Jump to content

Talk:Legion of Honour

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Legion of Honor)

Article

[edit]

Ok, according to the article, France awarded Legion membership to all those who fought on French soil during the first World War. Does this include former German soldiers, who were France's enemies?The Holy Hand Grenade Attack Llama#42 19:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is Legion of Honour, it is a translation of a french word!

[edit]

The rules are:

Exceptions. The word glamour comes from Scots, not Latin or French, and is usually spelled glamour (rarely glamor) in the U.S. and glamour always elsewhere else; saviour is a common variant of savior in the U.S.; the name of the herb savory is thus spelled everywhere (although the probably related adjective savo(u)ry does have a u in Britain.)

Robert Prummel 00:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing against Legion of Honor? If so, how often does the article use the English translation???Morstar (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Légion d'honneur now redirected here

[edit]

The Legion of Honour is the most interesting of the European Orders because of frequent changes of its appearance due to different regimes which conferred it. Where is that part of the article? User:Alexvonf

Order Quota

[edit]

The article cites a maximum quota of members. Does anyone know what happens when all of the positions have been awarded? Does yet another Order succeed it? I don't know how frequently these are handed out, but it doesn't look like it will be too long before those numbers are reached. --BDD 19:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People tend to be fairly old before being granted senior honours, so it's possible that the numbers will remain fairly constant.

"de jure"

[edit]

When it says "dismissed 'de jure'" does this mean by action of law? Or must there be some sort of action or proceeding separate from the conviction? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this to "ipso facto", which appears to be the intended meaning. I've also added a {{cn}} tag.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination and Eligability ?

[edit]

This article doesn't say anything about the nature of nominations ? Is this simply the gift of the President of France (like the Royal Victorian Order) or is there some sort of advisory council like in the Order of Canada ? Dowew 15:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign recipients

[edit]

I though that foreigners could only became Chevalier's in the Legion of Honor. This must be incorrect since Lucien Bouchard was made a Commander (my personal feelings for Bouchard aside) I wonder why this was allowed. Dowew 22:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you say that, my father was made a Chevalier, and was later told that it could not be upgraded as he had won it for military service. Not sure where that leads, but...
--Purple Aubergine 21:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reference to Simon Serfaty getting the Legion. If he got it on the same day as Betancout it isn't mentioned in the same article. HughesJohn (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boulogne

[edit]

The handling in Boulogne (picture) was the second and not the first one. The first one took place on July 15, 1804 in the chapel of Les Invalides. See [1]

it was never changed/ corrected.--Joey123xz (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2006)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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.

Neutral Spelling

[edit]

Since this seems to be the subject of many edits and reverts, in the interest of neutrality, I've replaced all instances of "Legion of Hono(u)r" with the French "Légion d'honneur," and all other instances of hono(u)r with an appropriate synonym such as decoration or distinction, except in the translation of the Legion's motto. Since the shortened form ("Legion") is dialect-neutral, I've left it the way it is. I've also made various grammatical edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.134.10 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 72.195.134.10; I'd been meaning to suggest what you've done. I've gone one step further and renamed all instances of "Legion" to "Légion" where the former is used as shorthand for "Légion d'honneur". Best wishes, David Kernow 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, David. I just realized that I forgot to sign that last comment, and was going to fix it! Oh well. --72.195.134.10 02:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Joe (aka 72.195.134.10 ;-) )[reply]
Based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions that says "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize," this should be changed to Legion of Honor. Such changes have and are being made to other foreign-language articles such as this one [2] from Académie des Sciences to French Academy of Sciences. C. C. Perez 11:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there is also an article "Legion of Honor", referring to something of the Philippines. Extremely sexy 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Versieck (talk • contribs)

(2010) Note the RfM below: the Legion's English-language website uses the British spelling. — kwami (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit No. 66466235

[edit]

Sorry I was a bit ambiguous with the edit summary The Legion does act like a "Order of Chivalry". But that needs a cite, since French official literature call it plainly an "Order" or "the national order of merit". Please disregard "French official literature" and read "what I've seen on the Order". In particular the Legion of Honour's official history page (in French), in the paragraph about the 1960s.

Mr Bluefin 03:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil order ?

[edit]

The Légion is not a civil decoration, nor a military one ; it encompass both. The ordre du Mérite works the same way. IMHO, both shouldn't be classified in [[Category:Civil decorations of France]]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.103.83.35 (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Medal Ribbons

[edit]

There does not appear to be any mention of the ribbons that can be worn when in civilain dress for members of the Order. I know that a Chevalier can wear a red ribbon in his/her lapel button hole, but am not sure about the other ranks.
--Purple Aubergine 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a reference to this near the end of the "Classes and Insignia" section. glv (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other French Orders

[edit]

When the National Order of Merit replaced the ministerial orders, did appointments to the order stop? There is this Canadian link listing someone being made a Chevalier of the Order of Agricultural Merit in 2000: [3] Dowew 03:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The National Order of Merit does not replace all other awards, it just replaces very particular medals. As of today, according to [4], the orders are:
  • Ordre national de la Légion d'Honneur
  • Ordre du Mérite Agricole
  • Ordre du Mérite Maritime
  • Ordre de la Libération
  • Ordre des Palmes Académiques
  • Ordre des Arts et des Lettres
  • Ordre national du Mérite
The Journal officiel has a section, Bulletin officiel des décorations, médailles et récompenses, which lists promotions for the Ordre du Mérite agricole (Order of Agricultural Merit), Ordre des Arts et Lettres (Order of Arts and litterature) and Ordre des Palmes Académiques (Order of Academic Achievements) [5]. Rama 08:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That explains that then. Thanks Dowew 01:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo LeBlanc

[edit]

I found an issue of the Canada Gazette that lists the Canadian Government allowing the French Government to invest former Governor General Romeo LeBlanc as a "Grand Cross of the Order of the Legion of Merit"...does anyone know if this means the Legion of Honour or the National Order of Merit" ? I have tried searching for the French edition of the publication but can't find it. Dowew 01:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually lists him as "Grand Officer of the Order of the Legion of Merit", it is from Sept 28th 2002 [6] Dowew 01:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, both the english and french versions list the appointment like this...although other appointments call it the order of legion of honour or national order of merit...so it is strange this one would be different [7] Dowew 01:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it refers to the Ordre du mérite, but I havent found Mr. LeBlanc in the Journal officiel which informs of these matters. My guess is that Mr LeBlanc was also promoted to Knight of the Order of the Legion of the Bad Copy-Paste :) Rama 07:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say you are a funny man. Extremely sexy 22:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"equivalent of the British Victoria Cross and George Cross combined"

[edit]

I have removed "It is the French equivalent of the British Victoria Cross and George Cross combined" which is rubbish. Knights and officers are more equivalent to the UK's MC, possibly the CGM, while the higher ranks are more honorific (awarded to generals etc.). The Legion of Hounour is better compared to the Order of the British Empire. Mesoso 12:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with you. When awarded for "Actions of War", like for soldiers fallen in Afghanistan in 09/08, LdH is a VC equivalent, a supreme decoration for valour. As for the OBE comparison, there is more or less the same number of Commander of LdH awards in France as there are Knighthoods in the UK. I think The National Order of Merit is the real equivalent of the British Empire. 88.178.189.194 (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal or national?

[edit]

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the name of the order is Royal Order of the Legion of Honour (Ordre Royale de la Légion D’honneur). I also found this name on the website of Legion of Honor. Is this name valid, obsolete or not valid at all?--Nathan2000 (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The order was "Royal" during the various monarchical periods (Bourbon Restoration and July Monarchy, ca. 1814-1848). It was even Imperial during the First (1804-1814) and Second (1852-1870) French Empires. During the Republican periods, the order is known as Ordre National de la Légion d'honneur.
By the way, the correct translation of "Royal Order of the Legion of Honour" is Ordre Royal de la Légion d'honneur, as Ordre is masculine and thus the adjective royal(e) should be use at the masculine gender.
BlaF. (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

[edit]

Changed "patrie" from "fatherland" to "motherland," the word "patrie" being feminine. Cheers! 216.15.41.45 (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, and completely contrary to the logic of the French language, but what the hell. I'm sure it will make Marianne happy. Mrrhum (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am about to change it back to Motherland since it is also La France not Le France. Jwasanders (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Award in fiction

[edit]

Searching year and motivation

[edit]

According to sources stated on Swedish Wikipedia, Yngve Larsson received the officer grade of the Légion d'honneur, however unclear when and for what reason. Anyone here with further information or suggestions on sources (preferably web)? Best wishes from Stockholm, /Urbourbo (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declining The Award

[edit]

People who decline the award do not get much credit. One example of this is during World War Two, a man called Jopseph Thuillez was offered the honour but declined it. He stated that too many people had died and he should not get an award for killing people. His family only found out at his funeral when his old friends turned up to offer their condolences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insect75 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME

[edit]

The English variant of the name of this order is by far the most common in English language sources, with "Legion of Honor" being the most common spelling in use therein. The two different spelling variants of the English term render 609,000 hits in an English language search on Google Books (236,000 for "Legion of Honour" + 373,000 hits for "Legion of Honor"). "Légion d'honneur" renders some 165,000 hits in an "English language" search, and much of those are still in French regardless of the English filter.

