Talk:Stephen Van Rensselaer

Update coming

Just to note that I am working on a rewrite of this article. The workspace can be found here. If there is a large addition you'd like to make, please make it known here so I can include it in the rewrite (or go ahead and do it yourself in the workspace). Thanks. upstateNYer 23:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Name of this article

(Discussion copied from UpstateNYer's userpage by Kraxler, discussion should be continued here.)

User Rjanag has moved the article to a spelling with a lower case "van" from the original capitalized "Van," which is general American usage. He called it "proper capitalization." Could you give me your opinion on this? All sources I have ever seen state "Van." Kraxler (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I just got a message from User:Rjanag, that he moved the article without knowing anything about it... Could you please move it back to "Stephen Van Rensselaer III", I understood that you are an admin, and maybe have the tool, I don't. Kraxler (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interject, but in my opinion the lowercase 'v' is the correct standard for van Rensselaer, especially in Dutch. I defer to Upstate should he show that Stephen himself preferred a capital 'v'.Camelbinky (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't yet gotten to it completely, but I have a rewrite of the article going. I planned on moving it to "van" once I got to work on it. While most sources from the time use "Van", I am on the side that the name should remain consistent throughout the family (from Kiliaen van Rensselaer to the most recent one). So yea, I agree with the move and what Camelbinky says above. upstateNYer_{formerly wadester16} 01:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, buy your personal opinion is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia. It based on sources. Give me a source that any of these persons used a lower case v, and it would be fine with me. But there are none. These people are Americans, not Dutch. Except the first man who emigrated from Holland. By the way, personal names are not bound by orthographic rules, the notion that a name should be corrected in an encyclopedia to conform to whatever rules is absurd. You see, there are people named "Smith", "Smyth", "Smythe" and maybe "Smithh"... You cannot just move all these to "Smith" because this is the "correct spelling." Personal names must be spelled either as used by the person, or used by the sources. see WP:Manual of Style#Proper names: "A readily accessible and authoritative source for the accepted name of a person who has written books, or who has been written about, is the U. S. Library of Congress Authorities database, which provides the accepted name and variant names used by the British Library, the National Library of Canada, and other English language libraries." Besides most of the Van Rensselaers have sat in Congress and the names listed in the Congress files are the accepted spelling variant, like John Laurance, many times quoted as John Lawrence. See here for example for Solomon Van Rensselaer. Please move the articles back to capitalized "Van." Kraxler (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As to "consistency within the family," John Cochran (military physician) was the grandfather of John Cochrane (general). You see name change over the times. Please respect these people by calling them by their correct name. Kraxler (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, calm down; yelling at me doesn't really get you far. Second, if we went by all reliable sources, there would be no one correct spelling of these names, and I don't mean over generations, I mean for one person. This is a reliable source, but misspells the name Rensselaer; this is a reliable (and primary) source, but spells Krol's name wrong. With respect to "van Rensselaer", I'll speak to Kiliaen, since I haven't done much research on Stephen yet. The capitalization of the "van" is not explicitly noted anywhere that I've yet seen (and I've been doing a lot of research) as being either capitalized or not. Kiliaen van Rensselaer's own signature seems to indicate a lower-case spelling of "van", while Stephen's is unfortunately a bit neutral. Just because sources use the capital V doesn't mean it's correct. No source so far that I've seen actually acknowledges the V, though. This primary source uses a lowercase v when speaking of Kiliaen. I think there may have been (and yes, this is OR on my part) mixups over the hundreds of years. When starting a sentence with "van Rensselaer", the "v" must be capitalized. When recording names in an index, the "v" must be capitalized. I personally think that future writers assumed that because of these (mainly indexes), that the "v" is supposed to be capitalized. On the other hand, some people put the "Van Rensselaers" under the Rs, like this (note that they all have lowercase vans); this previously listed source (which is the best source on the early van Rensselaers in existence), it uses a lowercase v throughout the entire writing; I base my research off of this because it is a compilation of primary sources and is the best source out there. When I get to Stephen I will be sure to be