Talk:John James Audubon/Archives/2015

Spelling

Audubon or Audobon?
S.

The correct spelling is 'Audubon', however 'Audobon' is a common misspelling, so I added a redirect Andre Engels

Double Elephant inquiry

Dear Sir, My Name is Donald Traver. I have information in which I have put into a book . I am sending my book to the New York Historical society as well as Ms. Susan Low of Boca ratan , Fla. also represented at the American Museum of Natural History. It has perplexed me on the condensation of my information as I have offered to many whom apparently have only disregard for the truth of facts MIS- represented in the John James Audubon porfolio'(s) created . Of this nature of communication with many it is apparent either they are ignorant or just don't care... In any case I wish to submitt a question that is quickly ascertainable to such a expert as yourself. You appear to have a sensability , and I thought a reasonable thinking and understanding person can at least LOOK at the WALDEMAR FRIES 1973 book " The Double Elephant Folio. I'm pointing out that in this book it shows the exact reciept of the 15 EXTRA SETS that were made and published by John James Audubon. The Page of reciept is dated , on PAGE 114 .it clearly states 1839, 28,910 ( 2891 drawings) also shows 13 sets - of 7 volumes. (2 sets kept 1 Aud / 1 Havell ) Clearly Audubon had 2891drawing in 1839 clearly 15 sets were created and published by the Author. November 27,1839 As we KNOW 15 sets X 5 parts = 75 copies... This is pretty obvious to me J.J.Audubon has only 2891 drawing.

ONLY John James Audubion had created + published 1063 drawings Only John James Audubon has created Dec. 26,1839 500 Octavo edition Plates Only John James Audubon Has Printed and Published 431 Havell engraved Only John James Audubon has a FINAL NUMBERED PUBLICATION # 2014. This Printing shop of John james Audubon was located at 225 Broadway ,1839. now that you clearly see this information and we both know there are only 75 copies made of one single illustration published by the Author J.J.Audubon. in New York and turned into the District Attorney Johnathan Prescott Hall November 27,1839. Because it is documented to Mr. Hall as sworn testimony by J.J.Audubon himself and recorded that Mr. Audubon only sold 50 copies of the 75 copies = 5 X 15 EXTRA sets completed .Now that we realize that J.J.Audubon personaly put a final number to show it is HIS final PUBLICATION numbered. I too did not understand why the plate 221 print # 45 was use as a final numbered illustration , as I counted the copperplate engravings I realized that the 359 print of the year of 1834 was also the 2014 plate to be published in 1836. It naturally came to be on the Double Elephant Folio Edition Record , a single illustration to be sold with the Synopsis of the Birds of America .Audubon's final publication and A guided numbered index to correspond to the original publication of Copperplates ,to be 359 pages . Now That you see the quest that I have long persued . Do I in - fact have my ducks in the right row ?? Does this plate have more value than the average copperplate, I have put the entire record with the N.Y. state dept of bussiness records into my book . along with the records of the New York State dept of incorporation. It was interesting to Note that the National Audubon Society put out a edition from thier originals and the Company used by Havell and Audubon were incorporated November 27, 1936 ,100 years ago to the day they read in Handcolored and published by Artistic Picture Publishing Company "INC>" N.Y. City. Dated very clearly in the text " 1936... Can you pleaes respond to the question ,THE J.J.Audubon painted and numbered and published a print on ordinary paper and sold only 50 copies. They should by right be worth mor than the Havell's ,,and where do I get a reasonable appraisal ?? I can be reached at 530-342-5253 ,I also put a image of a direct scan on the web , Although a old and confusing site , The IMAGES are a DIRECT SCAN of the print just click on images....at http://www.angelfire.com/in2/audubon

I'm sure you woun't be disappointed ...I look forward to a e-mail ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.140.218.15 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a detail.

If you follow and read in detail the article linked where it says

"...He is buried in the [Trinity Churchyard Cemetery] at 155th Street and Broadway in Manhattan, New York.",

you'll see that that is not precisely the "Trinity's Churchyard Cemetery" but the "Trinity Church Cemetery and Mausoleum". (Being the "Trinity's Churchyard Cemetery" the one located not at 155 St. and Broadway but at 74 Trinity Place at Wall Street and Broadway.)

A.A.

Family

The article states he had two daughters who died young as well as two sons who came of age. Yet later the article says his book of mammals was published with the help of his two sons and his son-in law, who is the missing daughter? BTW for anyone interested the Villa Louis in Prarie du Chein, WI has a set of china hand painted by Audubon depicting birds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazran (talk • contribs) 08:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Most expensive book ever

Noteworthy? - [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.13.70 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

yes. AngoraFish 木 14:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

in a manner far superior to what had gone before

What a terrible sentence. "He painted, catalogued, and described the birds of North America in a manner far superior than those before him" or "to those succeeding him" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.165.129.163 (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Wendyamarie, 26 April 2011

I thought it may be helpful to readers to know that there is a large collection (over 100) of Audubon's prints available to view at the Jule Collins Smith Museum of Art. More information can be found here: http://jcsm.auburn.edu/collections_perm/audubon.php

Wendyamarie (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, added to External links.Parkwells (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Mistake with the name of the actual country where he born

Actually the real name of Saint Domingue is Dominican Republic, knows as Santo Domingo. The island used to be called Saint Domingue before the independence and the area that was populated by people in those days is the one called as Dominican Republic now.

