Talk:Paulus Johannes Maria Maas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
|
 |
Paulus Johannes Maria Maas is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
[edit] Spouse listed as "Dr."
Nowhere on the citation pages is her PhD mentioned--find a reference for her PhD, especially since even she doesn't list it on their home page, only his. If reference cannot be found, please leave additional information about the spouse out of the article. Although this is hardly defamatory, this still falls under WP:BLP. Thanks. KP Botany 20:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Source for revission of Canna
Please add source for revision of Canna. With BLP it is important to be accurate and cite resources. I looked this up, but could not find it with a quick scholar source. Please provide reference. KP Botany 00:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- A source for a revision is taxonomic literature. It is not clear that you mean the gardener's guide as a source for the taxonomic revision, but this makes it somewhat less than a revision of the genus if it is only published in a gardener's guide to the genius. KP Botany 16:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The Gardeners Guide to Canna was authored by an established gardening author. He was in regular discussion with Maaas, before he published his Maas references in his published work. In turn, I have a copy of the Canna revision paper. It is all proven material for anybody familiar with the Canna genus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantsshoulders (talk • contribs)
- Then simply quote the Canna revision paper--that will suffice, and is better for a taxonomy than a gardening guide. KP Botany 21:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you claim he revised the genus, then directly reference the revision of the genus, or I will remove the quote--this article is not for people familiar with the genus, as those people will be perusing the technical literature, not Wikipedia for information. KP Botany 23:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 23:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Again and again, WHAT is the title of the revision of the genus. Include that information, if you don't know how to do a citation in another work, I will explain it, however, you're already told me you have the work which contains the revision of the genus. At this point I no longer believe that Maas revised the genus, since you can't seem to directly include this information, and it seems rather strange that you are so reluctant to do so. I don't know what's going on, but either he revised the genus in a proper publication of taxonomic literature, or he didn't. If he did, cite the source, either within the garden book, or directly, or simply name the source on the talk page and I will cite it, but don't keep citing a gardening guide as the revision of a genus. At this point, I think I have to check the gardening guide and other sources of yours. KP Botany 18:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Alternatively you can explain directly that the revision was first published in the garden guide if that is the case, but BLP policy on en.Wiki demands a greater care than you desire to give with this particular fact--either explain the details of the revision and why it's first published in a garden guide, and discuss the nature of the guide, or add the original taxonomic source, in this case. KP Botany 18:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't really want to get into the middle of this, but I have "The Gardener's Guide to Growing Cannas" and it does not say that Maas has revised the genus; what it says, in a discussion of Canna species, is that "The most recent work on Canna species has been carried out by Paul and Hiltje Maas in Holland. Professor Dr. P.J.M. Maas has been interested in the Cannaceae family since 1971, when a preliminary systematic treatment of the Cannaceae of northern South America was published, based on a student research paper." Although there is no direct citation of the 1971 paper, it's clear that Maas is not responsible for a revision of the entire genus and that the "preliminary systematic treatment" is now quite old. However, the floristic citations do clearly show the work that Maas has done with this genus, although primarily on a regional basis. (BTW a revision of the entire genus was recently published by Tanaka, although I don't have a copy of it.) MrDarwin 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's about all I could find on the Internet. Thanks. KP Botany 18:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't really want to get into the middle of this, but I have "The Gardener's Guide to Growing Cannas" and it does not say that Maas has revised the genus; what it says, in a discussion of Canna species, is that "The most recent work on Canna species has been carried out by Paul and Hiltje Maas in Holland. Professor Dr. P.J.M. Maas has been interested in the Cannaceae family since 1971, when a preliminary systematic treatment of the Cannaceae of northern South America was published, based on a student research paper." Although there is no direct citation of the 1971 paper, it's clear that Maas is not responsible for a revision of the entire genus and that the "preliminary systematic treatment" is now quite old. However, the floristic citations do clearly show the work that Maas has done with this genus, although primarily on a regional basis. (BTW a revision of the entire genus was recently published by Tanaka, although I don't have a copy of it.) MrDarwin 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alternatively you can explain directly that the revision was first published in the garden guide if that is the case, but BLP policy on en.Wiki demands a greater care than you desire to give with this particular fact--either explain the details of the revision and why it's first published in a garden guide, and discuss the nature of the guide, or add the original taxonomic source, in this case. KP Botany 18:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again and again, WHAT is the title of the revision of the genus. Include that information, if you don't know how to do a citation in another work, I will explain it, however, you're already told me you have the work which contains the revision of the genus. At this point I no longer believe that Maas revised the genus, since you can't seem to directly include this information, and it seems rather strange that you are so reluctant to do so. I don't know what's going on, but either he revised the genus in a proper publication of taxonomic literature, or he didn't. If he did, cite the source, either within the garden book, or directly, or simply name the source on the talk page and I will cite it, but don't keep citing a gardening guide as the revision of a genus. At this point, I think I have to check the gardening guide and other sources of yours. KP Botany 18:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
-
