Talk:Henry C. and Wilhemina Bruening House

Wilhemina vs. Wilhelmina

Seems Googling shows returns for both spellings. Which one should we use? @Ipoellet: Pinging in case you're interested; this also impacts the listing at National Register of Historic Places listings in North Portland, Oregon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Good catch. "Wilhemina" is correct - no L. The NRHP nomination and NPS and SHPO databases are all in agreement on that spelling. I'll correct the NoPDX list; can you request an admin to do the move-over-redirect? Thanks. — Ipoellet (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ipoellet,  Done Diff. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Shams lnm: Making you aware of this discussion as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope. The exact opposite: Wilhelmina is correct – with L. Take a look, please, at the following City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability report, files, and map: i. http://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index.cfm?a=270877&c=51427 [pp. 36, 61]; ii. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=146276 [cell no. 82]; iii. http://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/Record/4567613/File/Document [p. 3; id no.: 1541]; iv. https://www.portlandmaps.com/detail/zoning-district/Piedmont-Conservation-District/PM_did/ [Piedmont Conservation District map]. The "Wilhemina" spelling is a classic (really common) typo. It is frequently reproduced (even in official documents); yet, repeating a typo (no matter how often) doesn't make it any more correct. Shams lnm (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer and Shams lnm: We do seem to have conflicting sources here, but there is nothing in your links that convinces me that "Wilhemina" is more likely to be the error than "Wilhelmina", nor that the CoP is necessarily a superior source over others. In cases of fine differences like this single-letter variation, my inclination is to trust narrative, proofread documents over databases - rapid data entry often lends itself to small errors. With that in mind, I'd strongly recommend taking the house's National Register nomination and it's repeated and referenced spelling "Wilhemina" as authoritative... unless additional sources lend more weight to the "Wilhelmina" spelling. — Ipoellet (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ipoellet and Shams lnm: I'm not exactly sure what to do here, but currently the article and talk page are not aligned properly. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Might you be able to help align the Henry C. and Wilhemina Bruening House article and its talk page? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ipoellet, Another Believer, and Anthony Appleyard: "Wilhemina" is, indeed, "a classic (really common) typo" and the National Park Service filing serves as an additional proof of this. I take Ipoellet's point, but I regret to tell him that he is not right. The reason is simple: he, evidently, doesn't speak nor read German. He relies on the NPS filing; good point. However, the NPS filing wasn't proofread. In German, there is no name spelled "Wilhemina"; the name is Wilhelmina. Actually, the family name reads Henry C. and Wilhelmina Brüning. In the English alphabet, there is no umlauted "u", so the "ü" was replaced with the two-letter combination "ue" (Brüning in German=>Bruening in English). I understand that Wilhelmina may, phonetically, sound odd in English, but this is the only version of the name and since "l" is present in both the German and the English script there is no reason to discard the "l" or replace it (as it happened with the umlauted "u"). I am not trying to convince anybody; I am, just, explaining what has happened here: "a classic (really common) typo" frequently encountered even in official documents (such as the aforementioned NPS filing) that weren't proofread at all or, even worse, were sloppily proofread. Ipoellet is a seasoned editor (105,352 edits in 23 wikis); I pointed out that "Wilhemina" doesn't exist in German (as a matter of fact, it didn't exist in English either -it is an idiosyncratic modern-day construction built on a typographical misperception-); if you wish to keep replicating the same error time and again, be my guests...

P.S. To further illustrate my point, I will give you an example: Imagine you are in Moscow and there is a house formerly owned by George F. Kennan. The building is architecturally significant; therefore, local authorities decide to include it in the national cultural heritage register of Russia. They are using the Cyrillic alphabet and they are not familiar with English names; as a result, the ministry of Culture civil servant in charge misspells Kennan's first name from George to Geoge. The city council is aware of the typo and in its documents the first name is spelled correctly (as it happens with the City of Portland documents, where Wilhelmina is spelled correctly), but the ministry of Culture ukase is uploaded on the web and an editor of the Russian Wikipedia elects to catalog the monument as "Geoge F. Kennan House". I am pointing out the typo to him; he doesn't speak English and replies "We do seem to have conflicting sources here, but there is nothing in your links that convinces me that "Geoge" is more likely to be the error than "George", nor that the City of Moscow is necessarily a superior source over others". Does this make any sense? Yes, it does. Is the "Geoge" spelling right? Nope, it isn't. Shams lnm (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Shams lnm: Yes, I get it that "Wilhelmina" is the strictly proper German spelling - I do not dispute the point. BUT Mrs. Bruening was born in Iowa, not Germany. While other countries may not tolerate a lot of variation in spelling of personal names, the U.S. does quite a bit of it. Consider, for example, the lady after whom Willamina, Oregon, was named. Surely you're not suggesting we should move that article to Wilhelmina, Oregon? "Wilhelmina" is the correct German spelling, but that is not hard evidence that that is how Mrs. Bruening personally was named, nor how some clerk in Iowa officially recorded her birth.

