Talk:Gerard Kuiper

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

Pronunciation[edit]

I believe there is a pronunciation problem here. Kuiper is often pronounced like "kiper" in the English-speaking world, particularly in the US. Kuiper was Dutch, so his name should be pronounced like "kowper". This is similar to the dutch word for house, pronounced identically in English, but spelled in Dutch "huis". wll my teacher says it coupier but its kiper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.210.13 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but neither of the pronunciations are correct. 'Huis' is not pronounced identically to English at all. It is difficult to explain you would have to hear a native Dutch speaker pronounce it, I can't come up with an English word that has a similar pronunication. I am Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xorp22 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you both! The pronunciation given in the article is wrong. Kuiperis best rendered "cowper" to English speakers, because the particular Dutch pronunciation isn't possible in English. The English surname Cowper is cognate with Kuiper. If that's not proof, I don't know what is. I'm English with a Dutch father. My pronunciation is Noord-Hollands.--Rfsmit (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the English name Cowper was pronounced Cooper. Valetude (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cowper is also wrong but closer than kiper. English speakers don't have the 'ui' sound, so no way to emulate that via English tones. I'm Dutch, we do everything better ;) 2001:1C00:E18:9C00:417:EEC2:42A0:C9CD (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American, not Dutch[edit]

Nationality of a person does not go by place of birth. He was a naturalized US citizen, and became notable in the US.
Also, including his dutch origin in the opening line is a violation of the manual of styles [1] because this fact (his ethnicity) is irrelevant to the Kuiper's notability -- Northern (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A person can lose citizenship but not nationality. Sorry, but the american way of thinking about nationality, citizenship and ethnicity is not the only way in the world. Kuiper was Dutch. -- Chartinael (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He received US citizenship in 1937 but held dual citizenship until is heath. He was Dutch & American. 217.62.40.248 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that's why you can't impose your way. Wikipedia has clear guidelines on how to define nationality (see the link in my previous post). You can't decide that just because he was born in Holland he would prefer European rules of nationality applied to him and since every culture and every nation has it's own ways of defining "nationality", we'd have to stick with the most basic: citizenship. What's more important: this is how it was described in the Manual of styles. -- Northern (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you read the guideline again, you will notice that it is not quite as straight forward as you see it.
In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.
Now naturalized citizens are in general NOT normal cases. As he was an astronomer prior to his naturalization, he might just as well be considered a Dutch astronomer or an American astronomer auf Dutch origin. He got naturalized in 37 and received ist academic titles prior to that in the netherlands. I certainly would say, this is not a normal case and I see no problem at all mentioning that he was dutch. Anybody who reads the article now will think, he has always been american and was born in the netherlands just by chance -- while, if you mention the origin, it will become clear immediately ok he was born in the netherlands because he was dutch. You know - compare to i.e. Arthur C. Clark, you might as well say, he was a notable Sri Lankan Science Fiction author - after all, he lived there most of his life, even prior before becoming known as an author, and held citizenship. Yet he is only referred to as a British author who also held sri lankan citizenship.
So exactly why are you so opposed mentioning Kuipers dutch origin and want to stick to rules that don't even apply in this case. The situation of folks working and researching in the us is open to interpretation and there is no harm to mention both. Also compare to Albert Einstein de/en/fr. So quit being nitpickety.
Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
He received his degrees in the Netherlands. This should suffice to make it noteworthy. I do not see the harm done, when mentioning is dutch origin. -- Chartinael (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Naturalization IS a normal case. There's no way to receive a US citizenship other than being born or naturalized and if the manual of style would only be talking about native born people as "normal cases" then they'd just say "a country of birth" so Kuiper's case is perfectly normal. Not normal cases would be if Kuiper would be quoted as saying that he still feels of himself as Dutch or similar things.
Lots of people get US citizenship through naturalization. It's one of the two methods and it's a perfectly "normal case".
Now, the fact that he became an astronomer in the Netherlands is not enough. Here's why: there are many astronomers but we don't have articles for each of them. Kuiper gets an article because of his discoveries all of which took place in the US so for the two outlined reasons above, it is just wrong to call him Dutch. He became a US citizen (therefore he became an "American"), did all his discoveries in the US and therefore he's an American Astronomer.
I don't mean to offend anybody. I have absolutely nothing against the Dutch but I'm just trying to protect people's choices while sticking to the manual of styles. I was born in Russia but lived most of my life in Israel. If I ever do something to deserve an article on Wikipedia and it'll mention me as Russian, and not Israeli, I'll be deeply offended.
So unless Kuiper officially considered himself Dutch and not American, we should stick with the most basic form of "nationality", as I said before: a person's citizenship. -- Northern (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch people feel very different about their country of birth than Russian Jews. The Dutch would be offended if their heritage is overlooked. This does not prove anything; just showing that your "I'd be offended if..." way of reasoning can cut either way, if it were to be an admissible way of arguing at all.
While U.S. Citizenship is dependent on residence, European countries are not so draconian: Dutch citizenship doesn't lapse on extended absence. Citizenship from birth is an especially strong claim. Kuiper was of Dutch-American nationality.--Rfsmit (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kuiper kept his dutch citizenship, next to receiving the US citizenship. That should settle the discussion. He was both dutch and american.
And 'jew' isn't a nationality. So that is not a valid argument in this debate. 217.62.40.248 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Since we have no data suggesting that he lost his Dutch citizenship, the proper way to write is Dutch American. Not just Dutch or just American -- Northern (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch!!!!137.205.183.109 (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