Pretty much the same thing happens on Google proper once we filter French language hits and Wikipedia itself: 206,000 [8] vs 334,000 hits [9] for "Legion of Honor" and an (additional!) 1,470,000 results for "Legion of Honour" [10].

There is really no question that the most common term for this order is "Legion of Honor". The article should be moved forthwith per WP:COMMONNAME to "Legion of Honor" (the most common name used in published English language sources). In addition, the French language terms used in this article should be translated. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has already been had (see above) and the consensus was to leave with the French spelling. WP:CommonName also talks about usage in reliable English language sources and the sources used for the article, not just how many hits are achieved on Google. The majority of references for the article use the French spelling, including the BBC. US sources mostly use Legion of Honour or Legion of Honor. On the English Wikipedia there are currently 2386 pages that link 'Légion d'honneur' whilst 435 pages are redirected through 'Legion of Honor' and 353 pages are redirected through 'Legion of Honour'. All things considered, I don't think that there are sufficient new reasons to change the result of the earlier decision. The references were mixed when it came to using the French or English spellings for the grades of the order. Consistency of approach, one way or the other, needs to be maintained with these. Certainly, other than common foreign language expressions, an English translation should be provided the first time a term in another language is used - this appears to have been done in the article, but if something has slipped through the cracks, by all means fix it. AusTerrapin (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous consensus was, quite obviously, contrary to policy ("Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources.")
  • I would like to see the quote from WP:COMMONNAME that states anything to the effect that only sources used in the article determine its title. That would be quite something indeed, it would then be very easy to modify article titles based on personal preference. (For example, the only thing I would have to do is list some twenty or thirty sources from the 609,000 to sink the whole argument.)
    "This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." does by no means imply that those sources used in the article somehow "count" for more than those that happen not to be.
  • I certainly hope you did not just now mean to imply that among the 609,000 publications found (just) on Google Books there are less English reliable sources than among the 165,000 (of which a very high proportion are irrelevant as they are not in English at all). Reliability is not the issue, and I cannot fathom why you brought it up.
I cant imagine what there is to discuss. The common name in English is very obviously not "Légion d'honneur". Almost four times as many reliable English language sources use "Legion of Honor". Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are four times as many hits, sure. But there's a lot of fuzz in that number - about half of the first page of hits Google Books shows me for "legion of honor" are about the California museum, or something else entirely, rather than an alternative name for the French decoration - we can't really say with any confidence that they're all using LoH as a direct counterpart to Ld'H without closer examination. It's not simply a matter of falling back on search results, easy as that would make our task! I've noted some tests in standard reference works below. Shimgray | talk | 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns over fuzz in the number were accepted and answered by the thoroughly refined search below. The results turned out even more against the current title as "Légion d'honneur" results seem to have been afflicted with even more unrelated hits ("fuzz"). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ordre national du Mérite article should also be a subject of a very thorough investigation as to whether that is in reality a name used predominantly in reliable English publications. Most likely a move to "National Order of Merit (France)" is warranted per policy. This is enWiki. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2010)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Not moved. I came here with the intent to move, but the discussion is too vitriolic and ad hominem to wade through. Please see comments next section. — kwami (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Légion d'honneur → Legion of Honor — Warranted by policy, WP:COMMONNAME no-brainer. "Legion of Honor" is significantly more represented in reliable English language publications. It renders some 609,000 hits in an English language search on Google Books (236,000 for "Legion of Honour" + 373,000 hits for "Legion of Honor"). "Légion d'honneur" renders some 165,000 hits in an "English language" search, and much of those are still in French regardless of the English filter. (Of the two English spelling variants, "Honor" is slightly more common.)

With regard to the few objections raised above, I'll add a note. Please be advised that publications used in the article in no way count for more with regard to WP:COMMONNAME than those which happen not to be used.