User:Hakamura ([talk:Hakamura|talk]) 11:13 pacific time —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC).

Incorrect - Audubon was born in Saint-Domingue, a French colony which was renamed Haiti after the slave rebellion and achieving independence from France. Santo Domingo was a colony on the eastern portion of the island and ruled by the Spanish. It became the Dominican Republic.Parkwells (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Nationality of mother

A recent version of this article had a sourced reference establishing Jeanne Rabin as a chambermaid from France, not a Spanish creole from Louisiana. As I recall, it was from a recently published biography of Audubon, based on relatively new information/documentation. There is no discussion on the Talk page of why that sourced version was changed. A 4th-grade study guide from Concordia University, which constitutes the current source, does not seem to be as good. It appears to rely on outdated information. Parkwells (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Both Rhodes (2004) and Souder (2005) identify Jeanne Rabin as a chambermaid from France.Parkwells (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from GeauxBreaux, 26 April 2011

Under "Place Names in his honor", would you please change "Audubon Park, New Orleans" to the more inclusive and accurate "Audubon Nature Institute" - A family of museums and parks in New Orleans, Louisiana consisting of the Audubon Zoo, Aquarium of the Americas, Audubon Louisiana Nature Center, Audubon Park, Woldenberg Riverfront Park, Freeport-McMoRan Audubon Species Survival Center, Entergy IMAX Theatre, Audubon Center for Research of Endangered Species (ACRES), Audubon Wilderness Park, and the Audubon Insectarium.

See http://www.auduboninstitute.org/

GeauxBreaux (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The entry is linked to Audubon Park, New Orleans, where the necessary information is given. This article is not semi-protected and can eventually be edited. JoJan (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, as linking to Audobon Park alone either means excluding all the other Audubon organizations in New Orleans, or adding an overabundance of entries for proper weight. The Audubon Park entry also had more information than the other ones and didn't fit in as well. — Bility (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

References to God/Religion

An editor is in the process of adding whatever quotes from Audubon are available to build a section titled "Religion". As this does not demonstrate Audubon's religion, I have retitled the section "References to God". Basically, I feel the section should go. If reliable secondary sources can be cited demonstrating Audubon's beliefs, we would have something. Torturing his writings to make them talk, however, is synthesis. Saying his writings are "peppered with references to Church and God" and that he was "reared in the Catholic Church" with a citation to a huge volume that says neither of those things is a problem.[2] Expanding that to "peppered with references to God, churches, and prayer" and stretching quotes to have Audubon describe God "as not only 'omnipresent' but as 'the great Architect' and 'the perfect Artist'." is compounding the problem.[3] This brings us to the current selection of quotes.[4] - SummerPhD (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I promise I am not attempting to torture his words. I am attempting to reach a middle ground with you though and for that reason I have not reverted your edits so much as improved on them. Aside from the title I have little problem with your latest edit. --CatholicW (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My latest edit was changing the title.[5] (You have no problem with the change I made to the title, except that I changed the title?)

By digging through his writings and pulling out several quotes on God, etc. and titling the section "Religion", you are engaging in synthesis: combining material to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated. Without a single, direct quote from Audubon saying, "I am a/an _________" or a reliable biography saying something similar, you're engaged in the same kind of work that frequently incorrectly converts Einstein from his agnosticism or Washington from his Deism. Without the heading "Religion" for this section, though, the section is not encyclopedic, as we might just as well have a section "References to plants" or some other random topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So "I am a/an _________" quotes are ok but quotes from him that "God is _________" are against rules? Sounds weird to me but I'll go with it so long as you allow the article to remain as is as well. --CatholicW (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"I am a/an __________" tells us something unequivocal about Audubon: that he self-identified as _______________. "God is ___________" tells us Audubon said, "God is _______________". If we include the latter, we should probably include those places where he said, "Roses are red" or "Spring is nice." Selecting the "God" quotes alone is indicative of the emphasis you place on "God", not any emphasis placed by Audubon. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The entire section should be removed as there is no evidence that god or religion played even a minor place in his life or work. Until there is, it does not belong. User CatholicW has a long and distinguished history of adding religion to articles where it does not belong, and removing references to people's atheism, often in contrast to the references cited. The user's edits are certainly NPOV and in some cases borderline vandalism.--Dmol (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The section creates problems of emphasis and POV and should be removed. Imagine how easily sections entitled "References to drink" or "References to feet" could be filled with quotes like these or these by an editor who wished to nudge the reader toward the conclusion that Audubon was a raging alcoholic or a foot fetishist. Ewulp (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the section, as there is no consensus to include it.--Dmol (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering the man was a pioneer, artist, and scientist his philisophical views are not to be scoffed at. I will however remove the Italics marks. --CatholicW (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If he was Abe Lincoln, Spongebob and Helen Keller rolled into one, synthesis is still synthesis. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy / inconsistency with respect to children / son in law helping publish