never lost his Dutch citizenship, the Dutch can have dual citizenship, as Kuipers had. Kuipers is Dutch, born in Holland having 2 Dutch parents. 2001:1C00:E18:9C00:417:EEC2:42A0:C9CD (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B.Sc.[edit]

The current text said he received a "B.Sc.". I doubt that. The bachelor/master system was introduced in the Netherlands somewhere in the 2000s, back than you would first get your propedeuse and when done receive a Doctorandus degree (in his case probably more comparable to a Master of Science degree). The old system was probably very confusing for Americans (including the source). I haven't been able to find another source. How to fix this? Multichill (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. At the time dutch universities didn't give out bachelor degrees. The usual setup was 1 year propedeuse followed by 3 years doctorandus (MSc). Which might be followed by a few more years of research to become a doctor (PhD). There were also lower levels of education (for less intelligent students) where one could get something comparable in status to a modern BSc, which would be a mix of theory and pratice whereas dutch universities have a problem 'connecting with the job-market' Selena1981 (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2016

Not so, I'm afraid. At universities in The Netherlands until at least the 1980s the first degree structure consisted of two phases. A phase of three years of taught courses led to the Kandidaats diploma, which was not a freestanding qualification. This was followed by a period of study of a minimum of two years for the Doctoraal diploma (leading to the title of Doctorandus (Drs), Ingenieur (Ir) at Technical Universities, and a number of other titles). This phase included a dissertation on the basis of the student's own research, supervised by a senior member of academic staff. Wealthy students sometimes took considerably longer than the five years and spent time partying. A graduate could then apply to do a PhD. Hope this clarifes things. Drs. A.J Alberda

This document (https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/379806/DB_Teach_and_Travel_JHA_2010_accepted.pdf?sequence=1) discusses how the Astronomy department in Leiden in 1918-1928 worked: "Every Dutch academic program started with a three-year program that culminated in a kandidaatsexamen, comparable to a Bachelor exam. [...] After finishing the kandidaat program, astronomy students could enter the doctoraal (graduate) phase of their study, in which they were engaged in research for the first time." So Kuiper started in 1924, did his kandidaatsexamen in 1927, and then started his doctoral phase which he ended in 1933. Since there is a wikipedia article for the kandidaatsexamen (Candidate (degree)), I think the article should link to that. EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that 'doctoraal' is not the same as 'doctorate'. So his 'doctoraal' phase ended with a Doctorandus title (equiv. to MSc.). A doctorate phase ends with a Dr. title (equiv. to PhD). 217.62.40.248 (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gerard Kuiper. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kuiper's war experience[edit]

From the National Academy of Science's 1993 on-line biographical memoir, page 265, by Dale P. Cruikshank;

"During World War II (1943 to 1945), Kuiper took a leave of absence from the University of Chicago and joined the faculty of Harvard's Radio Research Laboratory, where he was involved in radar countermeasures. In this connection he went to England with the Eighth Air Force Headquarters in 1944. He returned to Europe in January 1945 as a member of the ALSOS Mission of the U.S. War Department, to assess the state of German science. Kuiper accomplished a rather daring rescue of Max Planck, who he learned was in the eastern zone of Germany in dire circumstances and in danger of being captured by Soviet troops. He took a vehicle and driver and raced across the countryside to Planck's location, arriving only hours ahead of the Soviets. Planck and his wife were taken to the western zone and then on to Gottingen and to the care of friends and relatives."

This does not appear to be widely known, despite appearing in a review article of Scientific American decades ago. It should be. 125.238.241.122 (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gerard_Kuiper&oldid=1194918242"