As opposed to the English language version, there are no indications whatsoever that the current name is anything like the most common name. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Oppose France is in Europe, you're using American spelling. The discussion in 2006 was specifically designed to avoid this problem of Americanism. Further, there is more than one "Legion of Honor" (without the u) see the dab page Legion of Honor (disambiguation). 76.66.200.95 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My dear fellow, I have absolutely nothing against the British spelling and am completely indifferent as to whether we use it over the US one. I suppose that could be easily settled after the move. As for other Legions, there is really no contest here, this is by far and predominantly the primary meaning of "Legion of Honour". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this change has previously been proposed and variations of English spelling led to a move war. Use of the French spelling has provided stability for the last four years. Whilst the French spelling may not be the most frequent usage in on-line English language sources, it is widespread enough to regard it as being commonly known, consequently my view is that it is better to be faithful to the original. WP:ODM also has a policy on this WP:ODM#Non-English language awards. I would argue that there is clear evidence (outside the US at least) of a track record at least as strong as that for the Pour le Mérite which has specifically been singled out as an example where the original language spelling is used. AusTerrapin (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mayhap we should use Turkish in the title then? That would certainly stop any edit wars... :P The point is that the article should have the most common English name, not be "faithful to the original". This is policy we are talking about, not guidelines or user consensus. The issue should be settled, not avoided by using the least common name. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Légion d'honneur is a well-known proper name: common transliterations, English or otherwise, should be considered as secondary as nicknames. I would very much hate to see Croix de Guerre redirect to Cross of War (France), etc., etc. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm really not getting the point of these posts, gents. Wikipedia is not a democracy, please address the reason for the move (Wiki policy WP:UCN). User consensus is secondary to policy. We all agree the current name is neither obscure (as opposed to "known") nor improper or inaccurate. Its just not the most common name used in English language publications.
      You are also quite right in pointing out that this is but the tip of the iceberg with regard to the over-anxious use of French for naming the various orders of France. Nationalist POV is likely to blame. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really doubt French nationalism - Anglosphere cultural cringe would be more likely! But either way, it's something of an established practice, regardless of how it got there.
      • With regards to "not the most common name", this is a bit of a problem. I'm not entirely convinced that using an English name is more common. We can see that the LoH form predominates in Google hits, but there are other things called "Legion of Hono[u]r" in English; a museum, various different awards, some kind of society, etc etc etc. It's not clear what proportion of the LoH hits are actually referring to these topics, rather than the one at hand. (As to "in publications", note that below I've checked two standard reference sources, which seem to favour LdH. I'll try to dig up more tomorrow.) Shimgray | talk | 00:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - In addition to what has been previously said, "Legion of Honor" will lead to endless move proposals between the english spelling "Honour" and the American one "Honor".UltimaRatio (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:USEENGLISH. It appears to be the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at the disambig as well. I've always heard it referred to as the Legion of Honor. Personally I'm fine with the British spelling but don't see why it should be preferred. --JaGatalk 20:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm a french from Paris, my english is very bad, I don't know how the Légion d'honneur is known in english speaking countries… a lot of reasons not no say oppose; but I find this move bizarre, idem with moving Pour le Mérite, Dieu et mon droit… into english. Alvar☮ 16:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME but to the British spelling of honour. In the French wiki many British and American medals have been translated. However, will the rest of the category be translated as well? There does seem to be resistance and cultural snobbery when talking about French terms being translated in this wiki. --Bob (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please show what you describe as "cultural snobbery". SteveStrummer (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Grcampbell: fr:California Palace of the Legion of Honor looks like en:California Palace of the Legion of Honor. Perhaps sometimes it's better not to try to translate, no? Alvar☮ 21:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but it does seem like a lot of French people want to see French on enWiki - just because its French. Its not anyone's imagination. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry too; I don't understand; 1) I was talking to Grcampbell 2) fr:California Palace of the Legion of Honor… it does seem like a lot of English speaking people want to see English on frWiki - just because its English… This kind of statements does not sound serious to me. Sorry, once again. Alvar☮ 00:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Frania W. (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do translate some awards - Iron Cross not Eisernes Kreuz, for example, and I think we're entirely consistent with the general English-language literature in that case. Why English usage seems more comfortable with direct use of French terms than German or, say, Dutch is a whole messy tangle of reasons, and there's probably a historio-linguistic PhD thesis in there somewhere! Shimgray | talk | 23:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
English usage is generally more comfortable with French than, say, German, or Mongolian - but not in this case. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eisernes Kreuz or Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit Eichenlaub und Schwertern are a bit hard to pronounce for non-Germanic speakers, could that be the reason they are translated? Blitzkrieg is easy to pronounce & is kept in German.
--Frania W. (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Google is obviously not a good way to determine which term is best suited and my argument is not based on that. The previous consensus to keep the French name Légion d'honneur was reached because contributors fought between Legion of honor and Legion of honour. I think that we should not reopen this Pandora's box and that Légion d'honneur is good enough because it also distinguishes the decoration to the other several Legions of honor. Badzil (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Removed my opinion. Obviously, per Direktor's view, my French nationality renders my opinion invalid therefore I'll leave other people deciding on that issue. Badzil (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (for clarity). Per my comments below, it seems far from proven that "Legion of Honor" or "Legion of Honour" is in any way the common name for it in general English usage, as opposed to the common name in a particular variant of English. Shimgray | talk | 00:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If there were no problem with honor/honour, then I might be supportive. As it is, the present title is common in English-language scholarship and avoids the "U-problem". Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. I don't even understand why this should be contentious. Here in America, everyone understands the "Legion of Honor" is; "Légion d'honneur" is a basically unknown term. This is the English Wikipedia; it seems quite silly, when given the choice between an article name that everyone understands and one that no one understands, to choose the latter. Absent a very good reason, we go with English. I don't know about the French Wikipedia or the German Wikipedia or whatever, but if they don't want to translate the names of foreign decorations, that's their business. I do note (looking at one example) that the Russian Wikipedia on the Silver Star is named "Серебряная звезда" rather than "Silver Star", for whatever that is worth. As for the Honor/Honour thingy, give me a break; not being able to resolve that is not a good reason for keeping an article title in French. Like most Wikipedians (I would think) I really don't care whether its Honor or Honour, just flip a coin or whatever. Agree to go with the last digit of the NYSTE trading volume of IBM on October 17, 2010; if its odd we go with Honor, if even Honour. Or whatever. But render the title of this article into English, please. Herostratus (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Web Google results count for nothing. Even Google books results are not all that useful unless they can be qualified to somehow remove the irrelevances, uses in fiction, and whatever. I don't see that this can. The editors of the ODNB seem to believe that Légion d'honneur is the English name, just as German schadenfreude becomes English schadenfreude, and so on. So too do I. The current title is no more French than honour, and no more Latin than legion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The immediately preceding comment by Angus McLellan seems to me absolutely ad rem. The close rivalry of Anglophone usages between the English "honour" and the American "Honor", above, rather make the point. Tim riley (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Angus McLellan. I've seen the French title used here in the UK as much as, if not more than an Angliscised version. Therefore by WP:COMMONNAME the current title is the common name (at least in one English speaking country). Anyway what is the problem with sticking in, if they aren't there already, relevant redirects from the various spellings of Legion of Hono(u)r? NtheP (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose by my interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME the current name is correct, just as Pour le Mérite is the correct name for the Prussian military order that could be translated as For Merit. Ericalford (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Preposterous. This is a French order! Are we to rename the Pour le Merite because too many unilingual Anglos can't spell it?! Shall we rename the Japanese warship pages to their English translations? How about the cities? Where does it stop? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Where an English translation of a name is widely used, then the English language wikipedia should use that as the article title. This is nothing new, we do this all the time in articles such as the Bayeux Tapestry (Tapisserie de Bayeux), Joan of Arc (Jeanne d'Arc) etc. etc. not to mention place names like Nihon, Praha, Krung Thep etc. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Mattinbgn, I also wish to add that I prefer the British spelling: honour. Flamarande (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
I'm not keen on the move. My understanding is that using the Anglicised form is common in the US but not standard elsewhere; I've almost always seen it in the French form, and it's the one I'd naturally say in the rare event I actually had to do so. For what it's worth, I checked a standard UK reference source - the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Results are a little imprecise (it has hiccups on the é) but it gives just under six hundred entries using "Légion d'honneur", and three using "legion of honour", of which only one refers to the French decoration. (Another refers to the American one with a "u", which may or may not say something!). Who Was Who gives 34 Legion of Honour, 1 Legion of Honor, and 64 Legion d'honneur (they also have trouble with the accent). Bear in mind, of course, that some of the English-language forms may well refer to other things than this award, whilst the French-language form is very unlikely to refer to anything else. Shimgray | talk | 20:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more research confirms there's a US:UK difference here. Testing a sample of UK newspapers for "legion of honor", "legion of honour", and "legion d'honneur", the latter gets 75%. In the US, 6%. (Before we consider this overwhelmingly indicative of the Anglicised form, I've opened a few at random - a very high proportion of them seem to be about other things, obituaries of people who were in fraternal organisations called the Legion of Honor Color Guard, or equally odd things)
So if we grant that use of the Anglicised form predominates in the US - which I wouldn't use these results to absolutely swear on without further research, but which certainly seems plausible - then it comes down to something of a varieties of English issue and not a common name one per se. Shimgray | talk | 20:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Shimgray Your position is based on completely unfounded, demonstrably wrong assumptions:
  • Firstly the idea of US bias in Google Books is plain ole nonsense. "Legion of Honour" is very close in test results to "Legion of Honor", indisputably showing that British English is, in this case at least, as equally represented as US English (perhaps even more if you are right that "Légion d'honneur" is used in British English).
  • Secondly, "Legion of Honour" is British English and it alone soundly blows away "Légion d'honneur" - conclusively showing that British English publications (not surprisingly) also prefer English rather than French, indeed, it is also by far the most common result on Google proper. Shooting down in flames the hypothesis that the British English term is "Légion d'honneur".
  • Thirdly, even if we were to disregard all of the above or pretend it was otherwise (and we will not), the English speaking world is (believe it or not) also much larger than the US and UK, again rendering the foundation of your idea unrepresentative of English language usage on the whole.
In short: no. "Légion d'honneur" is a rarely used term in both British and American English.
There are no indications whatsoever that "Légion d'honneur" is the most common in either British or American English language usage - in fact, the contrary has been conclusively demonstrated through proper an thoroughly refined Google and Google Books tests. Both English variants prefer their own spelling, each alone heavily outnumbering the currently used French spelling. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposer should be careful about using terms such as "no brainer" this implies that if anyone objects that they have no idea what they are talking about which would contravene WP:PERSONAL and has the potential to put people off from participating in the discussion. Whilst this was presumably unintended by the proposer, it is still the implication. If the page is to be moved, based on the proposer's own argument, the proposed name change should be to "Legion of Honour" not to "Legion of Honor" (3:1 ratio in favour of the British spelling):
Google French spelling US spelling British spelling
www.google.co.uk 206,000 337,000 1,460,000
www.googlebooks.com 165,000 373,000 236,000
AusTerrapin (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to be clear in case someone has not noticed, "The Proposer" would be little ole me. :) I shall not apologize for describing the move as a "no brainer". I disagree with your rather "liberal" interpretation of the phrase and continue to hold that an article which has the least common name for a title should very obviously be renamed without the necessity for a prolonged debate/argument/discussion (which is what I meant). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only plausible other name, in my view, would be Legion of Honour (France). However, I'd prefer the French name without parentheses.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think there is any need to disambiguate. Legion of Hon(u)or already links directly here. This is "the" Legion of Honor after all. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the UK/US spelling difference, I want to be clear that I myself am utterly indifferent as to whether the title should include the letter "u" or not. I just wrote the variant that was slightly more used in publications.
To dispel any concerns regarding bias: I am neither British/Commonwealth nor American. I first learned the language in the US, but studied English as the British variant back home for years (I'm told I sound something like Hannibal Lecter in the movie :). I am not "anti-French" in any way and can't understand how someone could be (in fact, Napoleon is probably my favorite historical personality).

I was just surprised to see the title of this article in French and did a quick check. My only points are: 1) "Légion d'honneur" is just not the most common name in English language publications. 2) We need to find that which is. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Shimgray. There may be a lot of fuzz there as you say, but there's a whole lot more "fuzz" in the French figure of 165,000. As I said, a great many French language publications were not filtered out, and more still use the name in the context of quoted text in French [11]. There is also the Palais de la Légion d'Honneur, and the fact is that many of the alternative uses you mention as the "fuzz" in the English figure - are also present in the French figure.
In short, the fuzz is always there, it is present in both figures, but the difference here is four times (4x) so I doubt that is significant. Nevertheless, how would you suggest we refine the search? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Google results are as follows:

  • "Legion d'honneur" France OR francais OR francaise: About 1,420,000 results [12]
  • "Legion of Honor" France OR French: About 202,000 results [13]
  • "Legion of Honour" France OR French: About 1,330,000 results [14]

  Cs32en Talk to me  16:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Google results are as follows:

  • "Legion d'honneur" France OR francais OR francaise: About 2,120,000 results [15]
  • "Legion of Honor" France OR French: About 602,000 results [16]
  • "Legion of Honour" France OR French: About 2,430,000 results [17]

--Bob (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tuning the search to limit only to pages in English language, here are the results:
  • "Legion d'honneur" France OR francais OR francaise: About 155,000 results [18]
  • "Legion of Honor" France OR French: About 194,000 results [19]
  • "Legion of Honour" France OR French: About 1,250,000 results [20]

