Talk:Thomas Edward Lawrence: Difference between revisions
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards No edit summary |
imported>Andreas R. Klose (A short answer to Prof. Baldwin-Edwards) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
THis article should be left under Lawrence of Arabia: there is no purpose in putting it under the name that almost nobody knows. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 18:40, 19 November 2007 (CST) | THis article should be left under Lawrence of Arabia: there is no purpose in putting it under the name that almost nobody knows. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 18:40, 19 November 2007 (CST) | ||
Dear Prof. Baldwin-Edwards: Thank your for your critical remark! I think I know what you mean, but I have to disagree - and I thought relatively long on this point. There was the same 'problem' at wikipedia, though I have never contributed to that medium. I agree with the solution by Prof. Richard Jensen, who put "Lawrence of Arabia" in bold-face at the beginning of the article; maybe he did so in reaction to your proposal. Isn't this is an acceptable - and very elegant - solution? Anyone interested in Lawrence had to look anyway under the name "Lawrence". It would be a far more serious problem if his real had been, for example, Smith or Jones. Citizendium is intended, if I understand it correctly, as a reliable compendium of reference: and therefore the entry of any person's name should refer to the real name and not to the myth (created by others): "Lawrence of Arabia" was not the assumed name by Lawrence. It was the appelation of the American journalist Lowell Thomas, which helped to make him famous. But Lawrence also detested that fame. Which does not mean to leave all this unmentioned. In fact, he assumed the name John Hume Ross for a short time, and afterwards "T.E. Shaw". Of course, today almost no one knows him by these names. Besides, would you put the famous German Romantic poet Novalis under his assumed or under his real name, that is Friedrich Freiherr von Hardenberg? Not always easy to find an answer to that... . With regards from Berlin [[User:Andreas R. Klose|Andreas R. Klose]] 05:58, 20 November 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 06:58, 20 November 2007
THis article should be left under Lawrence of Arabia: there is no purpose in putting it under the name that almost nobody knows. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:40, 19 November 2007 (CST)
Dear Prof. Baldwin-Edwards: Thank your for your critical remark! I think I know what you mean, but I have to disagree - and I thought relatively long on this point. There was the same 'problem' at wikipedia, though I have never contributed to that medium. I agree with the solution by Prof. Richard Jensen, who put "Lawrence of Arabia" in bold-face at the beginning of the article; maybe he did so in reaction to your proposal. Isn't this is an acceptable - and very elegant - solution? Anyone interested in Lawrence had to look anyway under the name "Lawrence". It would be a far more serious problem if his real had been, for example, Smith or Jones. Citizendium is intended, if I understand it correctly, as a reliable compendium of reference: and therefore the entry of any person's name should refer to the real name and not to the myth (created by others): "Lawrence of Arabia" was not the assumed name by Lawrence. It was the appelation of the American journalist Lowell Thomas, which helped to make him famous. But Lawrence also detested that fame. Which does not mean to leave all this unmentioned. In fact, he assumed the name John Hume Ross for a short time, and afterwards "T.E. Shaw". Of course, today almost no one knows him by these names. Besides, would you put the famous German Romantic poet Novalis under his assumed or under his real name, that is Friedrich Freiherr von Hardenberg? Not always easy to find an answer to that... . With regards from Berlin Andreas R. Klose 05:58, 20 November 2007 (CST)