Talk:Henry Grunwald (time)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

He was always listed on the masthead as Henry Anatole Grunwald,there is no good reason for this article to be plain "Henry Grunwald".--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In Austria he was always known as "Henry Grunwald", probably because Austrians usually do not have or use middle names. Anyway, we can easily have a redirect page entitled Henry Anatole Grunwald, I'll do that in a minute. However, I think there is a general rule or at least understanding in Wikipedia not to use middle names in the title unless you are John F. Kennedy (and then it is only the initial) or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In lots of cases, you get the full name at the very beginning of the article.

Two more things that are on my mind:

(1) Re-categorizing Grunwald, as has been done today, from "journalist" to "Austrian journalist" is not a good idea I guess, for two reasons: The "Austrian journalists" category currently consists of five names, none of which would be recognized by Austrians as an "Austrian journalist": Henry Grunwald, Theodor Herzl, Joseph Roth, Günther Schifter, and Stefan Zweig. Anyone who can be bothered to look up their respective entries will find that each of these men became notable not because he was a journalist (while real journalists like Günther Nenning are absent from the list, but I'm gonna chnage that in a minute). Secondly, Henry Grunwald was born in Austria, but definitely a U.S. journalist—for Christ's sake, he left Austria when he was 16.

(2) For some reason, Grunwald's image appears on my screen in its original size, but shouldn't it, as a thumbnail, be much or at least a bit smaller? Who can help/explain? <KF> 11:13, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have previously encountered,and have absolute contempt for,the Wikipedia practice of putting an article that would properly be James James Morrison Morrison Wetherby George Dupree (a character in a poem by A. A. Milne) at James Dupree.While my own preference is to do as Britannica has long done and use full names,the common working name of someone (often including a middle initial,sometimes a middle name) is preferable to inflexible Firstname Lastname.(I make a point of only contributing to Wikipedia articles that do not give the Firstname Lastname treatment to someone with a fuller known name).On Time mastheads,the name was always Henry Anatole Grunwald.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 23:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Strong emotions are a good thing, but I hope there's a balance between positive and negative ones—absolute contempt alone certainly is not going to help. Anyway, the "Firstname Lastname" problem is not as simple as it may seem at first glance: It is not just a question of either including or excluding middle names.

First of all, there is the basic difference between Wikipedia and traditional printed encyclopaedias to consider: Whereas the latter will give a name as Miller, Joe (and then it does not really matter what else follows, if it is Miller, Joe D. or Miller, Joe Donald or whatever), a Wikipedia contributor has to decide right from the start whether the article is going to be entitled Joe Miller or Joe D. Miller or Joe Donald Miller. True, redirects from the other two and, where necessary, disambiguation pages will help. But we should also be aware of the fact that people, for all sorts of reasons, change their names in the course of their lives, which does not really answer the question of which name to prefer and finally to choose, does it? By the way, Henry Grunwald himself is a case in point.

I think I have found some good examples to illustrate what I am trying to say:

(1) People like Philip Roth, the U.S. novelist, or Joseph Roth, the Austrian novelist, do not seem to present a problem—no middle names or other variants mentioned anywhere. That their names are pronounced differently is irrelevant in this context.

(2) When I first came across the article on Konrad Lorenz I thought the name with which the text begins, Konrad Zacharias Lorenz, was the result of a mild form of vandalism. Never in my life had I heard, or read, that middle name before. I am still not sure where it comes from. As I see it, it would be absolutely ridiculous to have a Wikipedia article entitled Konrad Zacharias Lorenz.

(3) I am definitely no expert on African names, so how come the deceased African dictator is alternatively referred to as Idi Amin (title of the article), Idi Amin Dada (caption), Idi Amin Dada Oumee (first line of the article), and just Amin (several times in the text)? What, if I may ask, is his real name, and why?

All the best, <KF> 11:39, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)