Talk:Ernest Eugène Appert

question about verifiability

The frWP lists this as two separate people, Eugène-Léon Appert, born in 1830 and his brother Ernest Appert, born as Ernest-Charles Appert on 10 September 1831, and comments that the secondary sources are divided whether there is one person or two.

VIAF ID: 96579820 (Personal) [1] refers to Eugene Appert 1830-1891;

ISNI 0000 0001 2103 2413 [2] refers to

Appert, E.

Appert, Ernest Eugène

Appert, Eugène

Appert, Eugène (French photographer, 1830-1891)

Eugène Appert

Eugène Appert (French photographer)

and gives the frWP article  ://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugène_Appert_(photographe) as the source, along with Wikidata Q3059693 [3] DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is (hopefully) about the brother born 1931 (mentioned here in the NY Times, DOB 1931, and here in the Musee d'Orsay). That said, the names are so similar that I am willing to admit that the normally very strong sources may be less than idea--seeing as large institutions might have mixed up the data here. Ideas?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

DGG, please feel free to correct the factual accuracy of the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

correcting in this case will mean stating the ambiguity. The take-home message is that VIAF etc. can not be trusted--it's a compilation of existing data, not a critical examination of the sources. Its original data is that of the various national libraries, and when they disagree, it just includes them all. LC, one such library, generally used whatever data it finds on the first book of an author that it catalogs, though before the mid 20th century it did often investigate further, generally to a standard biographical encyclopedia of the period, but rarely to the primary historical sources. I doubt most national libraries do better than LC but I have no exact knowledge. More recently, LC, as we all know, just copies the information from WP, and so does almost everyone else. This is practice means that all biographical data in WP or Wikidata for form of names, nationalities, and dates of birth and death, must be suspected as contaminated, unless sourced to a truly reliable secondary source. (Incidentally, I tend to think it's one person based on the years--a one year difference in birthdate or publication date is very common)

I should have thought of checking the NYT--I think its obits do proper checking, at least beyond WP. (though their article was not an obit, and obviously based on the Musee d'Orsay exhibition) --at least beyond WP. Generally, I'd prefer it to LC. ThatMontrealIP, thanks for all this-- I'll adjust the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@DGG:, I am always impressed by your knowledge and diligence. This article has me entirely confused. I may post a pointer to this thread over at the photography project or thereabouts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

comment about the nature of his (or their) work

The frWp and the MMA listing makes clear that his famous photographs of the Commune are not authentic photographs ofthe events, but reconstruction created as political propaganda. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Photo removed!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

actually, since it's a famous photo--I had seen it several times in books before reading this article -- it might be better to reinsert it with a more accurate caption. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)