Badzil (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources."
Again, missing the point fellas: the issue is researching use in 1) English language 2) sources. Those searches neither explore usage in sources, nor do they screen for French language hits, nor do they filter-out Wikipedia itself.
In short, Google Books/Scholar with an English filter is probably the best type of test we can do, and it certainly tops Google proper.
That said, these are the Google test results with the English filter on:
  • "Legion d'honneur" -wikipedia: 208,000 results [21]
  • "Legion of Honor" -wikipedia: 334,000 results [22]
  • "Legion of Honour" -wikipedia: 1,470,000 results [23]
Like I said, I did all the tests before proposing this. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using Google as a reference is a non-sense. Most searches with "Legion of honor" are leading to completely unrelated subjects such the "Legion of Honor of San Francisco", the "New Jersey Legion of Honor", etc. You got to deal with the fact that "Légion d'Honneur" is like a brand that can't be translated. Should VolksWagen's article be renamed "People Cars" because there is much more results on Google with "People" and "Car" than with Volkswagen ? UltimaRatio (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, any hit received for Légion d'Honneur will undoubtedly add a hit for the English translation if you are searching English-only pages. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@User:UltimaRatio, I get the feeling you do not get the usage of Google tests on Wiki. See WP:UCN.
Steve, if you object to the accuracy of the test, please suggest ways to refine it and exclude false hits. Or better yet, perform an improved test yourself. I'm not seeing any justification to keep the least-used name variant. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not incumbent upon me to do so: you are the nominator, so it's up to you to lay out a valid proposal. But this is no different from the proposal that was made several years ago when this change was discussed at length and a solid consensus was found to keep the name in French. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is one thing I do not understand in some discussions on Wikipedia. Often, when there is a disagreement, the same contributors who use the argument that Wikipedia is not a democracy also use the "Google hits" research tool. In my eyes, these are two opposite arguments being used by the same side.

  1. If Wikipedia is not a democracy, then why bother bringing the move up for discussion? Why not let a Diktator do the move arbitrarily?
  2. When Google hits are proposed to prove one's point, is not that using the tools of Democracy since, right or wrong, the results found by a majority of Google hits are going to be the most important argument used to win the debate?

--Frania W. (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea behind the survey (not vote!) and discussion is to see whether someone can show that this is not, in fact, the most common name in English publications. So far, all I've seen is vague opposition essentially summed up to "it feeeels right this way". The survey and discussion are not a call for you to "express yourself and your thoughts" on the subject, but an opportunity to bring-up concrete, relevant arguments for or against the move - by addressing the reason for the move.
As for democracy - good point, but somewhat flawed: the Google Corp. search engine is not exactly an internet variant of "democracy" and is not intended to be used as such. "Wikipedia is not a democracy" essentially means that our personal opinions, those of a few random internet fellas, do not count. This is as opposed to those of people who got published, in particular scientists and experts. I could not agree more, personally. I can't imagine a more ridiculous way to solve factual disputes than "lets all vote". Democracy is no way to solve scientific debates.
I'll let that "diktator" bit slide, but I suggest you do not go there again. I also do not see the point of discussing policy here. E-mail Jim or something. In addition to not being a democracy, Wikipedia is also not a forum. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand, Wikipedia is not a democracy & it is not a forum either, and the only way to solve the problem of either or not translating Légion d'honneur into English is by using the one & only scientific tool at our disposal, i.e. Google?
By the way, what did you mean by "Nationalist POV is likely to blame"? Who are the nationalists?
--Frania W. (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy or a forum. Google is not a scientific, or democratic, "tool". Google is just one means of checking representation of certain phrases within published works. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are starting to see a lot of French people who are opposing this on an emotional basis. I hope we won't let this degenerate into a squabble. People, please remember to address the reason for the move (in a meaningful way). I would like to invite everyone to present ways with which to improve the Google test. I'm sure everyone knows that false hits can easily be excluded, e.g we can just add "-San Francisco" or "-Palais" or whatever. What do you folks think is interfering with the accuracy of the testing? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest ditching the Google test entirely - since interpreting any plausible result from it is hard - and trying to work on reference works, etc. I've noted two biographical reference works above, which are firmly on the side of LdH, and a rather equivocal result from searching newspaper databases, which indicates that LdH predominates in the UK and LoH in the US. I don't have easy access to any other standard biographical references, so I've checked style guides - the Guardian and Hart's Rules (the OUP handbook) don't mention it, whilst the Times simply says "either form is acceptable, according to context". Not much of a result there! Are any of the standard US style guides available online? Shimgray | talk | 00:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Director, could you please stop to act both as the proponent of the move and as the moderator of the discussion? If you say "we", how many have started to see French people here?  Cs32en Talk to me  00:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I mean. For some reason users are making this personal. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


@User:Shimgray. I do not think the Google test should or will be "dropped". It is the recommended and most widely used way to research notability on Wikipedia (Google Books is particularly recommended). The results are also very clear and unambiguous, and I can't see any amount of vague objections devalue their significance. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google is a useful tool, but it is simply not the be-all and end-all; if the issue is what terminology reliable sources use, we should actually go and look at those sources. Again, please see comments above; this is a bit more complex than "one is much more common than the other". Shimgray | talk | 20:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Direktor: to my knowledge, there are very few things called "Légion d'honneur" whereas the results from Google for "Legion of Honor" show that there is a whole lot of garbage in there (mainly related to companies' legions of honor or MMORPG teams called Legion of Honor). So saying that Legion of Honor is more used because it has 40 % more hits in Google is not true. Better filtering proposition was proposed by me below but Google refuses queries with more than 32 words. Badzil (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, User:Badzil, Shimgray, everyone, it does not matter how you refine the search: the difference is HUGE and it always turns out virtually in the same ratio. I suggest you stop trying to desperately "challenge" these results since this is getting silly.
It also looks like people are inviting their buddies from frWiki to oppose this. This move will be listed on a WikiProject noticeboard. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ladies and Gents, lets keep it civil (on all sides). From what I can see, the situation is this:
  1. WP:COMMONNAME states "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. ... Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. ... In determining which of several alternative names is more common, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, ... and a search engine may help to collect this data. When using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice in the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test." This link notes that "Hit counts reported by Google are only estimates,[4] which in some cases have been shown to necessarily be off by nearly an order of magnitude, especially for hit counts above a few thousands."
  2. Wikipedia:Article titles#Considering title changes states that "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed"
  3. WP:UE states that "In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader."
  4. Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals#Non-English language awards states that "The basic rule is that the names of foreign-language awards should be translated into English except where there is an established track-record of referring to it by its foreign-language name."
  • The article name has been stable since 2006 therefore policy 2 seems to apply. This requires that there be a good reason to change the name. Consequently the questions to be answered are:
  • Is there an established track-record of refering to the Légion d'honneur using the French name? If there is then WP:ODM policy is that the French name should be used.
  • What form of the name is most commonly used in reliable English language sources? Policy 1 indicates that this name should normally be used but by its very wording allows that exceptions may be made, although one would expect that such exceptions would require solid justification.
  • Do the above constitute a good reason for changing the name?
  • If the name is to be changed to an English spelling, should it be "Honour" or "Honor"?
  • Regardless of quibbling around the margins, the Google searches (examining Google general and Google Books) line up 1) "Honour", 2) "Honor", 3)"honneur", however due to the inherent limitations of online searches, this is a guide rather than a definitive result. I believe it is unlikely that we will easily find anything that conclusively alters this balance
  • So whilst the French term appears to be the least used in Google sources, in view of the conflicting guidelines, particularly since it is still a frequently used term, is lower apparent usage significant? Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really like us to gather more specific data than simply Google results, especially given the known proliferation of other things by a similar name. I've made an attempt above, but some consultation of more style guides would be useful; ditto a broader set of reference works. Shimgray | talk | 16:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Shimgray Your position is based on completely unfounded, demonstrably wrong assumptions:
  • Firstly the idea of US bias in Google Books is plain ole nonsense. "Legion of Honour" is very close in test results to "Legion of Honor", indisputably showing that British English is, in this case at least, as equally represented as US English (perhaps even more if you are right that "Légion d'honneur" is used in British English).
  • Secondly, "Legion of Honour" is British English and it alone soundly blows away "Légion d'honneur" - conclusively showing that British English publications (not surprisingly) also prefer English rather than French, indeed, it is also by far the most common result on Google proper. Shooting down in flames the hypothesis that the British English term is "Légion d'honneur".
  • Thirdly, even if we were to disregard all of the above or pretend it was otherwise (and we will not), the English speaking world is (believe it or not) also much larger than the US and UK, again rendering the foundation of your idea unrepresentative of English language usage on the whole.
In short: no. "Légion d'honneur" is a rarely used term in both American and especially British English.
There are no indications whatsoever that "Légion d'honneur" is the most common in either British or American English language usage - in fact, the contrary has been conclusively demonstrated through proper an thoroughly refined Google and Google Books tests. Both English variants prefer their own spelling, each alone heavily outnumbering the currently used French spelling. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a (basic) search of the British "InfoTrac Full Text Newspaper Database" and got 255 instances of Legion d'honneur and 5 of French Legion of Honour. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just repeated the same search on the Times archive 578 "Legion d'honneur" and 97 for "French Legion of Honour".GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its likely the "French" parameter. Try rather to exclude false ("-california -phillipine") hits than to restrict the search that way, and try both spelling variants. But regardless of the outcome, I still have to say I find the hundreds of thousands of Books results faar more convincing (after having been refined, of course). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without "French" the Legion of Honour went up to 58 (68 less 10 false positives). No point in trying both spellings for an archive of British newspapers but I tested it anyway (and was still none).GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regarding that number of results for Google books you like to refer to. Please note that these numbers displayed on the first page of results are only estimates and the real number of results is found on the last page of results. These numbers are:

  • Légion d'honneur : 384 ([24])
  • Legion of Honor : 207 ([25])
  • Legion of honour : 169 ([26])

So what now? Did my French nationality alter these results? Or you now prefer the results of classic Google? Badzil (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google tests

[edit]

"The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources."

