 is in accordance with the part about Stuyvesant's personal life. In the first paragraph it says, for instance, that he assumed command of Curacao in 1638 at barely 30years of age.

You are right the new netherland institute puts his birth at 1610, they would be the preeminent source [1] Quandoomni (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you do not get to decide on your own what is the "pre-eminent source". If you want to discuss the issue of changing the DOB in the article, do it here and see what the consensus is among the editors who work on this article. At the moment, we have two good sources supporting the year in the article, if you think that your source is superior, then make your case for it here, but do not change the article again until you have a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, this is not "confusion", this is the study of history, which is often not nearly as straightforward as TV programs make it appear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i thought the editor made a good case, i then checked with the new netherland institute which is the preeminent authority, do you have some reason to doubt them? Quandoomni (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, we need some proof that the are the "pre-eminent authority". Also, see WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We do not do the kind of stuff you outlined above, it's called "original research", and it's not allowed. See WP:OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you are making the obvious point that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Quandoomni is pointing to the New Netherland Institute, which is not Wikipedia. Also the search for external references to support information in Wikipedia is not "original research", quite to the contrary; that term refers to publishing in WP purported research by the WP editor him/herself, which is definitely not the case here. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because in this edit Quandoomni added a reference to our New Netherlands article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being new to the subject, I just did some looking up of external information. First note that the Dutch article mentions the existence of an erroneous information, circulated at some early time, saying that Stuyvesant was born in 1592 or 1602 in Scherpenzeel, unfortunately without specifying the exact nature and date of this information (but it is mentioned that the information cannot be right, as his father only moved to Scherpenzeel after 1612). If true, this can explain why otherwise reliable sources get the wrong date of birth of 1592 (apart from already referred sources, the Dutch WP article also provides an image of the Stuyvesant statue at St. Mark's church NYC, giving his age at death in 1672 as 80 years, which would be based on the same information). However recent historical research appears to have put the date of birth without doubt at 1611/12, and in any case not at 1592. For one point, although Pieters mother, born in 1575 (derived from the age of 50 recorded at her death in 1625) would have had the necessary age (17) to give birth in 1592, his father Balthasar Joannis (Stuyvesant) born around 1587 (derived from his inscription at the university of Franeker in 1605, probably at age around 18) would definitely have been too young. In fact his mother Margaretha Hardenstein was a widow of Petrus Monches when she married Balthasar in 1607, coherently with their age difference and in contradiction with the DOB 1592 for Pieter. (These detailed informations are from the "friesgenootschap.nl" article by Goffe Jensma, linked from the Duthc WP article, which goes on to argue for a DOB 1611/12, derived from an inscription of Pieter at Franeker univerity in 1630.) Apart from this research, I can also point to books by the historian Jaap Jacobs, who gives the date 1611/12 both in New Netherland (2005) p 63, and in "Petrus Stuyvesant: een levensschets" (2010). The first of these gives in a footnote the publication "Pieter Stuyvesant: Waar en waanneer werd hij geboren?" (Pieter Stuyvesant: where and when was he born?) indicating that this question has been subject of explicit study, strongly indicating that there were conflicting informations about it. Although I have no access to the detailed texts referred to here, I find it hard to believe that the biographer Jaap Jacobs would not have done the required effort to determine the date of birth of Pieter Stuyvesant with as much accuracy as possible. In short, I think one can dismiss the 1592 claim, even if given in otherwise reliable sources, as plainly wrong. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources Marc, birthdates seems to be all over the place, perhaps we provide and estimated range? Quandoomni (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source is that Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which makes it "user-generated content", and we do not accept user-generated content. That goes for the Dutch Wikipedia as much as it does for the English Wikipedia. So the information you are discussing above, which you seem have to have drawn from Dutch Wikipedia, is not reliably sourced. If the information in the Dutch Wikipedia (or any other language Wikipedia) is itself reliable source, then that source can be used, but only if you have access to it and can use the information directly from the source, and not the gloss of it presented in the Wikipedia article. So, in that Marc van Leeuwen did not actually provide any usable sources, and his analysis of the various dates and their relationship falls afoul of WP:Original research, as I mentioned above.
The question of Stuyvesant's date of birth is not one that's likely to be put to rest by any one source, since difference sources, all equally reliable, cite different dates. The New Netherland Institute is simply another one of those sources, and (although ('ve asked for it at least twice) no evidence had been provided that they are the ultimate authority which should override all the other sources. Certainly, it is allowable for a range of dates or possible dates to be included, but --as of yet -- nothing has been provided which calls for the date currenlt in the article to be changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a footnote to the article which says:
According to the New Netherland Institute,

Peter, or Petrus, Stuyvesant was, according to some sources, born in Scherpenzeel, a town near the provincial border of Gelderland and Utrecht, and not far from the bustling city of Amsterdam in 1610. Other sources claim his birthplace is identified as Peperga in Friesland, and that claim may be correct because he apparently had attended the University of Franeker, located in Northern Friesland.