I can agree on some level that "Wilhemina" is an "error". Show me that Mrs. Bruening spelled her own name "Wilhelmina" and I can come around to your point of view. Meanwhile, more sources than not indicate that her individual name was actually spelled without the L. — Ipoellet (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Oops. I just deleted a bit of text that I didn't mean to include. Brain fart - sorry. — Ipoellet (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ipoellet, Another Believer, and Anthony Appleyard: "Show me that Mrs. Bruening spelled her own name "Wilhelmina" and I can come around to your point of view". Yeap, of course, If I produce notarial evidence showing that Mrs. Bruening spelled her name "Wilhelmina", you will not have to come around to my point of view; the case will be, ipso facto, closed [in other words, if I present Mrs. Bruening's birth (or, death) certificate (or, marriage licence) this issue will be, automatically, resolved]. I don't have such a document from Iowa (or, Oregon) in my possession. I cited four City of Portland online sources quoting the correct (Wilhelmina) spelling. Since you reside in Portland, you may, perhaps, wish to dig into this issue further by visiting the city records and by inquiring about material (i.e., vital records) that hasn't been posted online. I don't live in Portland and is, practically, impossible to conduct such an on-site archival research myself. Shams lnm (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to make it more complicated, but her burial plaque spells it "Wilhelmine". Schazjmd (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Another data point: federal census records for Portland record her name as "Wilhelmine" (1940,1930, and 1910 were the ones I was able to locate on Ancestry). The ending "e" in the handwriting of the census taker is clearly different from "a"s written elsewhere. Magic♪piano 22:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Good find, Magicpiano. So it looks like she spelled it Wilhelmine. However, the article's about the house, and it's registered as the Henry C. and Wilhemina Bruening House - isn't that what's relevant? Schazjmd (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wilhelmine/Vilhelmine is a form of the same name encountered, primarily, in Germany (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelmine_of_Prussia,_Margravine_of_Brandenburg-Bayreuth , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelmine_of_Prussia,_Queen_of_the_Netherlands , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Wilhelmine_of_Baden), Denmark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Wilhelmine_Ernestine_of_Denmark), Sweden, Finland, Norway, The Netherlands (https://www.joodsmonument.nl/nl/page/29302/laura-wilhelmine-loewenthal-ostermann), France, Czechia (Sudetenland), Poland, the Baltics (Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia), etc. Shams lnm (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

"[...] the article's about the house, and it's registered as the Henry C. and Wilhemina Bruening House [...]". As reflected in the City of Portland records, the house is registered as the "Henry C. and Wilhelmina Bruening House". Shams lnm (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

But the house's notability rests on its designation on the National Register of Historic Places. I think the title of the article should be consistent with the NRHP docs. Schazjmd (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm less sure of that. Certainly the NRHP infobox and NRHP list should use the spelling as inscribed (Wilhemina). But even though the house's notability rests on the NRHP listing, we can allow ourselves to be informed by other sources, such as the gravestone and census, even at the article title level. With the information we have at this point, I'd support using "Wilhelmine" in the title and body of the article. — Ipoellet (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

We do routinely correct obvious misspellings found in NRHP materials, although the listed spelling should appear somewhere. I personally think that the apparently missing L here falls into that category, given the weight of evidence supporting its inclusion. Whether her name should be ended in E or A is less clear -- we do not seem to have examples of her name recorded in her own hand or that of a family member, so neither is obviously right or wrong. The couple's marriage license (probably filled out by a city clerk or the officiant) has it ending in A. Magic♪piano 13:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with, share, and endorse @Magicpiano:'s viewpoint. Have nothing of my own to add at this time. Shams lnm (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Just saw notice at wt:NRHP. I previously saw the recent change, then checked the NRHP document which indeed shows what looks like an odd spelling ("Wilhemina"), and I accepted that. However, it is also true that "We do routinely correct obvious misspellings found in NRHP materials", often/usually by correcting the spelling in the article, and adding a note at a subpage of wp:NRIS info issues for the specific site. E.g. to wp:NRIS info issues OR for Oregon state issues.