— WP:USEENGLISH

"Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. In determining which of several alternative names is more common (...) a search engine may help to collect this data."

— WP:COMMONNAME

"[Search engines] are helpful in identifying sources, establishing notability, checking facts, and discussing what names to use for different things - the so-called Google Test.
Google Book Search has a pattern of coverage that is in closer accord with traditional encyclopedia content than the Web, taken as a whole, is; if it has systemic bias, it is a very different systemic bias from Google Web searches. Multiple hits on an exact phrase in Google Book Search provide convincing evidence for the real use of the phrase or concept."

— WP:GOOGLETEST

Tests were performed with the greatest care to avoid any possible false hits. User objections to the refinement of previous searches were taken into consideration. Google Books results are of much greater significance than those of Google proper. All tests are performed with the English language filter (per guideline).

Google Books

  • French (note: French language hits not entirely filtered-out)
    • "Légion d'honneur" -francisco -california -palais -palace -sigma -Phillipine: 76,600 results [27]
  • English
    • "Legion of Honor" -francisco -california -palais -palace -sigma -Phillipine: 265,000 results [28]
    • "Legion of Honour" -francisco -california -palais -palace -sigma -Phillipine: 201,000 results [29]

Google

  • French (note: French language hits not entirely filtered-out)
    • "Légion d'honneur" -wikipedia -francisco -california -palais -palace -sigma -Phillipine: 454,000 results [30]
  • English
    • "Legion of Honor" -wikipedia -francisco -california -palais -palace -sigma -Phillipine: 728,000 results [31]
    • "Legion of Honour" -wikipedia -francisco -california -palais -palace -sigma -Phillipine: 1,030,000 results [32]

The current title of the article is between three or four times less common in English language publications than either one of the English spelling variants, which together blow the current title completely out of the water. Please bring forward any reasons, if any, why this should be ignored. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You could try that (and I only removed the garbage from the first 2 pages of results): "Legion of Honor" -wikipedia -francisco -california -palais -palace -sigma -Philippine -demolay -TMS -MMORPG -Nordrassil -"clash of arms" -"de young" -"Tangier Shrine" -halo -kiwanis -SPE -gamers -"Cartier @ Legion of Honor" -"El Zaribah" -"star trek" [33]. Badzil (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, more frWiki folks "defending the honor of the fatherland" or whatnot... User:Badzil, the above post makes no sense. The faults in the previous search were pointed out by other users, not me.
It also does not matter how many words we exclude or add to the search, it always turns out virtually the same. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proper name is used in all serious treatments of the subject. When writers slip back into the vernacular for the remainder of an article, you see your English Google count go way up. And that's part of the reason why WP policy says, "A search engine test cannot help you avoid the work of interpreting your results and deciding what they really show. Appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything." SteveStrummer (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, there are around 600,000 books which describe or mention this subject. The above is your own speculation - plus I cannot believe someone is actually claiming there are less "serious treatments" in the half-a-million publications using the English variants than in the 70,000 which use the French one. In short 1) you do not (and cannot) know for certain that the above is the case, 2) the only way to actually check that is to do a Google Books test... the results of which you can see above.
You're acting as if this was some sort of close call - as I said: the current title is three or four times less common than either one of the English spelling variants, which together blow the current title completely out of the water. Three or four times (3.7x), or six times less common than the English variants together. The fact that the veracity of the test results is still being disputed is something I'm still trying to get my mind around. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you ignore the fact that this is a proper name: the actual French is almost always given at the introduction to establish context, and then English is used multiple times because that is vernacular style. And whether you can believe it or not, not every publication is concerned enough to be so thorough, so there are indeed many, many references to the topic which do not bother to use the proper name, quite possibly even a majority. But that does not mean that the name should be given up: as you said, Wikipedia is not a democracy. The results of your Google test are simply not enough to to warrant a change because the proper name is routinely used in all manner of journalism, scholarly writing, and papers of record: witness diverse sources such as the New York Times; Time magazine; the Sun Chronicle; Huffington Post; Vogue magazine; [the National Press Photographers Association; World Learning; New York University School of Law; UNICEF; the Boston Globe; etc. etc. SteveStrummer (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only direct you to WP:COMMONNAME once more, and point out that there is no such thing as the "proper name" on Wikipedia, or I should say that on Wikipedia the "proper" name is the most common name. I am also not concerned with unsubstantiated claims and speculation of the above sort. No one person can "proclaim" a phrase to be vaguely better based on his own experience. This is why we have such objective and unbiased methods as the Google test. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR: After a discussion has been going on for almost a week under the head paragraph that you signed on 28SEP10, is it "Wiki legal" to add a paragraph that you insert within the original date? Because it makes some of the comments by other contributors sound weird, as if they had not read your original text. If you want to add something, why don't you do like all of us do: let the date of your addendum show?
--Frania W. (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post in the move rationale. And yes, it is "legal" to amend one's own post. Feel free to alter your own and make mine "sound weird" (a removal of your personal attack suggests itself). In the fture, please check the policy prior to accusing others of not respecting it. Reagrds --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Where am I accusing you? I was asking a question because I find it strange that the heading of a survey can be altered & not show the date of alteration. That paragraph was added after several contributors had already discussed the subject - so, I innocently thought that the addendum should be dated when added.
  2. Not knowing where my comment should go, I placed it right after your addendum.
--Frania W. (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sir DIREKTOR, are these the guidelines which should be consulted before asking questions [34] ? Step 5 reads as follows:
  • "Once started, the questions and wording in the survey should not change. However, if someone feels that the existing survey is seriously flawed, this is typically an indication Step 2 was not completed properly."
P.S. What does this mean: "(a removal of your personal attack suggests itself)"?
--Frania W. (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

[edit]
  • Nationalist POV is likely to blame.
  • We are starting to see a lot of French people who are opposing this on an emotional basis
  • It also looks like people are inviting their buddies from frWiki to oppose this.
  • Great, more frWiki folks "defending the honor of the fatherland" or whatnot...

Pardon me if I am wrong or a bit too sensitive, but I am getting the feeling that the proponent of this move is doing it not so much as a lover of the English language on English WP, but as a hater of the French. It is hard to believe that the above underlined phrases are coming from the person in charge of the discussion pertaining to the move. Not only does he add a comment to anyone’s “oppose” choice, but with cutting remarks he constantly slights the French participants of the discussion.

How can a discussion like this be allowed to continue when the proponent of the move, and self-designated moderator of the discussion, is using language & tone that can only be seen as intimidation tactics?

I find particularly injurious his "Nationalist POV is likely to blame" and "…more frWiki folks "defending the honor of the fatherland" or whatnot..."

