Talk:Astor Opera House

Question regarding an author's name
The "further reading" list in the article consists of this article from 1871. The table of contents of that source lists the author as "Jno.. R.G. Hassard" (you have to scroll to the top of the book to see it), however, it is clearly "John R. G. Hassard", a popular writer of the time. (Obit here, full name here, other works by the author listed here, including another facsimile of the same article cataloged under "John R. G. Hassard", Google listing here.

Since we know the actual name of the actual author, I see no reason to go with "Jno.." which is clearly one of those 19th century stylized abbreviations. Another editor clearly disagrees with me. More opinions would be welcome. BMK (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Jno." is the actual name of the actual author. The stylization is the way he and his editor chose to name him. A few lines down, a different author is listed as "John". So that was a choice. In any case that is how the name actually is listed by the publication, so that is authoritative. We shouldn't take it upon ourselves to "translate". 16:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Vzeebjtf (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So, every time a publisher happens to use a different version of the author's name, we're stuck with that, even though we know they're the same person, so we'd have things attributed to "J. G. B. Hassard" and "Jno. G. B. Hassard" and "John G. B. Hassard"? We aren;t allowed to use the information that we actually know to group all those different stylizations into the name of the actual person involved?  The people who cataloged the same article at unz knew it was "John G. B. Hassard", and properly listed it as such ("The Mercantile Library").  We cannot do the same, especially since there are no other Google hits for "Jno. G. B.Hassard"?BMK (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we have to list it the way it is actually listed. We aren't allowed to second-guess, or impose our preference concerning their name. Vzeebjtf (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that it is in fact Jno.. R.G. Hassard and not Jno. R.G. Hassard. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The extra period is a typo, not a style. Vzeebjtf (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation, not what is actually listed. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, we are not barred from using knowledge we have which is extrinsic to the original source. Until his father died, Kurt Vonnegut's books were all published under the name "Kurt Vonnegut Jr.".  Afterwards, the "Jr." was dropped. We know that this is the same author, so we group all his works together, we do not separate them because they were published under different versions of the name. BMK (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And we know that John and Jno. are the same author -- nobody is "grouping" anything; we are just citing the author's name the way it is given in the article we are citing. Vzeebjtf (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not robotic transcribers. If you agree that "Jno." and "John" are the same person, then the article should be credited to the usual and normal version of his name, not to the stylization that appears in a single table of contents and nowhere else. BMK (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you know it appears nowhere else? Who decided what is the "usual and normal version of his name"? What we know is they listed him as Jno. in this article, which is all that matters. Vzeebjtf (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Nowhere else" turns out to be incorrect, since I formatted my Google search incorrectly. Nevertheless, there are 73 hits for "Jno. R. G. Hassard" as opposed to 90,900 for "John R. G. Hassard". This is a clear demonstration of what the usual and normal form of the name is. BMK (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be a clear indication of what the more common form is, but 73 is more than enough to show Jno. to be widely used. But so what? It doesn't matter what form is used elsewhere -- what matters is how he's listed here. Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So 73 versus 90K is "widely" to you? And what matters is what we know his name to be, so that anyone who happens to come along will know who we're referring to. 17:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Who the publication is referring to is who they say: Jno. Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this should be given as "John", either by a punctilious use of brackets, "Jno. [John]" or simply as John - if we had an article on him, we would pipe to the title, which amounts to the same thing. It is probably a typo. The OCLC listing, derived from the New-York Historical Society Library, has John, and the NYHS should know. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not amount to the same thing at all; we have no choice but to pipe to the title. And the NYHS should know what? How he's listed in this article? "Jno." is a common style of the period, like "Jas.", not a typo; besides, how do you typo "John" into "Jno."? Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * With hand-set type? Come on... BMK (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It just happens to be a common style? You come on … Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a stylization of his name, not his actual name. So, do you suggest that I go and edit the article on the Declaration of Independence (United States) and make sure that all references to the signers of that document use the form of their name they used when signing? "Geo Walton" and not George Walton, "Wm Hooper" and not William Hooper, "Thos. Stone" and not Thomas Stone? BMK (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are those citations? Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You want to point me to the Wikipedia policy, guideline or essay which says that a citation of a historical source must use the stylized version of the author's name as opposed to the generally used form of the author's name? BMK (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You want to point me to the Wikipedia policy, guideline or essay which says we should change the source in citing it? Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I would like you to answer my question. You are insistent that the name must be  precisely  as the table of contents gives it (well, not "precisely", because you've decided that the second period is a typo), and I would like to know where we are told that this is mandatory, and that we shouldn't point our readers towards the generally used name of the author, rather than the stylized name given in the TOC. BMK (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC):
 * The onus of proof is entirely on you to justify by Wikipedia policy, guideline or essay changing the source in citing it. Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

