Talk:Édouard Hambye

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Edouard René Hambye → Édouard René Hambye – The Belgian name Édouard has an acute accent, and is so cited in a scholarly source such as here. Some sources list Edward instead, possibly an alternative style he adopted while in India. But as "Édouard" it needs the diacritic. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, should actually be moved to Edouard Rene Hambye, as there's no diacritics in the English alphabet. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The subject is given in the current form as a book author. Here he is as an article author. Kauffner (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kauffner, sorry but same issue as with several of your recent RM proposals and comments. WP:IRS says that source must be reliable for purpose, correct? Secondly your source Congregatio pro Institutione Catholica, Seminarium 3 (1987) doesn't represent any É majuscules, correct? Thirdly we know from sources which are reliable for spelling that this Édouard is like any other Édouard, correct? So on what basis do you consider that the 1987 article in Seminarium constitutes a reliable source for purpose in this RM? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that any particular source was reliable or not. In the scholarly papers cited in the "Comprehensive Bibliography" provided by the nominator, the subject is given as either "E. R. Hambye" or as "Edward R. Hambye". So despite what this source says, his author name does not have a diacritic, nor does it provide a basis for preferring "Edouard" to "Edward". Kauffner (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Édouard is given in the bibliography. "Edouard" does not exist as a name for Francophone countries. Anyone can propose an RM to "Edward" after this initial RM if they wish, whatever the result of this on the diacritic. One way or the other half-a-diacritic is wrong. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support as uncontroversial technical move. Per MOS consistency with other French and Belgian Édouards, and because WP:IRS requires reliable sources for purpose, meaning we don't follow mispellings and typesetting. In the case of Édouard, like Étienne (but unlike Éric where Eric also exists, though much less common, in French-speaking countries) this is a purely mechanical issue of metal-type problems with É majuscule, but there is no doubt that French orthography is É for Édouard. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose E acute presents a difficulty as a majuscule in French (in writing more than printing) but can be done . I believe Hambye wrote the majority of his contributions in French, so René passes. ----6June2012 Clive Sweeting

  But in an encyclopedia in French the accent in Édouard is never omitted, for instance look up Édouard Daladier in Larousse or similar source. As In ictu oculi mentioned, it is not the case that there is a variant name that would be written without the accent even in careful and scholarly sources. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Since Édouard is the usual spelling, and used in many places. To justify not moving, you'd need very strong evidence that he himself spelled his name with no diacritic, in a setting where the correct diacritic could have been easily used. LouScheffer (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose it should be Edward René Hambye. This person's first name is anglicized in English publications. This is seen in such publications as Orientalia Christiana Periodica, Volume 70, Issue 2 by Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, or his own authored works that are published in English [1][2]. -- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi 70.24.251.x Those are primary sources WP:PSTS, there are several of his publications in India which did come out under the Anglicised name Edward, something not unusual in Indian Catholic sources, but Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius 1981 describes "A Belgian Jesuit working in India Fr Edouard Hambye" so when it is a source talking about him, as appropriate in a bio on WP, and when it is a source aware that he was Belgian not e.g. British, the Belgian name is used. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • But if the name were to stay at Édouard, do you not agree the accent is appropriate? The goal of this RM was simply to get the title away from the incorrect version (half diacritics, half not). I don't think a future RM proposed move to Edward would be precluded by a positive vote here, although my current inclination personally would not be in support. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per RS. Edward to be listed as alias (Edouard=misspelling). Agathoclea (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with the IP. This subject should be titled Edward René Hambye. There are 12 GBooks where he is given as the author in this form. Kauffner (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

  See my reply to 70.24.251.x ... given that "René" includes a diacritic, would you at least agree that "Édouard" is an improvement over the current version, which is half diacritics, half not? — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support; more accurate name. Surely accuracy is important in an encyclopædia...? bobrayner (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: per accuracy and sources. Possibly move to Edward René Hambye, if it can be established that he anglicized his name, and that is the more common. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Reliable English speaking sources seem to indicate that the article title should be Edward René Hambye, therefore the move to Édouard serves no purpose. --Wolbo (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

  See my reply to 70.24.251.x and to Kauffner. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

We now, although it is not a vote, have 7 (or 6?) for the Belgian name, 3 for English name "Edward," 1 (or 2?) for leaving it uncorrected. Can I just note that those 1970s publications reflect the publishing environment in Kerala in the 1970s, wheras for en.wp in 2012 21st Century references may be more relevant, For example Concise Dictionary of Theology preface Page ix Gerald O'Collins and Edward G. Farrugia - 2004 thank "The expertise of various friends and colleagues has helped us clarify many terms more successfully: Giorgio Barone-Adesi, Jean Beyer, Charles Conroy, Mariasusai Dhavamony, Clarence Gallagher, Edouard Hambye, Eduard Huber, John Long, ..." Clearly for 3rd party posthumous mentions among the academic/Catholic community he is remembered as a Belgian, where he was born and died. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2: → Edward R. Hambye