I am known for my use of sarcasm, but the above are neither sarcasm nor caustic remarks, they are insults.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't answer directly to Direktor because it will start to get ugly. I am the buddy of noone and noone had to call me. I feel hurt by the language used and the assertions made by Direktor. As Frania Wisniewska, I did understand the above-quoted remarks as insults. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so why try to bully people to change their opinions if someone can take the final decision based on Wikipedia policies? Badzil (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm English not French but I would be outraged by the assertions above. As it is, I believe such insulting debating breaches wikipedia etiquette. As to the main topic at hand, I've never seen Legion d'Honeur translated into English on other than an explanatory basis before but it is clear this is often done in the US. While clearly this means there is some area of confusion, why is a DAB page not sufficient to clear this up?Monstrelet (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an insult to imply someone prefers his own culture over a foreign one. And if someone has any serious doubts this is indeed the case I invite him to but review the posts of User:Frania Wisniewska, who, never having talked to me before, called me a "diktator" for trying to uphold WP:COMMONNAME (along with what I can only describe as a rant on my "opposition to democracy"). I think you will find that is a breach of WP:NPA, while my own posts are certainly not. Cherry-picking my comments out of context and underlining them will not fly with the admins and it shouldn't convince anyone here either. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out here, Direktor, that contributors may not be discounted because they happen to be French: this is an English-language wiki, not an English-person's wiki. Further, if any interested party is going to review older posts, I strongly suggest they begin with the ones I've just read: your "helpful" additions to Battle of France, Arc de Triomphe, and other France articles are completely transparent in their motivations, and they are doubtless related to what's going on here. SteveStrummer (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Doubtless"? The only thing that is doubtless here is that people are trying their best and using any means necessary to circumvent policy. Attacking me and my edits is just a part of this.
With the above in mind pray tell, Steve, what is so "doubtlessly going on here"? I am a left-wing oriented Croatian person. There is not a single ideological nor nationalist explanation you could possibly invent to fit me in your grand scheme of "anti-French conspiracy" you so unambiguously imply.
  • I added the picture on the Battle of France article since a picture of British soldiers where they made a relatively minor role in the fighting seemed overly anglo-centric, a serious problem on WWII articles.
  • I added the picture of Germans marching past the Arch de Triomphe since the History section of that article described the two instances the Germans marched through it and the picture fit perfectly with the context - and then it was removed due to shallow historical grudges. I added the picture in both those places at once since I had just finished repairing it, like I've repaired the portrait photograph of Charles De Gaulle.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't have to defend yourself, Direktor. You've made compelling arguments and backed them up with stats; that's the only thing that really matters. I say stand by your work and trust the admin to make the proper decision, even if the result isn't what you're hoping for. --JaGatalk 22:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line with this whole thing is that there is no justification for the current title. People have been attacking the Google tests, their use on Wiki, and even WP:COMMONNAME policy itself, - but nobody has presented any indication whatsoever that this current title is anything like the most common.
Frankly I'm outraged at the defensive response this RM has generated. I am being WP:STALKed and my edits are being scrutinized and removed without discussion, with repeated careful implications that I am a "Nazi-sympathizer" of some sort ("diktator", my "transparent motivations", etc). Why? Because I stated my opinion that people from France may want to defend the use of the French language on enWiki. Let me be perfectly clear as to these issues:
  • Yes, I do believe French people generally prefer their own language over English and may be biased in English vs. French discussions on enWiki.
  • No, no indications whatsoever were presented that may even loosely be interpreted by anyone as suggesting this current title is the most common in English language sources.
I do not intend to apologize for any of the above at any time, least of all for my commitment to understanding and following Wikipedia policy. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"#No, no indications whatsoever were presented that may even loosely be interpreted by anyone as suggesting this current title is the most common in English language sources."
In the first comment in the "Discussion" section, made a week ago, I showed that it is predominantly used in the current form in British English print sources, and that the use of "Legion of Honor" rather than "Legion d'honneur" appears to be an American English preference. We can debate the significance of this distinction, but repeatedly claiming the evidence doesn't exist or hasn't been brought up is both frustrating and misleading. Shimgray | talk | 19:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not evidence of common use: 1) I should not have to say this, but British use ≠ English language use; 2) that is an unrefined print search only; 3) it is hardly noteworthy in comparison to the world's largest database of publications. What I'm trying to figure out is how can someone conceivably use that as any sort of counter-argument to the overwhelming test results above. Talk about misleading and frustrating...
No indications whatsoever were presented that may even loosely be interpreted by anyone as suggesting this current title is the most common in English language sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course British English is not all English - it is, however, a significant issue that we need to think about and not glibly ignore. It's no surprise that when asked, Google results will predominantly return American English results for a word or phrase that differs between dialects - compare the results for "airplane" and "aeroplane". What this means is that when titling an article (etc) becomes a matter of regional variance, we don't usually use Google results - we recommend other methods, and that's what I'm asking us to think about here. We can't rely on Google results because all they do is tell us that Google indexes more American-language text; we need to discuss this more broadly, and try to find more specific sources, but all I see in this discussion is a constant insistence that Google results show overwhelming use, deeming everything else as irrelevant.
As to "unrefined print search", I really don't think we can say a search on a known and restricted corpus of English-language publications, restricted to the past couple of decades, and able to be seperated by regional dialect, is somehow less meaningful than an unrestricted search against a mixed collection of books of heterogenous origin, including a sizable number in foreign languages and a high degree of duplication, and containing both contemporary usage and original texts from several centuries ago. Shimgray | talk | 20:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we agree, the United Kingdom does not constitute the English-speaking world. Glad we could sort that out. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The United Kingdom does not constitute the English-speaking world, but neither does the United States. I do not see why the US usage of a phrase should predominate simply because more US-dialect texts are available in Google Books, which is what your interpretation of the search results amounts to. I would be more willing to consider this a valid move if there was any attempt to research it beyond internet searches, and I have asked for such research several times, but to no avail.
Please be clear, incidentally, that I am not suggesting you have a personal stake here - I don't think you have a preference for American style over British or any other - but I do think you're misinterpreting the results and as a result, trying to argue for a move that simply isn't supported by the evidence in the way you think it is. Shimgray | talk | 21:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... Google Books does not cover only the US. Your test does cover only the UK. So Google Books, with all its flaws, is representative of English language usage on the whole (or as representative as we can possibly manage). This is why it is recommended by policy in a very explicit manner as a very high-quality method of determining usage.
Your source is not representative, or is at best incomparably less significant and cannot be used as any sort of counter-argument. Searching UK results accounts for cca. 6% of the total of English speakers (65/1150 million) - and that's being generous.
Again, there are no indications that this is the most common name in English language usage. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see 10 editors opposed to the move and 3 editors supporting it.
I think we have a consensus here to keep "Légion d'honneur".UltimaRatio (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not wrong there (nice work with the counting), but you are wrong in your assumption that Wikipedia functions as a democracy. Even if we assume you are the person to declare "consensus", policy is always paramount - and this is one of the most clear-cut cases with regard to WP:COMMONNAME I've seen so far in my years on Wiki. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you would care to look at the results I originally posted, there was a test on both UK and US English-language print newspaper corpuses, each seperated. There was a clearly different answer for each - by an order of magnitude in frequency! - which is consistent with the hypothesis that this is a regionally variable usage; I can't imagine that it would give results this sharply differentiated and simply be due to random chance.
Google Books is an excellent corpus for some purposes of discussing common usage, but not all, and one of the problem cases is where a language difference is explicitly due to one variety of English. I did not claim it is solely US-derived, but the database is for logistical reasons likely to skew towards US published material, given that all bar one of the participating institutions from English-language regions are American. As a result, when we're looking at a situation where we already know there's a dialect difference, a Google Books result can be misleading. We're running the search on a corpus which can be expected to favour one language form over the other by the nature of the way it's selected, and exacerbate any effect by not correcting for duplication; the results are, as such, a bit hard to interpret cleanly.
Basically, there seems to be a strong case to be made that the use of Légion d'honneur versus Legion of Honor is different between regional varieties of English, and that the results of a Google test do not meaningfully show any evidence to the contrary. In that case, we need to consider the policy on national varieties of English, a key point of which is not to change a stable usage without a clear indication of some form of "national tie", which I don't think we can argue is really the case here. The article has been stable at the title Légion d'honneur since 2002, with the one attempt to move it changed after discussion four years ago. I really don't see any reason to move it beyond a google test which is, as discussed above, unlikely to be clearly indicative. Shimgray | talk | 00:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An over-complicated house of cards based on completely unfounded, demonstrably wrong assumptions:
  • Firstly the idea of US bias in Google Books is plain ole nonsense. "Legion of Honour" is very close in test results to "Legion of Honor", indisputably showing that British English is, in this case at least, as equally represented as US English (perhaps even more if you are right that "Légion d'honneur" is used in British English).
  • Secondly, "Legion of Honour" is British English and it alone soundly blows away "Légion d'honneur" - conclusively showing that British English publications (not surprisingly) also prefer English rather than French, indeed, it is also by far the most common result on Google proper. Shooting down in flames the hypothesis that the British English term is "Légion d'honneur".
  • Thirdly, even if we were to disregard all of the above or pretend it was otherwise (and we will not), the English speaking world is (believe it or not) also much larger than the US and UK, again rendering the foundation of your idea unrepresentative of English language usage on the whole.
In short: no. "Légion d'honneur" is a rarely used term in both British and American English.
There are no indications whatsoever that "Légion d'honneur" is the most common in either British or American English language usage - in fact, the contrary has been conclusively demonstrated through proper an thoroughly refined Google and Google Books tests. Both English variants prefer their own spelling, each alone heavily outnumbering the currently used French spelling. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Shimgray, I feel I have successfully answered your concerns. With the above post in mind, can you present any indication at all that would point towards the current title being the most common in English language sources? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading back over your comments in this discussion, it seems they're all based on the use of Google & Google Books searches as the way to determine usage, and dismissing evidence presented from any other source. Before I continue this discussion - it's taking up a lot of my time and doesn't seem to be getting very far - I would appreciate it if you would answer a single question:
- are you willing to accept, as evidence in this discussion, usage patterns in any sources other than Google or Google Books?
I don't see much point in continuing this debate if we can't agree on the fundamental methods of determining its answer. Thanks, Shimgray | talk | 23:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before we consider other sources, I expect someone to demonstrate why the reliable, recommended, and by far the most widely used test should be entirely disregarded here - particularly with such decisive and conclusive results.
If I recall, your argument for disregarding Google Books shifted over time in a typical apologetic manner. First you objected to the "fuzz", when this was thoroughly filtered out with a refined search - you shifted to an unfounded hypothesis of "US bias" in Google Books. The idea was demonstrably false from the start, with the very large number of British English results very closely rivaling the number of American English hits.
Now I am at a loss to discern a coherent argument. Rather I can only see a rhetorical ploy consisting of an attempt to dismiss Google Books by singling-out me as some sort of fanatical proponent of it. I shall certainly not at any time be coaxed into believing that Google Books should be disregarded on someone's whim. In the vast majority of RMs, the issue of notability is settled with Google Books. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my very first comment, I noted that checking print sources suggested "d'honneur" was in common use, and suggested this was due to a language-variant issue; I presented evidence to support this, and noted that if there is a language-variant situation this was an issue we needed to take into account rather than simply looking for a "common name" by weight of numbers. Every comment I have made since that point was an attempt to discuss or explain why the results from a wide range of print sources appear to disagree with the Google results - if they agreed with the Google results, I certainly wouldn't be arguing!
In order to try to understand this discrepancy, I have brought up for discussion a number of possible issues with the searches, in the hope that one or more of them might explain it. This is not "a typical apologetic manner", or any of the other borderline abusive things you have accused me of; rather, it's an honest attempt to study the problem one issue at a time. The first hypothesis was the most obvious - that the search method was flawed - but extensive refining didn't seem to make the results any clearer. The second hypothesis was that the corpuses being searched were sufficiently different to explain the discrepancy, and to ask why that might be.
Every single piece of evidence you have offered so far is a variant on "Google results say so"; you have simply dismissed any other source that does not agree with Google. However, there is no reason to argue these sources are reliable. Some are checked and edited scholarly publications, which can be presumed to reflect the standard writing conventions of the language. Others are curated databases which are, for these purposes, perhaps more powerful than Google - they allow us to constrain the results by date, by (approximate) regional language style, and to completely filter out foreign-language hits.
It seems clear, to me, that they are at the very least no less reliable than searching Google Books - a service for which I have a great deal of affection, but also an honest understanding of its limitations. But despite your comment that Google is "just one means of checking representation of certain phrases within published works", you dismiss any attempt to use other means as "hardly noteworthy in comparison" or "incomparably less significant".
This is, frankly, insulting and time-wasting. I do not see any point in continuing here; I have made my points, whether you like them or not, and this is simply going to degenerate into repeating them over and over again with little return. Shimgray | talk | 23:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By your own admission, every single piece of evidence you have offered so far is a variant on "my US and UK print results say so" ("every comment I have made since that point"). While I, in the meantime, could not believe you are repeatedly and incessantly presenting that as some sort of a counter to 1) the world's largest database of published material, which is 2) explicitly recommended as reliable by the policy of this website, 3) in incomparably wider use in solving such issues on this website, and 4) which does not limit itself only to the UK and US disregarding thousands of published sources. I have not "dismissed" anything, in the simplest terms imaginable: even if your source disagrees with Books - Books wins. Savvy?
I also love the way you portray yourself as simply trying to get to the bottom of the indiscrepancy. What you fail to mention is that the way you went about this is to attack Books alone while placing your own test on a pedestal, which all the while has a number of serious faults and is clearly inferior to Books. Instead of admitting to the apparent unrepresentative nature of your own test, you immediately gave it the benefit of the doubt and commenced attempts to discredit Books by actually inventing faults there (such as "pro-US bias"). I'm sorry, but this is not unbiased research and you should not portray it as such.
Your own test, because of its inherent restricted nature is incomparably less significant and hardly noteworthy in comparison with Books. I am not "dismissing" it, but if the two disagree, and we have to prefer one, then the recommended one, which is more commonly accepted in use, with a larger database, a more refined search, and an unrestricted scope - is the one. Its good to check it, refine it, but once the flaws are weeded out, and no more are found - then we know (and should accept) the results as simply more accurate. Can you, or can you not, now offer a third hypothesis on why we should distrust it in comparison to your own test (who's flaws in comparison to Books are obvious and numerous)? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I am still just a student, I am not new to real scientific debate. This is not the first time I've seen less significant research (if we can use that term at all here) placed on a pedestal and preferred due to personal preferences. I do hope my manner was not too gruff, it was not my intention to demean or in an way attack you personally - in fact it was obvious from the start you are the only person disagreeing on any real relevant basis, and that you are serious in your approach here. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dixit Direktor: "in fact it was obvious from the start you are the only person disagreeing on any real relevant basis,..." Before adding any more denigrating remarks to this discussion already peppered with them, it might be advisable that this 'still student' get acquainted with the curriculum vitæ of some of the other participants of this discussion.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I should not have to point out that I do not need to be acquainted with someone's cv in order to assess his/her argument on this talkpage. Your own argument, e.g., is not something either the admins or myself should concern ourselves with, simply because it does not touch on Wikipedia naming policy. The "proper name" is another example, the latest "preposterous" vote in the survey is another. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You proposed that this article be moved, and that is where your role stops, i.e. being the "proposer", not the "assessor" of the argument of participants you do not agree with. Even though Wikipedia is not a democracy, contributors have the right to express themselves without being targeted with demeaning comments, the above being but one more instance. If some mention "proper name" or say that the proposal is "preposterous", then be it, that is what these contributors think & they should be free to say so without being subjugated to the scorn of your superior judgment.
For all it is worth, since Wikipedia is not a democracy, at last count
  • 4 support
  • 12 oppose - should be 13, if not for your aggressiveness toward French participants to en:wiki, which caused one to cross out his "vote".
Said enough: stepping out of this unbelievable discourse.
--Frania W. (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the MILLIONTH time: Wikipedia does not decide moves based on the number of survey votes. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. This title is very, very far from the most common. This is an undisputed fact. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Page move II