careful in how I name him, based on the sources I use (I typically try to stick with primary sources when available; these are the most trustworthy). Unfortunately, I personally think there is no true "answer" to this question, and would like to err on the side of Dutch grammar, which has used van as a lowercase for more than 400 years now. upstateNYer_{formerly wadester16} 17:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A very thorough and insightful answer, as always, Upstate. I agree with everything. Outside of Wikipedia there has been a similar debate amongst Jews (in particular Israelis) regarding proper capitalization of the "ben" in last names, as in ben Gurion; ben takes the same meaning as van in Dutch I would assume. As I understand it the proper form is lower-case, obviously this probably has no bearing on the van, but since I do believe van serves the same purpose as ben (which means "son of") it may. In an English translation one would not write x Son of y, but instead would right x son of y.Camelbinky (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually van means "of" just like "de" in spanish or portuguese (think Ponce de Leon). The name comes from an area of the Netherlands, something called the Rensle, I believe. I know I've read that somewhere, but I've been unable to find it again. upstateNYer 23:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I never knew that! It may be interesting to get some more information on what or where Rensle is or refers to. My own ancestor was of the name Guarin (or Warin/Warren in English) de la Strode and de and la were never capitalized even in books written in the United States; perhaps that's a better analogy for "van", I've never seen "de" capitalized in American English. It makes me wonder what the "ten" in "ten eyck" and "ten broeck" stood for, if you happen to know I'd love to learn more rudimentary Dutch terms! I know that the Albany Times Union periodically has contacted and interviewed what they say is the last male heir of the van Rensselaer family, last time I saw an article referencing him he was still living in California where he's spent most of his adult life and I believe that he has not had any male children, so according to the TU he'd be the last van Rensselaer if I'm remembering the articles correctly. It used to seem to me that they had an article once a year on him, but I dont recall reading any recently, which is surprising given all the hoopla surrounding the 400th anniversary of Hudson/Champlain (200 for Fulton). Perhaps there would be a way of contacting him and getting his opinion? I wouldnt hold ourselves to being binded by his opinion of course, but it might be worth listening to, and perhaps he has other information or resources he could pass on to us. At the very least he might be happy to hear that someone like Upstate has taken an interest in preserving and passing on his family's legacy for a larger audience than would have been possible for a museum or archive.Camelbinky (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• First of all, complaining of being yelled at, especially when it is not true ("yelling" is expressed by using capitals throughout, which I did not, highlighting, which I did, is established and accepted custom, to stress the most important part of a written message), disqualifies you as a serious debater. It is the attitude of an insecure person who does not want to lose an argument at any cost, even being wrong. Nevertheless I take your advice, I'm perfectly calm now, writing this.
• 1. This is not about the spelling of the name. It is about the capitalization of the two words that compose the surname. You give some examples of "misspellings" above, but that is incorrect also. "Krol" and "Crol" are variant spellings. If somebody writes "United Sates" that is a misspelling, because there is no such thing. On the other side, when in ancient times people wrote down names from oral statements, it happened that the general spelling rules were followed, if the different spelling was not informed. Many times this happened if news reports were telephoned, or reporters wrote down the proceedings of a meeting amid some noise. For example Theophilus C. Callicot often quoted as "Callicott", Marshall B. Champlain often quoted as Champlin, or Chaplin) etc. This makes it difficult to establish a subjects name, but in these cases, as politicians, they are listed in official editions of the State government, and this establishes the accepted spelling. (see: [1]) Sometimes there are different variant spellings. To establish the correct one, one could look at a person's signature, like in the case of Callicot: the newspapers write the name almost always "-tt", but a handsigned letter of his establishes the spelling with one t only. The signature of Stephen Van Rensselaer is not ambiguous at all. Take a magnifying glass, if you can not see it with the naked eye, but the "V" in "Van" is as tall as the "R" and the "l" in "Rensselaer", and much taller than the following "-an". Besides, you give a lot of "sources" for a lot of things, but none for the actual writing "Stephen van Rensselaer". That is something done routinely by poor debaters, they tend to divert the discussion from the issue, when they have no argument at all.