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Mdann52 (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Edouard René Hambye → Edward R. Hambye –( 17:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC) -datestamp to keep bot happy) "Edward R. Hambye" gets 21 (14 deghosted) post-1980 English-language Google Book hits, "Edward René Hambye" 8, and "Edward Hambye" 6. In contrast, "Edouard R. Hambye" gets 2, Edouard René Hambye" 1, and "Edouard Hambye" 3. That's a total of 28 for "Edward", 6 for "Edouard". In addition, the subject used the proposed form when writing in French. "E. R. Hambye" gets 400 (170 deghosted) post-1980 English-language GBook hits. That's mostly as the author of journal articles, and journals give names in a style that is specific to journal writing. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Kauffner (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment We don't actually have a cover image for the "aumônerie" book. The name on the cover could very well have been "E. R. Hambye", with "Edward René" being a cataloger's addition or deduction. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Yes catalogue error. Annales de l'Université de Paris Volume 38 has "Histoire de l'Aumônerie de la flotte de Flandre au XVIIe siècle, 1623-1662, par Ed. Hambye. — Louvain, Paris, Nauwelaerts, 1967," which agrees with the 11x of 14x sources for Édouard Hambye in the article. But if people really want to make him British and move to a name without a single text source? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• @Kauffner - thank you for striking out In addition, the subject used the proposed form when writing in French. That leaves us now with only 6x direct-mention sources in English (Indica, Sobornost, Collins, Indian Church, Kollaparambil, Orientalia). of these 3x (Indica, Sobornost, Collins) give his Belgian name, 3x (Indian Church, Kollaparambil, Orientalia) give his Indian name. Additionally we have another 5x French, 1x Spanish, 1x Italian, 1x German all giving his Belgian name not his Indian name. Total 14x direct mentions. Question. When direct mentions are equally divided 3x vs 3x in English sources direct mentions, why should we not consider the 5x French, 1x Spanish, 1x Italian, 1x German mentions? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • @Kauffner, just noticed change in nomination, that makes my comment above "a name without a single text source" redundant, it is now a move to a name with 3x text sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't follow your math. "Edward Hambye" is given by Orientalia, Sunset in the East, Strange Names of God, Indian Theological Studies, and The Hesitant Dawn. "Edward R. Hambye" is given by The Quarterly Review of Historical Studies, Orientalia, Islam in India, The Making of an Enterprise, Origin of Christianity in India, and Christians Meeting Hindus. Kauffner (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
      • By "direct mention" I mean "direct mention" not a listing of bibliographic and catalogue entries. A direct mention is "the Scottish angler Angus Smith used to live here", a bibliographic entry is "Smith, A.B. Guide to fly fishing" We have 14x direct mentions of people talking about the subject of the article. All 14x are spelled out in the article footnotes. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
        • That's a problem only if journal citation style is used, which is not the case with any of the sources I gave. You prefer the list of priests given on the Belgian Jesuit site?[3] It gives the subject as "Edouard Hambye" (no diacritic). Kauffner (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Hi.
          • You didn't answer my question about "When direct mentions are equally divided 3x vs 3x in English sources direct mentions, why should we not consider the 5x French, 1x Spanish, 1x Italian, 1x German mentions?" Is it your view that only English sources must be used for "English wikipedia"?
          • As for counting, we need to compare like with like. In terms of "direct mention" there are 14x, no more, no less. Correct? Of these 14x, 11x give the Belgian name, 3x give the Indian name. Correct?
          • If we want to start a second count of how many publications in Rome and Louvain, how many in India, we could (and the result will probably be something like 20x "E. R. Hambye SJ," 3x "Edouard R. Hambye", 3x "Edward R Hambye" - if you wish to add an exhaustive biography with title page spelling for every book to the article then go ahead. But if you do it you must be complete.
          • Do I prefer the listing of priests given on the Belgian Jesuit site to what, a book published as "Edward" while in India? It isn't a question of prefer. When I was expanding the article from an unsourced stub it was finding that listing which provided the date and place of birth, ordination and death in the article. The Jesuit record tells us his bio data, the Indian book shows us he sometimes published in India as "Edward." In ictu oculi (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
            • I gave 11 English-language GBook sources for "Edward Hambye"/"Edward R. Hambye" above, so way more than three. I didn't use any Belgian websites or French-language symposium notes to puff up the numbers. Kauffner (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Kauffner, this is just the familiar holdover from the metal typesetting era, where diacritics would be omitted on capital letters in some French-language sources for purely practical reasons. Indeed, if you look at that jesuitica.be page, you will see "Etienne", "Edouard", "Emile", etc all without diacritics. However, such accents are never omitted in French-language encyclopedias: see any Édouard or Étienne or Émile in Larousse or similar. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support name used in English language publications by this person and in "Orientalia Christiana Periodica". 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose instead move to → Édouard Hambye, Belgian name for Belgian person, as per 11x of 14x direct mentions in sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • By this logic, Romans emperors should be titled in all caps, and the pharaohs in hieroglyphics. Kauffner (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The following was left on my Talk page:

• Sorry for the trouble! When I modified the article's title I was not aware that there was a RM and discussion going on. I rarely take part to such discussion, which are usually of little interest or use. The fact is that whatever the decision, the correct name of the man is Édouard Hambye (without the 'René'). Father Hambye himself, whom I have known personnally, would have been surprised by such discussion and decision... Only in India and when publishing in the anglo-saxon world did he use the form 'Edouard R. Hambye' or 'Edward R. Hambye'. While in Belgium or in Rome, it was always 'Édouard Hambye'. There are enough Jesuit documents to prove this... A title such as 'Edouard René Hambye' looks really odd.Zerged (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

At this juncture it also seems a suitable time to mention Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France & French-related, which covers standard en.wikipedia guidelines for French-(and Belgian) names. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is insufficient evidence that he used Edward other than as a convenience to readers within India, during the period of his life spent there. He seems to have continued to use his birth name Édouard in other contexts, and some number of sources in English use that name too. There isn't a clear demonstrated preponderance for "Edward". — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC) I would support a move to Édouard Hambye instead. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • How far do you want take this "birth name" approach? Russians in Cyrillic? Japanese in kanji? The point of the writing is communicate with the reader, who we assume speaks English. Kauffner (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Kauffner, waving "kanji" and "hieroglyphics" (above) just sounds desperate. May I remind you that you haven't addressed the question above: "When direct mentions are equally divided 3x vs 3x in English sources direct mentions, why should we not consider the 5x French, 1x Spanish, 1x Italian, 1x German mentions?" Is it your view that only English sources must be used for "English wikipedia"? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I came up with 11 English-language sources for "Edward", more than the French, Spanish, Italian and German sources put together. Kauffner (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

We're repeating ourselves, you came up with 11 indirect refs, what are the number of indirect refs for Edouard using like-for-like comparison? 20? But whatever - is it your view that only English sources must be used for English Wikipedia? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I found four post-1990 English-language GBook examples for Edouard Hambye: Gross, Indica, O'Collins and Sobornost. Twenty? You're pulling numbers out of nowhere. I can keep going with three more GBook examples of Edward Hambye: Colporuḷ, Indian Church, and Geyer. So now it's four to 14. Kauffner (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner Colporuḷ = Indian Church, it is verbatim the same source. And the other link is a bibliographic references. That is now 11x "Edouard" to 4x "Edward" in direct references. (I haven't counted the bibilographic references as we know these can be flawed, and since we have direct, in-text, references, we don't need them). Note also that there are 3 Users above for move to → Édouard Hambye. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the link to Colporuḷ. I fixed it. I have no idea why you have decided not to count bibliographic material. The subject is notable primarily as an author, so the way his name appears in this context is certainly relevant. The fact that "Edward" is used by the Library of Congress and whoever catalogs for GBooks means that this version of the name turns up everywhere, and that should count for something. Without the bibliographic material, I count eight examples for Edward (Orientalia, Strange Names, Origin of Christianity in India, Hesitant Dawn, Islam in India, Indian Church, Colporuḷ, Kollaparambil), four for "Edouard" (Indica, O'Collins, Sobornost, Oriens Christianus). Kauffner (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Reopened Mdann52 (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
--Relisting. User:Mdann52 (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

oppose It is clear what his real name is, and the sources don't outweigh this. Also, I agree with proposed move to Édouard Hambye per Zerged and per French names guidelines.--KarlB (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So what French name guideline have you been reading? Apparently not WP:MOS-FR: "The most general rule of the Wikipedia is that editors should use the most common form of the name or expression used in English." Kauffner (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

this part: Wikipedia:FRENCHNAMES#Accents_.26_ligatures; in this case, Edward has not been established as much more common than Édouard; thus we should use his real name, with accent.--KarlB (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Published as?