[edit]
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: Moved. My conclusion from the above; no immediate objections; the Legion's own website would seem to clinch it. ~~~~

A couple points on the RfM discussion above, which I closed because it got way out of hand.

There is no need to engage in ad-hominem attacks. They'll only make the reviewing admin think you're a douche, and instinctively tend to discount your argument. (I say that as someone who too often engages in ad-hominem attacks. But then, I'm a douche.)

Correct, this is not a democracy. If three people vote for, and forty against, but the three have good arguments and the forty do not, then the three win, and we move the page.

Correct, Google results are not valid over about 700 hits. (You can add restrictions and quadruple your number of "hits", which should tell you something.) Also, many Google hits are not admissible under WP:RS and so are irrelevant anyway.

Google Books is better for a couple reasons: hits are more likely to be RS's, and there is more likely to be under a thousand hits, which makes the number more credible. Restricting your search to get fewer hits also helps. Badzil's finding of 19:37, 9 October 2010 are relevant here: 384 Légion d'honneur vs. 376 Legion of Hono(u)r, effectively a tie. However, skimming through the results, I found that most of the French were in French texts, and so irrelevant, and the English hits were about the French society, and so were relevant. I didn't look at many, but this would support a move if a fuller count holds up what I saw.

The sum of UK spelling + US spelling = English needs to be compared with French, not each orthography individually: per the MOS, orthographic differences are "superficial". If we decide on English, then we can worry about national orthography. Personally, though I'm Usonian, I'd go with the UK spelling, as use of the phrase seems to be more common in the UK than in the US. Also, once an article is written in one orthography or the other, you need a reason to change. You can't change "honour" to "honor" just because you like it better, so fear of a spelling war isn't a valid reason to keep the French title. The only valid reasons I can think are either that it is the COMMONNAME, or that the English phrase would be unacceptably ambiguous.

"Other uses" is also not a reason to keep the French title. If one usage dominates in English, then that usage gets the unmodified name, and we use a hat note to direct readers to a dab page for less common usages; otherwise the main page is a dab. If we do go with the English name, a hat note would be the appropriate approach here, as this clearly is "the" Legion of Honour.

Other French medals are also not a reason to not move. If the Croix de Guerre is the normal wording in English, then that's what we keep, regardless of what we do with this article. After all, we translate Saint Petersburg in Russia, but not Santa Monica in the US, because that's normal English usage.