Interlude: To explain the different usage of "Van" and "van" in Holland, Belgium and the United States, let me give you a short historico-legal explanation. In Holland both noblemen and commoners use the preposition "van", which means "of" (as you know, and had to explain to Camelbinky...). It could be just a commoner, like John of New York, or it could be a nobleman like John Lord of Somewhere. In Germany and Austria, the simple preposition von was used until 1919 as the lowest rank of nobility (equivalent to an English knight, "Sir") and in Holland the equivalent "van", if used by a nobleman, had the same meaning. When the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1789, it provided that "no citizen of the United States shall accept or bear any title of nobility". This produced the American usage of prepositions as part of the surnames: To avoid any controversy, the Dutch prepositions were capitalized and constituted part of a two-worded surname (see: Dirck Ten Broeck, Gulian Ver Planck) or linked together and spelled as one name (see: Gulian Verplanck). To make the issue even a little clearer, all American "Van Soandsos" are sorted under V, but Ludwig van Beethoven is sorted under B. Today, in Holland the "van" is still used as in ancient times, but in Belgium, commoners now use "Van" (see: Karel Van Miert) and only noblemen use "van" (see: Jacques van Ypersele de Strihou). Taking into account the third patroon's leniency with which he treated his tenants, a noble-looking "van" is really outrageous. Conclusion: All Van Rensselaers living after 1789 use capitalized Van.

• 2. For congressmen's names, the highest authority are the Journals of the House, because any congressman, to take his seat, has to present written credentials, and the name is entered as spelled there in the official journal. These have been preserved and edited, and you can see that the accepted name for this person is "Stephen Van Rensselaer", as you can see here. That is what the name of the article should be. The name of the article is not always the same as the name of the subject of the article. In this case, there being several people with the name Stephen Van Rensselaer, somebody has dubbed them I, II, and III, which is wrong, they were not kings, not even barons. They never used these Roman numerals. Our Stephen was known throughout his adult live as Stephen Van Rensselaer without any appendix, because his father and grandfather were already dead. So, to disambiguate them it is necessary to add something in parentheses, according to WP naming conventions (see: [2]), in this case Stephen Van Rensselaer (lieutenant governor). I will move the article to this name, and I urge you not to move it again without discussing the new move on the talk page (to which I will copy this discussion, to be continued there). Kraxler (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(copied from Upstater's userpage by Kraxler)

You're acting like I've done something wrong here (and in bad faith), and you're definitely approaching the line of personal attacks. I'd appreciate a bit more respect. As I made clear in my previous response, I indicated that I was arguing from my research with Kiliaen, making the assumption that Stephen followed the same suit. I'm unaware of the convention changes you cite, but I trust you and appreciate the thorough description you've offered me. On that note, if you wouldn't mind, can you please update Van (Dutch) accordingly, with sources, so it's clear to everyone? That would be great. As for the rename to Stephen (lieutenant governor), I disagree at this point. I will make sure to have a source before I move it, if I do so, later on. Though quickly, I can point you to this source], which does include I, II, III, IV, etc. But again, you needn't be so on the offense, nor outright insult my "debating skills". I'm not debating you; I made it clear that these are the concepts I think are correct based on my experience with this person's great-great grandfather. I made it clear that my analysis came with clear caveats, and obviously things can very well change with time. upstateNYer 01:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT MOVE ANYTHING KRAXLER, and yes I am yelling. This is a discussion that is ongoing and has not reached a consensus, obviously. Your move will be in bad-faith since you know that the discussion has not been resolved, therefore it is not your right to move it and say "dont move it back without discussing first on the talk page". You must first convince Upstate or a suitable number of people in debate thereby reaching a consensus first THEN you may move it. Do not move, if you have, move it back or I will. Consensus has not been reached, the matter is ongoing.Camelbinky (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry about it for now. When I begin my rewrite of that article, I will neutrally determine whether or not the capitalization is correct (I'll put in a call to the New York State Museum if necessary). For the time being, the article lacks substantially, so if it sits around with the incorrect name for a while, that's not a big deal. I would like to see some sources from Kraxler regarding the history of Van though; that would be helpful to anyone writing about New Netherland and the history of New York. upstateNYer 02:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Upstater. You research and add your findings to the article, that is common and approved practice. In the meanwhile, the article can stay where it is now, I suppose. If you conclude that the name is not appropriate, you can move it again and we will start another discussion. Anyway, the discussion should be continued on the article's talk page, please.