As near as I can tell, the subject's best-known work is all in English and published under the name "E. R. Hambye".[4][5] There is an example of him getting published in French as "Hambye, S. J.," and in German as "Edouard R. Hambye". Converting Edward R. Hambye/Edouard René Hambye to E. R. Hambye is an academic publishing convention that we don't need to explain here. The issue of his author name in Europe vs. his author name in India is quite trivial, even if it was actually true and properly referenced. Also, I took out what seemed to be a reference that sourced only the subject's diacritic. I suspect that very few readers would be able to figure out what this reference was for, and that even fewer would care. Kauffner (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I saw that you had (1) removed "Édouard R. Hambye" (2) removed "Ainsi le père Édouard Hambye qui a travaillé sur l'aumônerie ". Well, the refs are important, because uniquely in en.wp we've got here the name of a Belgian mispelled because you primarily have an objection in the first RM to spelling French names per French orthography and WP:FRMOS, and in the second RM to someone from Belgian having a Belgian name - in complete disregard of the majority (non-Indian published) sources.

My main question would be what you are doing messing around with this bio anyway. You haven't actually added anything to the content of the article, you've merely tried to prevent the subject's name being the title. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume all of the works in "selected works" are by the subject. Am I to understand that you attached his name selectively to one of these works strictly to get an example of the name with a diacritic? The article is not supposed to be, "The story of Édouard Hambye's diacritic". I don't see any basis to say that he "published as Édouard Hambye in Europe". I gave two examples above of him being published in Europe under other name variants. I really don't think the issue of whether he published in Europe with a diacritic or not belongs in the article at all, let alone in the lead. Kauffner (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't actually answer my question of what you have contributed to this bio other than objecting to Édouard? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I added a "Names" section. I think this way is better than the way it was, with the issue fouling up various other sections of the article, including the opening. It can be deleted after the RM. Kauffner (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I do hope that section is deleted soon, or trimmed drastically. Do we really need to point out that people with middle names (or french first names) are often (a) anglicized or (b) middle name dropped? Why does it matter to the reader? I think it suffices to say his full name is Edouard Rene Hambye, and he sometimes published using the name Edward in english. The rest seems like matter much more suited to a move discussion.--KarlB (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion above, you can see that I tried deleting the material on name variations earlier, but there were objections. So now I've collected this material into one place. Hopefully, the other sections of the article can remain free of this issue. The new section may even be useful to someone who wants make an informed vote in the RM. Anyway, I hope we don't go back to the nonsense about him being published in Europe under one name and in India under another name. Kauffner (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have trimmed this section per the above recommendation. Kauffner (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Names
Hambye is variously referred to as Edouard Hambye,[1][4][5][6][7][8][9] Edouard R. Hambye,[10][11][12] Édouard R. Hambye,[13] Edouard René Hambye,[14] Edward Hambye,[15][16] and Edward R. Hambye.[17][18][19] He was usually published under the name E. R. Hambye.[2][20]

Kauffner, this is a bizarre section. One thing we don't do on en.wp is list typological limitations. We don't have ledes "Gdańsk (in German Danzig, in low-MOS English sources "Gdansk")" - whether you like it or not per WP:FRMOS every French "Edouard" on en.wp is "Édouard". In ictu oculi (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That rule presumably doesn't apply to a section that's about name variations. The opening should give his WP:FULLNAME with a diacritic. Otherwise, usage should follow the title. Kauffner (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits on name issue

Many readers are likely to be seeking Edward Hambye/Edward R. Hambye, so this version of the name should appear somewhere in the article. The name issue was dealt with in 26 words in the version I wrote, now 19. So I don't that think that earlier version can be considered overly wordy, or in need of a drastic cut. When "a very simple set of facts" is being challenged, they need to be fully referenced. The subject's name in the running text should correspond to that in the title, i.e. no diacritic. He was almost always published as "E. R. Hambye". You can look at the "Publications" section. So enough with the "sometimes". According to WP:LEAD, the name issue should dealt with in its own paragraph or section. I'm fine with putting it in the lead, although of course in a separate paragraph. Kauffner (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is challenging that some books were published using the name Edward. Remember, the article is for the readers, not to win an RM. I've now trimmed it down further. And whether he was published as E. R. Hambye is again *not* worth mentioning in the lead; the publications section was written by us, it means nothing, the only way to be sure would be to actually pull the books off the shelves and see what is written inside; often times first names are shortened but this is not how the books themselves were written if you look at the title page. Finally, there is *not* a name issue here! There are zero sources that I've seen that mention any sort of dispute about what his real name was - this whole dispute is purely wiki-fiction. --KarlB (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