For another example of today, I found that in a new article there was mention of architect "W.J. Edbrook", which I fixed in this edit to spell as W.J. Edbrooke, which I am sure is correct. However the NRIS database shows Edbrook based on the NRHP nomination showing Edbrook. In that NRHP nomination, the architect is just mentioned in one place and it seems obvious the nominator just made one typo and/or otherwise was unaware of correct spelling, unlike here where the name is repeatedly mentioned, so it seems the nominator was convinced of the spelling. (Note was added to wp:NRIS info issues NE, specifically to this subsection on "Nebraska architects, builders, engineers [name] issues".)

There are cases where there are two bona fide spellings in actual usage, perhaps from different eras, where the NRHP official name chosen (often deliberately taking a historic era version) differs from the current common name which is arguably best for the article title, and then we definitely do choose to show the NRHP official name in the NRHP infobox (among other reasons, to verify to many readers that this is indeed the place listed under the NRHP listing name, which is widely published).

Here, the arguments on both sides seem good. The woman could possibly have chosen to use the unusual spelling in her lifetime, or the common/general usage about her could have been with that. Or, the NRHP nominator could have it wrong. If it was just the NRHP nominator getting it wrong relative to common usage up the date of NRHP listing, I would be inclined to use the different/actual common usage. I would be inclined to ignore subsequent usage derivative to the NRHP listing. I can't tell from discussion so far which is better.

Honestly, it doesn't much matter. The article should be modified with a neutral note mentioning some question exists on correct spelling, referring to different sources. And either way, some note needs to be recorded at wp:NRIS info issues OR#Property names for following up with Oregon state historic preservation office people to look into it further. --Doncram (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I have nothing of note to add; just some trivial thoughts:

i. Apart from the NPS ranger (am kidding) who drafted and submitted the building's NRHP nomination/registration form, I am not aware of any other individual/official/public service employee/public notary/City of Portland civil servant spelling Mrs. Bruening's forename as "Wilhemina". I have no doubt that "Wilhemina" is a typo; I am convinced that there is an -l between -e and -m; the "Wilhemina" spelling is encountered only in the NRHP filing and am pretty certain it is a typographical error made by a single individual (the ranger, who, instead of protecting wild grizzly bears, opted for doing some paperwork).

ii. Wilhelmina or Wilhelmine? I can't tell for sure (am not in a position to categorically answer this question); perhaps, Wilhelmine was an everyday diminutive [strictly speaking, it is not a diminutive] used by Mrs. Bruening and her family members/entourage, while Wilhelmina was the official spelling of her first name. In general, there are a lot of feminine names (some of them of Latin origin) that "normally" end in -a, but in European languages have two forms: one ending in -a, another ending in -e. The -e variant is more widespread/common in France and the French-speaking world (Belgium's Wallonia, French-speaking Swiss cantons, Luxembourg, Maghreb, several sub-Saharan African nations, Quebec, Monaco). The -e ending is much rarer in German-speaking countries, in the Netherlands, in Scandinavia, in the Baltics, in Poland, in Czechia, in Italy, in Spain. Some examples:

Louisa=>Louise

Maria=>Marie

Christina=>Christine

Sophia=>Sophie

Helena=>Hélène

Amelia=>Amélie

Amalia=>Amalie

Laura=>Laure

Adrian(n)a=>Adrianne

Anna=>Anne

Agatha=>Agathe

Teresa=>Térèse

Clarissa=>Clarisse

Irena=>Irene

Isabella=>Isabelle

Joanna=>Joanne

Josephina=>Josephine

Susanna=>Susanne

Natalia=>Natalie

Nicola=>Nicole

Sylvia=>Sylvie

Emilia=>Émilie

Rosa=>Rose

Lisa=>Lise

Gabriel(l)a=>Gabriel(l)e

Eva=>Eve

Camilla=>Camille

Henrietta=>Henriette

Carolina=>Caroline

Sabrina=>Sabrine

Paulina=>Pauline

Georgia=>Géorgie

Pelagia=>Pélagie

I agree with Doncram that "this should eventually be sorted with the Oregon state historic preservation office, who have authority to make request to the National Park Service for correction of the official NRHP listing name to be changed in the NRIS database, if the NRIS-listed name is in fact incorrect". Shams lnm (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)