Talk:Charles Clément Bervic

This article-- Charles Clément Balvay-- needs a new title and some editing. The individual about whom it is written called himself "Charles Clément Bervic". To disregard this is not acceptable. He signed his writings "Bervic", his engravings were inscribed this way, he signed informally this way, he was known by this name exclusively in reports and publications of the period, and he has been known by this name ever since. During his period, in fact, he was one of the most widely respected of artists and a member of the majority of European art academies. He is not known by any other name, and to refer to him in any other way is simply insulting. George-Amherst (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George-Amherst, he is referred to as Balvay in this book. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is also referred to as Balvay in this book. Cullen328 (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is also referred to as Balvay in this book. Cullen328 (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Here the British Museum says proper name Balvay, but always used Bervic." But what name does the British Museum actually use? -- Charles-Clement Bervic.

"The English Cyclopedia" is not an authoritative reference for a French engraver ... however, looking further here, you'll find that the article on the individual is alphabetized under Bervic. People do not look under Balay for this individual.

Look further at your example by Prettejohn: she uses the name "Bervic" in her discussion, not Balvay. We cannot check the usage in Rombout's book, but the author notes that the individual is called Bervic, which is why Wikipedia should do so as well.

When I look through Google Books, under "Bervic," there are many examples, only a few of them even mentioning "Balvay"; under "Balvay" in this resource, however, there are NONE (!), no example referring to this individual on this first 2 pages. By titling your article under this name, you are sending your reader to nowhere! In fact, you're concealing information. What's your point? George-Amherst (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC) George-Amherst (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think that it is insulting to refer to a person by their real name on Wikipedia, while also mentioning their "artist name" in the first sentence? Why are you so worked up about this engraver who died 200 years ago that you chose to make false claims about what reliable sources say? I searched Google Books under "Charles Clément Balvay" and found at least seven books describing him that way. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is being "concealed" and no-one is being sent to "nowhere", because a search on "Bervic" has been redirecting to the current article since 2009, and a search on "Charles Clément Bervic" has been redirecting to it since 2010. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.101.71 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article is under the name Bervic ... and this is the name used in the article itself. George-Amherst (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]