According to "Article titles": "If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended. (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc." In other words, the way I had it here is the most guideline compliant version so far. It's not up to you whether there is a dispute or not. Kauffner (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Writing it without the accent is just a typo; there's no reason to reproduce that - this is why we don't have un-accented names in the lead of every article with a diacrtic - it's pointless. We also don't need to clutter up the lead with the fascinating news that authors' names are sometimes abbreviated to initials.--KarlB (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Almost everything the subject wrote was as under the name "E. R. Hambye". This "sometimes" stuff is blatantly misleading. The guideline I cited recommends using a "Names" section. The sources spell this name the way they spell it. It not for us to "correct" them. Kauffner (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)This constant back and forth over the name section is starting to become tiresome. Edouard is either a typo or a reproduction of a name in a source that doesn't regularly use accented capital letters. It is not an alternative name, and it does not do a service to the readers of the wiki to point out that sources in the past have gotten this wrong (usually for technical reasons). WP:IRS is the relevant guideline here, I suggest Kauffner read it carefully. "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." You wouldn't use a black and white book to argue that Picasso sometimes painted in black and white. --KarlB (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I get it. If the sources don't say what you want them to say, you cite IRS. Kauffner (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No; I think IRS always applies. The key issue is context. If the book you're holding in your hand was published using a machine that can't print color, then it's a bad book with which to judge the color of Picasso's painting. For the same reason, if the typesetting machine was incapable or unwilling to use accented capital letters (which is common) because of a technical limitation, then you shouldn't use that as a source for a name. You seem to feel that people's names should be decided based on popularity or google hits, as opposed to usage in reliable sources.--KarlB (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If a source shows something in black and white, we can say it is shown in black and white. There is nothing unreliable about such a statement, regardless of technical issues. WP:TITLE recommends putting the name issue in its own section. If you like it in lead, that's fine with me. You keeping putting this stuff back into the lead, and then you complain that it is not important enough to be in the lead. Kauffner (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Post-RM page moves

Nico Hulkenberg went to Nico Hülkenberg,[6] No Gun Ri went to No Gun Ri Massacre, and now this. Will no one stand up for consensus and proper procedure? Kauffner (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Those other two moves have absolutely nothing to do with this page. In this case, all of those voting in the RM were opposed to your proposed move, but they were *for* a move to Édouard Hambye; it was a clear consensus. If you want to move it back, please open an RM and see if you can get others to agree. --KarlB (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's odd. You see I read the closure as "no consensus to move".[7] Kauffner (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move to Edward R. Hambye Mdann52 (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC), although not an admin made a reasonable non-admin close. Mdann52 should in my view have expressed comment about the 4 vs 2 for Édouard Hambye, but since WP:FRMOS requires É, and WP:COMMONNAME requires removal of middle name René, it was inevitably going to end up like every other Belgian or French Édouard, as 4 vs 2 expressed. I wouldn't have moved it, because I think the non "English-names" editors need to be whiter than white, but it was a move which has the support of 4 of 6 who commented and is line with the rest of en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Author name

The current phrasing implies that the subject usually published as "Édouard", which is not true. Everything he wrote that an English-speaking reader is likely to be familiar with, including both Christianity in India and The St. Thomas Christian Encyclopaedia of India, gives his name as "E.R. Hambye" — with an "E" that can expand as either "Édouard" or "Edward". Kauffner (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

As per RM. See edit. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Move

I've reverted the July 20 move of this article to Édouard Hambye. As there were already two previous move requests, the article should not be moved without consensus.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Edouard René Hambye → Édouard Hambye – per WP:COMMONNAME as obituary "Indica - Volume 28 1991 Page 36 "EDOUARD HAMBYE, S.J. Fr. E.R. Hambye, S.J., a Fellow of the Heias Institute and its loyal collaborator, passed away in Belgium on 7 September 1990, after a heart attack. He was 74 years old, and had spent most of his working life in India, ..." Per also WP:FRMOS. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• move per previous discussions. I don't know why the accent was taken off the E. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Indica, the source cited in the nomination, does not use the proposed diacritic. None of the various forms of his name given on VIAF use it either. In fact, the U.S., Polish, French and Dutch national libraries all call him "Edward" (as opposed to Edouard/Édouard.) The Germans and Portuguese call him "E.R. Hambye". NoTruthIsEverALie (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This is because many of the book publishers at the time didn't have the capacity to do accents on the "E". See Wikipedia:FRENCHNAMES#Accents_.26_ligatures - even if left off in sources, correct usage is to add to capitals.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:FRMOS. Bede735 (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support: seems to be common name, but above all the accent needs to go back... Brigade Piron (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.