We should look at more than just Google, however. We don't use encyclopedias as references for factual claims, but they are used for stylistic/naming arguments. I checked the EB, and their article is under Legion of Honour. Subtitle: officially Royal Order of the Legion of Honour, French Ordre Royale de la Légion D'honneur. Similarly, the OED defines "legionary" as "A soldier of a legion, ... Also, a member of the Legion of Honour.", and under "legion" has def 4a, "Legion of Honour [= F. légion d'honneur]" Altogether, the English phrase appears in 19 citations in the OED (2 with the US spelling), whereas the French phrase does not appear at all apart from the translation under Legion of Honour, though parole d'honneur, dame d'honneur, point d'honneur, vin d'honneur, sur son honneur do occur in multiple citations. Thus both the EB and the OED support a move.

Unsurprisingly, my US dictionary agrees. "Legion of Honor" has an entry; Légion d'honneur does not.

So, can we address the facts here without attacking motivations or honesty? What I've seen supports a move; the only reason I did not move it was the incivility of the discussion. Does anyone have reason to think that my review of the facts is inaccurate? — kwami (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary of the relevant parts of the debate seems correct to me. Therefore I'll support a move to Legion of honour. Badzil (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this should clinch it: Even the website of the Légion d'honneur calls itself the "Legion of Honour" in English! We could also use that to settle challenges to the UK spelling. — kwami (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Sentence preceding Citation [7]/Quote [8]

[edit]

The sentence preceding Citation [7]/Quote [8] with which the section Military Units begins is unclear, namely "The pole of the Flag or the standard units or following training, was awarded the Cross of the Legion of Honor.". I cannot be absolutely certain what it means to say, and thus couldn't edit it to make it work grammatically. My best guess is something in the line of: "The following military units have been awarded the Cross of the Legion of Honour, which they may bear/wear with their Flag or pole.". It may be a literal translation from French into English gone wrong. So please, author or anyone in the know, explain this and/orrewrite. Thanks! :-) Mkruijff (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Lawrence's "Diamond Cross"

[edit]

I read that the Australian soprano Marjorie Lawrence was awarded the "Cross" of the Legion of Honour in 1946. Source here. What exactly was this honour? There is a Grand Cross, but not just a Cross. A newspaper report of the time talks about a "Diamond Cross", but that is also not something I can find any official reference to.

Can someone clarify just exactly what honour she was given by France? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cross" is the name given to the insignia of the order, rather oddly because it's star-shaped, not cross-shaped. So being awarded the cross of the Légion d'honneur means to be made a chevalier in the order. Technically, non-Frenchmen cannot be "received" (inducted) in the order, so they aren't chevaliers, or officiers..., of the legion. They are awarded a distinction of the legion, wich is the insignia (colloqualy the "cross") of chevalier, officier..., at level equivalent to their services. In fact, this technicality is so artificial that no one sees a difference between "membership" and "distinction" and non-Frenchmen are routinely, even by officials, called chevaliers, officiers... 86.65.59.50 (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I check?

[edit]

I'm have a draft biography of Maurice Burrus and this page says he was a "Chevalier de la Légion d'Honneur". Is there somewhere I can verify this honour? ww2censor (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look promising if you are not able to find a reliable source. On the Musée de la Légion d'Honneur website: [35] it suggests direct contact or visiting the national archives. Looking at the article on the French Wikipeida fr:Maurice Burrus, there is no mention of his receipt of the Légion d'Honneur. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen the fr page so was not sure how or where to check. It looks dubious. Thanks for the reply. ww2censor (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Award of Legion of Honour to SOE operative Phyliss Latour

[edit]

Phyliss Latour Doyle is to receive the "award of Chevalier de l’Ordre National de la Légion d’Honneur (Legion of Honour)” on Tuesday 25 November 2014 from Laurent Contini, the French ambassador to New Zealand. [36] So, in the next 24-48 hours this page will need a little updating. --220 of Borg 14:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red cotton stitching

[edit]

From the Financial Times 10 July 2015, Vladimir Pozner: the ‘face’ of Russia: “The red cotton stitching on the buttonhole of his chequered sports jacket, signifying his membership of the Légion d’honneur, suggests that his admiration of France is reciprocal.”

The FT’s report suggests that there are non-flamboyant ways to show membership. Might the article mention these? JDAWiseman (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a reference to this near the end of the "Classes and Insignia" section. glv (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign recipients

[edit]

The article reads (in August 2015) that 'Technically, membership in the Légion is restricted to French nationals."

Current news says three Americans received it for stopping a "terrorist" on the Thalys train in August 2015. There's a huge list of foreign recipients. My conclusion is that yes, foreigners may receive it. Can someone who is perfectly fluent in French read the section on foreigners here and update the article? The )recently revised) code is here: http://www.legiondhonneur.fr/fr/page/le-code-de-la-legion-dhonneur/74 New Media Theorist (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" Nul ne peut être reçu dans la Légion d'honneur s'il n'est Français."

— Article R.16
The Legion of Honour is restricted to French Nationals.

"Les étrangers qui se sont signalés par les services qu'ils ont rendus à la France ou aux causes qu'elle soutient peuvent recevoir une distinction de la Légion d'honneur dans la limite de contingents particuliers fixés"

— Article R.128
However, foreigners who have distinguished themselves by the services they have rendered to France or the causes it supports can receive the medal within the limits of fixed quotas.Blaue Max (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, I made slight changes to the wording to reflect more clearly the fact that, while it is not usual, it is often done. Also the article said something about "distinction" being the level awarded. Sources seem to all say that the medal awarded today was the lowest level of the true Légion: Knight. Reference added for this.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Legion of Honour awards underestimated?

[edit]

The side bar lists the number of actual members for each class but you need to go to the membership heading to realise the figures were as at 2010. The French language edition indicates it was at 15 July 2010. Under membership is the quota for each class which totals 125000. The total number is estimated at one million, including about 2,900 Grand Cross. The French language edition states ‘In 1962, there were 320,000 living recipients: General de Gaulle reformed the same year the code to set the maximum number to 125 000’. Unfortunately, the only class total available is about 2,900 Grand Cross of which the present quota is 75 living recipients. Extrapolating that number suggests that the total number for the five classes may be more like five million recipients. I would not use that total but it does suggest the one million total members quoted is an underestimation. Anthony Staunton (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. One thing to keep in mind is that one hundred years after the order was created, at the beginning of the 20th century, the number of living recipients was only 45,000. Then the number of living recipients grew to reach 320,000 in 1962, and now it is 92,000. The official web site actually says "Depuis la création de l’ordre, près d’un million de citoyens ont obtenu la Légion d’honneur" which means the 1,000,000 figure hasn't been reached yet, at least not for "citoyens", which I would assume are French nationals. Sources: for the 45,000 ; for the quote in French. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am surprised at a figure less than a million. I am disappointed that such a prestigious award lacks reliable statistics. Anthony Staunton (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 August 2023

[edit]
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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 22:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legion of Honour → Legion of Honor – Was the original name of the page before the move to Légion d'honneur. When it was changed back, a u was added to honor with the rational that that is the spelling the legion uses in English. However, the legion website exclusively uses the honor spelling https://www.legiondhonneur.fr/en/search/node/honor . In keeping with this and Wikipedia policy, the article should be moved back to its originial location. 128.135.204.219 (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. All the arguments above have looked at the history of the page or the official website, but none have opted to look at independent sources. Ngrams demonstrate that "Legion of Honor" has been more common since around 1886, only just recently narrowing. [37] estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've put a couple more formats into ngrams and returned these results:
- "Legion of Honour of France" is slightly more common than "Legion of Honor of France" [38]
- "Legion of Honor" is more common than "Legion of Honour" [39]
- "Legion of Honor + France" and "Legion of Honour + France" are statistically even [40].
So 2 formats support "Legion of Honor", 1 supports "Legion of Honour" and 1 is tied between the two. WP:COMMONNAME is easy here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Brexit means ... Euro-English?".[41] "And the variety that underpins the [European] Commission's English style guide is clear. It's not Euro-English, it's not American English, it's 'standard usage of Britain and Ireland' — referred to as 'British usage' or 'British English' in the guide 'for the sake of convenience.'" [42]. "Honour" is predominantly used in British English. In the source France's Europe Minister Clément Beaune spoke about a "broken English", that's probably why there are constant changes between "honor" and "honour". Oroborvs (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm an American and solely use American English in my daily life. However, it's been the article's name for over a decade and because of MOS:RETAIN it should stay;"When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another." The legion *does* have strong national ties... to France, where they don't care if we're using the honour or honor variation; there's no pressing reason why it should change given the high burden of MOS:RETAIN. R. J. Dockery (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not see a valid reason for change. Anthony Staunton (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree this is a matter for MOS:RETAIN, not WP:COMMONNAME. Honour/honor is just being used here as the word. A couple reasons for "Legion of Honor" being more common without specifying France may include that there is an art museum in San Francisco called the Legion of Honor (museum) and a former American Legion of Honor. SilverLocust 💬 21:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Inconsistency

[edit]

The 3 "List of" pages in the See also sectionhave the spelling Légion d'honneur. Either they should be changed or this article's title should be changed. Mcljlm (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legion_of_Honour&oldid=1208135843"