Talk:Cornelis Drebbel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

With our anonymous vandalizer, I somewhat agree that the "Drebbel in popular culture" section is somewhat silly, to put it mildly, and that a better one might also mention some interesting stuff like the recent experimental archaeology reconstruction of his submarine, and so on, rather than DVD diversions. If anyone wanted to rewrite that, it would probably be good. IanClysdale 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Henry, Prince of Wales[edit]

Henry Frederick died in 1612. How did he set Cornelius Drebbel free in 1613!? Smuuv 07:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also:
During the Thirty Years' War, he was imprisoned by the troops of Frederick V. In 1613 he was released through the intervention of Henry, Prince of Wales and returned to England.
Considering the Thirty Years' War began in 1618, the date 1613 is a bit odd... unless Drebbel invented a time machine as well. (Ha ha) -- Syzygy 12:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

invention of microscope[edit]

The article states: "Drebbel became famous for his 1619 invention of a microscope with two convex lenses." But the article on the microscope doesn't even mention him, and Sacharias Jansen says is credited with inventing the first compound microscope. This could use some clarification, and there are some wikilinks that are clearly missing.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded this section and added a few references. JoJan (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Cornelius DrebbelCornelis Drebbel — It seems fairly obvious that his name was Cornelis, not Cornelius, which is an anglicization. Granted, he spent much of his life in England, during which time he would have been called "Cornelius" by the English, which is why I am listing the proposed move for discussion. --Deb (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that many English-language sources do call him Cornelis, but that's not conclusive. It would be nice if someone had a strong opinion on this. Deb (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Google [1] [2] gives a borderline advantage to the existing name (16,000 ghits vs 10,200 but your results may differ). The onus is on the proposer to make a case for the move, and none has been provided, so leave it as it is. Andrewa (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography uses Cornelis, so I don't think the move would be harmful. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment: That work will say somewhere what its policy is on such names, which may not be consistent with Wikipedia policy. If you can find it, it would be good to know what it is. Agree that there's no great harm in changing the name as proposed, but it seems pointless to me, likely to be reversed before long, and setting a confusing precedent. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't obviously do that. Typically the ODNB reflects current scholarly consensus. The Victorian DNB also had Cornelis. This would be good enough for me for someone from the 17th century. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting... Where did you gain the impression that it typically... reflects scholarly consensus? And in view of the existing name's being 2:1 more popular in Google Books [3] [4], doesn't this seem to be one of the exceptions suggested by typically? Andrewa (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The ODNB is written by academic historians. I have worked with it a great deal and it would be surprising to find a choice of title that didn't reflect the current literature. Google searches don't prove that much, as is well known, and of course Google Books has a great deal of back-catalogue posted. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Google searches may not prove that much, but here they do indicate that there's unlikely to be a current scholarly consensus, as you seem to be assuming by relying on this single source. Andrewa (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
No, no. I would generally support the ODNB's current choice because it is chosen by a specialist scholar in the subject an period. I would generally not support counting Google hits because aggregations of fairly random materials over periods of say 50 years of publication, or existing webpages, are blunt instruments. I have a marginal preference for Cornelis here because (other things being equal) we might as well be correct. I suspect there is a component of popular scientific literature being counted in here, and people copying the author before. Not much I can do about it if others see it a different way. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for raising these issues, and for being gracious in responding to other opinions. While I'm unconvinced as to the merit of this move, I'm also fascinated by the way consensus can change. See andrewa/the argument from accuracy. Andrewa (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Weak oppose : As a Dutchman, his actual name was Cornelis Jacobszoon Drebbel. However, in books and scientifdic literarure he is mostly named as Cornelius Drebbel. A search in Google Scholar turns up 464 hits for Cornelius against 298 hits for Cornelis. JoJan (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Weak oppose per previous arguments. So long as a redirect is in place, it doesn't matter very much. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Photo of a reproduction of the sub[edit]

File:The Drebbel - geograph.org.uk - 7165.jpgGeni 19:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry question[edit]

My recollection is that potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate go to the nitrite and oxygen. The assertion that the reaction yields sodium oxide or hydroxide is, I think, completely wrong. I lack the certainty I would need to change thisd, so I leave it to others, better qualified.McManly (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)McManly

Drebbel's first name[edit]

Drebbel's first name was Cornelis, not Cornelius. This should be corrected in the headline of the article. I would like to do that, but do not know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.166.227.137 (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Cornelis Drebbel, as Cornelis was his actual first name. See : Cornelis Jacobszoon Drebbel JoJan (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

News on Drebbel[edit]

I have here a user page with new material on Drebbel based on a German 2011 paper. Some could be in the already good article. -- Portolanero (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Submarine[edit]

The Submarine section had a paragraph on how he "likely generated oxygen by heating nitre..": Apart from the grammatical fault, this is pure speculation so far as I know. I've reduced it to an edit note; does anyone have a source saying he did this (or even one suggesting he might have done this)? failing that it'll need to be deleted. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)