An email to OTRS pointed out that there is an inconsistency in the article - the section describing Audubon's children lists two daughters who died young, but the posthumous publication section lists "finished by his sons and sons-in-law". There's an obvious inconsistency there.

I checked all the Credo reference biographies I could find and couldn't resolve this. They all have less info than we do already.

Anyone who has paper printed sources access ... if you can attempt to disambiguate this, it would be appreciated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Audubon's Birth Place

In 1899 Maria Audubon, John James Audubon's granddaughter by his youngest son John Woodhouse Audubon, wrote in a publication about her grandfather's and her father's life that John James Audubon was born in Mandeville, LA.

Where is the proof that he was born in Saint Domingue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.40.13.71 (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The source is cited at John_James_Audubon#Early_life. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The publication indicating his birth in Mandeville, LA is available on Google Books..."Audubon and his Journals" by Maria R. Audubon, pp 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.40.13.71 (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Biographies of Audubon published before the 1930s accept Audubon's claim that he was born in Louisiana; more recent scholarship seems unanimously to reject this in favor of Saint Domingue. Richard Rhodes, in John James Audubon: the making of an American (2004; pp. 315-16) explains that Audubon was prone to falsify details of his life, partly to conceal his illegitimacy. Maria Audubon's book gives some hint of this when she notes that Audubon's journals and letters suggest various birth years: "with one exception no two agree; he may have been born anywhere between 1772 and 1783". Ewulp (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the statement that Maria Audubon makes regarding the marital status of Audubon's father may have attempted to legitimize his birth, "...Admiral Jean Audubon, who, with his Spanish Creole wife, lived here [in Mandeville, LA] some months". I am confident from the literature that they were never married. Perhaps given the inconsistency in the statement regarding his marital status it is not unreasonable to call into question the entire discussion in regards to his birthplace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.108.253.254 (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Translation to Chinese Wikipedia

The 21:21, 22 May 2014‎ 72.89.24.115 version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Species Discovered

It states he discovered numerous species and subspecies, but I don't see a list anywhere; I think that would be a good addition, as I'm now curious. False discoveries (things he "discovered" that turned out to have already been described) would be interesting too, if any. 69.160.210.168 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Copy Edit

I think this article needs to have some of the flowery, extraneous prose removed. It reads like a biography in a college textbook, not like an encyclopedia entry. Questions? Comments? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Legitimacy (family law)

>I don't think it's misleading to call him a natural son, as the term is well understood. It does not sound to me like a WP:EUPHEMISM. "Illegitimate" sounds pejorative; "out of wedlock" or "natural" are probably better. We don't need to explain that "natural" means "Illegitimate"; it patronizes the reader. Ewulp (talk) 11:03 pm, 23 July 2014, Wednesday (8 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−5)

"Illegitimate" sounds pejorative"? It sounds perfectly normal, people use it all the time. More importantly, except in cases regarding English law prior to 1926 (Bastard (law of England and Wales)) Wikipedia uses Legitimacy (family law) and we should stick with that. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you make an illegitimate point. But see this section of Legitimacy (family law) which explains that the term is not used all the time. Ewulp (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

We "(use) Legitimacy (family law)"? I am unaware of any policy or guideline to that effect. Unless recent reliable sources are using "natural" or "illegitimate", I'm not seeing a reason why we should.

We are making an encyclopedia here where we need to use standard, uniform terminology. This makes articles easier to understand and follow for our readers, writers and editors. That doesn't mean you can't use other terms (out-of-wedlock) to avoid repetition as long as you link to Legitimacy (family_law).

"He was the son of Lieutenant Jean Audubon... and his mistress Jeanne Rabine..." conveys that his parents were not married without any pejorative or archaic terms. (If "illegitimate" is not pejorative, neither is "bastard". And yes, "archaic: illegitimate. 'the Baron left a natural son by his mistress'") - SummerPhD (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with "He was the son of Lieutenant Jean Audubon... and his mistress Jeanne Rabine..." That's upfront and easy to understand. "Bastard" is pejorative since it comes from an era when people nearly always visited the "sin" of the unmarried parents on their child. As far as "natural son," it then follows that any son a husband has with his wife is an "unnatural son." Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution to me; let's go with it. Ewulp (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)