So, you can't point me to a policy, guideline or essay which says it is mandatory to leave the author's name in the stylized version, and yet it is, nevertheless, mandatory to do so unless I can show where it says that it's not mandatory? Got it. Except, of course, that this is Wikipedia, which works by WP:CONSENSUS, and, so far, the consensus in this discussion is against you 3 to 1. I'm not going to act on that consensus, though, until some more time has passed and we see if other editors have opinions on the matter. BMK (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The citation is what it is, not what you in your wisdom would like it to be. You have to justify changing it. Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works by consensus, unless you can prove beyond doubt that there is a mandatory rule supporting your version of things. Which you obviously can't. So since I agree with BMK and the others, there is now a 4:1 consensus against you. Thomas.W talk 17:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You obviously can't prove beyond doubt that there is a mandatory rule supporting your version of things either. Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I don't have to prove anything since the burden of proof is entirely on you. So unless you can prove that your view is supported by one of the very few exceptions to the rule about decisionmaking by consensus, the view supported by the others here is the "winner". Thomas.W talk 18:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC):
 * No, the burden of proof is on you; you are confusing logic with (momentary) popularity. I know the difference. I also know the tone and manner of a bully. Vzeebjtf (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that I'm bullying you? Since when is pointing someone to relevant rules bullying? Thomas.W talk 18:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC):
 * When you have no argument except "we say so". And when you try to get away with a phony consensus: Xanthomelanoussprog did not side with you, and Yngvadottir advocated a compromise. Vzeebjtf (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and implemented the punctilious fix, inserting [John] after Jno. This is supported by the bibliographic listings identifying the author of the article as the author otherwise known as John. It occurs to me that if Jno. is short for anything, it's Jonothan, and that it is thus possible the writer's baptized name was Jonothan or Jonathan, but I'll leave that to whoever writes an article on him to ferret out. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I was going to wait, but if you're going to do it, you should also make the change to the same reference on the New York Mercantile Library article. BMK (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. I should have checked for how it was done there. Now can you please give us an article on the guy? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I had not really heard of him before this, but I certainly am now interested in digging into his life and putting together an article. BMK (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Post Script
For the record, I notice that Drmies has given himself the last word, having no reason to do so. And most of the editors did not agree with that, as I pointed out above. Vzeebjtf (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Or herself. Yes, well, as an admin I like to jump in every now and then, especially when things have a possibility of getting out of hand over a minor matter. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you certainly saved that situation. What would we have done? Vzeebjtf (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

John Rose Greene Hassard

 * John Rose Greene Hassard. Have linked it at both articles and just started editing it. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just saw that. I'll take a look later. BMK (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I did some work on the article. Couldn't find a picture of him, though. Nothing in NYPL, LOC or MCNY. BMK (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Vera Brodsky Lawrence
I really think that this should be alphabetized under B for Brodsky. Brodsky was her maiden name and the name she performed under as a concert pianist in her early career. After her marriage in 1944 to Theodore Lawrence she professionally went by Brodsky Lawrence. Mr Kozinn's article not withstanding, Brodsky is still a surname and not her middle name. This publication written after her death simply shortens her name to Brodsky and leaves of the Lawrence altogether throughout the article when not using her first name. Let's respect Ms Brosky Lawrence's professional choice to use both surnames. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the US, the maiden name is almost never used once a married name is taken, hence Vera Brodsky Lawrence, or Vera B. Lawrence, is alphabetized under "L". The exception would be if the subject herself used "Brodsky Lawrence" as a compound last name.  The New York Times  is an extremely reliable source, but of course they can make mistakes.  Do you have a citation from a reliable source that shows that she intended "Brodsky Lawrence" to be her last name?  Absent such a source, the correct alphabetization is under "L". BMK (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just provided a published reference above by a well known musicologist. What more do you want? Further she only published under "Brodsky Lawrence". 4meter4 (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've mischaracterized the source you cited. "Brodsky" is used only before she got married, after which "Vera Brodsky Lawrence" is used (see the final paragraph, for instance), with the sole exception of a direct quote from someone else.  This is not the evidence you need, you need to show that after her marriage she went by "Vera Brodsky" and not "Vera Broadsky Lawrence" or "Vera B. Lawrence".  There is nothing in the source you provided that proves your point, sorry. BMK (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, all of her many publications are published using Brodsky Lawrence. She is also referred to as Brodsky Lawrence in 25 articles in The New York Times. In no place than the obit is she referred to as Mrs Lawrence.4meter4 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * She published under "Vera Brodsky Lawrence", which gives no indication as to whether "Brodksy" is a middle name or part of a compound last name. We should look to see how libraries alphabetize her name. BMK (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I already told you Brodsky is her born surname and the article above gives a complete bio. This article details her marriage. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please keep your sighs to yourself, they're not helpful. This, however, is. Please go to this link on Amazon, for her book Strong on Music.  Click on the "Look inside link" and click ahead to the copyright page which included the Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.  There you will see the author's name is given as "Larwence, Vera Brodsky". BMK (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please go to this page in the New York Public Library catalog, and you will see that the author is consistently listed as "Lawrence, Vera Brodsky". BMK (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please go to this page on the Library of Congress catalog, where the author's name is consistently given as "Lawrence, Vera Brodsky" BMK (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I will defer to the said sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. BMK (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and thank you for your contributions to this article, which were considerable and very helpful. Please don't allow this little misunderstanding from preventing you from adding more to it, if you have more to add. BMK (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I am finished for the time being. Sometime in the future, I will be tackling another company which stopped in at Astor for a few months. When I am done fully researching and writing that article I will pop back in and update the article accordingly.4meter4 (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be looking forward to it. BMK (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)