I apologize if my remarks sounded offensive. My intention was to get back to the issue by pointing out, in a general way, that it is not helpful to debate the form in which an argument is presented when there is an issue to be discussed.

And Camelbinky, you better read WP:CIVIL. You can not forbid anybody to move anything. I have moved an article after a lengthy argument well explaining my reasons, and if anybody moves it again, I'll have to accept it. I could move it again, though, but I am a Veteran Editor, on WP since 2006, and have managed to avoid edit wars so far. Kraxler (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: The above named source for the Roman numerals is an issue of a historical magazine of 1907, in which the author made scanty research and may have used these numerals of his own thinking, following current usage. He also uses "Van" for the original Dutch immigrants, which you say is wrong, and states that our Stephen was in the State Senate until 1796 which is definitely wrong, since he was elected Lt. Gov. in April 1795 and took office on July 1, thus vacating his seat in the Legislature. I'm sure you will research this thoroughly and I look forward to read your conclusions, with sources. Kraxler (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Peggy Schuyler

Peggy needs her own article. She is of enough relevance that she is allowed to have one, and being redirected to the page of her husband is also kind of gross. She is her own person, who had her own experiences, and did her own things. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:300:C954:99B7:6DEF:B4A8:180 (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

April 26, 2015- I was just about to say the exact same thing! Peggy Schuyler may not be as famous as he siblings, but she still had a lot to contribute to the world and deserves her own page. She cannot be "and Peggy!" on Wikipedia as well as to some historians. Thank you. Gosh.Moon.Moon (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stephen Van Rensselaer/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

"close to 1,200 square miles (31,000 km²)" - 1200 square miles is only 3,108 square kilometers. Which is correct?

Last edited at 17:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 07:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stephen Van Rensselaer. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229200707/http://www.albanyinstitute.org/HTML/history.htm to http://www.albanyinstitute.org/HTML/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930022413/http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/state/his/bk12/ch5/pt3.html to http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/state/his/bk12/ch5/pt3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905130504/http://www.historiclewiston.org/vanrensselaer.html to http://www.historiclewiston.org/vanrensselaer.html

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) 06:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Adjusting dollars from 1839 to present

@Billmckern: et al., the sources currently in the article that are used to describe the present-day wealth of Stephen van Rensselaer give unrealistic numbers. For example, this page indicates that the wage for a private in the military was $6 per month back then. If SvR's $10 million back then is equivalent to $300 billion at present then that $6 back then would be $180,000 per month today. We'd have to conclude that privates in the military were paid very, very well back then.

Accurate approaches for computing the present value would use the 1) consumer price index (if available that far back) or 2) per capita GDP — the person-year calculation that I added to the article (but was removed) or 3) I'd settle for pretty much anything that says privates were paid substantially less than $2.2 million per year equivalent in present day dollars. See here for a list of reasonable approaches; that site also has historical per capita GDP values. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 03:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The cited calculators used CPI, but the values near $300 million were mistakenly transcribed int the article as near $300 billion. I've fixed the article. Personally I prefer the per capita GDP approach over this CPI approach. (FWIW, the former gives larger numbers than the latter.) —Quantling (talk | contribs) 03:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Quantling: You are correct. Billmckern (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)