See Staff (ndg) "Peter Stuyvesant" New Netherland Institute
Incidentally, the New Netherlands Institute is a 501(c)(3) charitable educational organization, and is far from the last work on this subject. It appears to have been created to promote and research the Dutch heritage of New York, and not as a purely academic orgainzation. (See "About") It can certainly have a voice in the discussion, but it's not in any way the final arbiter. The footnote is all that's needed to acknowledge the debate over Stuyvesant's DOB. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: The information I gave was not taken from the Dutch WP, but from the sources cited in the Dutch article. Notably there is an archived link to this article by Goffe Jensma and I referred two two publications by the historian and Stuyvesant biographer Jaap Jacobs (of which I admittedly did not obtain a paper copy, but for which the citations available on the Web, notably from Google Books that I linked to, make it sufficiently clear that they affirm a birth date 1611/1612). I also provided detailed information, from these sources, to show where the claim for that date stems from, and more convincingly why the date of 1592 is squarely inconsistent with archived facts, such as the date of marriage of Pieter's parents. Please refrain from assuming people take their information from WP if you don't even take the time to read carefully what they write. I was not doing WP:OR, but just tracing the given references, and looking for new ones, which IMHO is precisely what WP editors should do. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do not decide which date is or isn't correct, we present what the reliable sources say. If you don'y know the reliability of the sources you're referring to, we're nowhere. In addition, no academic can "affirm" anything, they can only "claim" on the basis of their research. You seem to have a dog in this race, I do not.
Please list the exact sources from Dutch Wikipedia, with page numbers etc, plus any sources there which present contrary information. I know the reliability of the sources in the article now, the reliability of yours need to be examined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, the rules at Dutch Wikipedia are different. I just looked at the article there, and this paragraph (mechanically translated):

Confusion about name and place of birth

There is previously false information that Stuyvesant was born in Scherpenzeel in 1592 or 1602 . However, his father ( Balthazar Stuyvesant ) only became a minister in Scherpenzeel between 1612 and 1619 and was previously in Peperga , so this must be the birthplace of Pieter. His mother was Margaret of Hardenstein (1575-1625). Her gravestone is located in the dome church of Berlikum , where Pieter's father was a minister from 1622-1634. Pieter therefore moved to Scherpenzeel between 1612 and 1619 and lived there until 1622. In his early youth, Stuyvesant used the first name Pieter, but later he latinized it to Peter. In theIn the 19th century this was Americanized by American historians to Peter, a form that was never used in the 17th century.

is, as far as I can tell, entirely unsourced, with only internal Wikilinks. This would never be allowed here, and makes it entirely useless for our purposesl for English Wikipedia, it's all WP:Original research. I suggest that this discussion be halted until some proper sourcing can be provided for the claims being made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

based on the multiple dates, although 1610 is the most realistic, maybe we should provide a range? Quandoomni (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be your opinion that 1610 is "the most realistic", but there is no consensus among subject experts that that is the case. We have effectively provided a range by citing a date, with references, and then footnoting it with other possible dates. I would suggest that this would be a good time to WP:DROP THE STICK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No range is provided in the primary text of the article we will have to change that, we cannot say there is no consensus and then make one date the preference, we will have to address this discrepancy in the article. Quandoomni (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can y'all at least clean up the mess? 'guidelines' are no excuse to leave the article in this inconsistent state. c.1592-1610 in the first sentence, c.1592 in the table, 1610 under Early life, the age of 20 based on 1610 under Career and aged 50 based on 1592. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V U I O A (talk • contribs) 12:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Mention in Charles Bukowski's "Women"

[edit]

I came to this article to read about Stuyvesant's antisemitism. While I was here, I reviewed the the IPC section. This is the passage of "Women" in which Stuyvesant is mentioned:

Marshall walked me around and showed me the inscriptions. I always got nervous before a reading, very tense and unhappy. I almost always vomited. Then I did. I vomited on one of the graves.
"You just vomited on Peter Stuyvesant," Marshall said.
I walked back into the dressing room.

That's it, one occurrence of his name. He never comes up again. I can't find any secondary source that draws any conclusion about the book or about Stuyvesant from that passage. Anyone who insists on including the example has an obligation, under a relevant RFC, of finding such a source. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the concept of symbolism? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of the question. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A 2015 RFC, motivated by a dispute with Beyond My Ken at that time, concluded that pop culture examples should be supported with at least a secondary source. My recent interactions with BMK suggest that he is determined simply to ignore the editor consensus that that RFC represents. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. My recent interactions with you indicate to me that you are a blocked or banned user editing with an IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the conclusion of that RfC violated WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:Primary sources, so it is null and void. A fact has been sourced, so it is verifiable and appropriate for inclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's very novel. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, Women is a novel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]
  • The "IP" requested a WP:Third opinion. I did not join in that request, and I object to it. The grounds are in a comment I left there that was reverted (apparently one is not supposed to comment there, even if the comment is about the request itself, which seems rather odd). In any case, here is the comment:

    There is no need for a third opinion. The "IP" is removing sourced material without a consensus to do so, a clear cut violation of policy. Since a third opinion is neither mandatory nor binding, it cannot create a consensus, only discussion by editors on the talk page can do that. Third opinions are only useful when both parties agree to ask for it, not as a unilateral request from a single party. Therefore, this request is essentially an attempt to circumvent the WP:CONSENSUS process. The IP has already canvassed another editor at [2] concerning a dispute at another article, and this is simply an extension of that WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

    I stand by those remarks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1995 Mention in Notorious BIG track - Unbelievable

[edit]

This most certainly is a reference to Stuyvesant in popular culture. To deny Stuyvesant his name assigned to the neighborhood of Bedford-Stuyvesant is to deny his very existence. The Ready to Die album, per wikipedia, was certified 6x platinum, certainly this qualifies for popular culture. The wikipedia page for the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood states that the neighborhood is named after Peter Stuyvesant. Let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be, this is a mention of Stuyvesant in popular culture from 1995, allow Stuyvesant his due respect in the Popular Culture mention, or you might as well deny all of them, or perhaps start a petition to change the name of the neighborhood to Bedford-Washington.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Stuyvesant&oldid=1207974307"