Talk:François-René Boussen

Requested move 7 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: All moved procedurally. These were recent undiscussed moves, so they should have been directly moved back when challenged, or request at WP:RM/TR, not opened as an RM discussion. As it is, with the articles not at their stable long-term titles, and with competing arguments for the different pages involved, it is cleanest to move all back and wipe the slate clean. This does not preclude further RMs if desired, and if any editor favours the alternative name for any of the below examples, then I suggest they request them individually with supporting arguments.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• Franciscus Renatus Boussen → François-René Boussen
• Jan Frans Van De Velde → Jean-François van de Velde
• Jan Baptist Christyn (I) → Jean-Baptiste Christyn
• Antoon van der Does → Antony van der Does
• Christoffel van Spoelberch → Christophe de Spoelberch

– Undiscussed moves to lesser-attested variations. Multiple RS favor the original names. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Elizium23 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• I took a look at Google and Google Books results for each of the five personages listed in this RM. Based on that, my interpretation of the English-language WP:COMMONNAME for each individual is as follows: support move of Christyn and Van der Does, weak support for move of Boussen, neutral on Spoelberch, and oppose move of Van de Velde. I had particular trouble determining a common name for Boussen and Spoelberch among English-language RS, so my opinion on those two might end up shifting if more sources are presented during this RM process. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  All of these articles (except the Antoon van der Does one) have been penned by the contributor going by the name AndreasPhilopater. He can best be referred to as the one source editor. He has created tens of articles about Flemish (Belgian) subjects just using a single source: a 19th century French language biographical dictionary of Belgium. In the 19th century, the Flemish language was suppressed in Belgium and up to 1929 no universities anywhere in Belgium were permitted to teach in the Flemish or Dutch language although a majority of Belgians are in fact Flemish-speaking. As a result most academic work about figures of that time was written in French. The French have the strange habit of translating the native, non-French first names of persons into French. So Peter Paul Rubens becomes Pierre Paul Rubens, Jan Frans Van De Velde becomes Jean-François van de Velde, etc. although each of these persons were not French-speaking but Flemish and their actual names were Flemish too. So it is not correct to use a 19th century source or other similar sources as the basis for giving all of these Flemish people French names. Their original names were Flemish and unless there are strong grounds to the contrary, the English-language wikipedia should not perpetuate this 19th century suppression of the Flemish identity of these historical figures. Imganinary (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's most helpful to readers to refer to the article subject by their WP:COMMONNAME, even if that name isn't in the subject's own language. Wikipedia's role isn't to lead the charge in trying to change how the subject is known; we just report on what reliable English-language sources currently call them. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Belgium has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Catholicism has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit more interested in the credentials of who's using what form (as opposed to wiki mirrors). (1) Boussen's 1839 Manuale pastorum appears to be written in both Latin and French, but he (or his publisher) doesn't use the French form on the cover page, 'though he could have if it was something he commonly used. [1] - also the Annales de l'Académie royale d'archéologie de Belgique. (2) Three bks by the Leuven University Press use Jan Frans Van De Velde [2]; as does the American Philosophical Society. n.b., there is more than one Jan Frans Van De Velde; one is a bishop, the other a bookworm. (3) Nothing of note on Christyn one way or the other. (4) The Met[3]; British Museum (Antonie); RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History {Antony}; and Philadelphia Museum of Art all use some form of Antony. (5) Christoffel van Spoelberch [4] is the name I keep coming across. So oppose move of Boussen, Van de Velde, and Spoelberch; support move of Van der Does; neutral on Christyn. Manannan67 (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.