Talk:Médecins Sans Frontières/Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support

1. This is the area for the proposed move of the article to Doctors Without Borders. I think it should be moved because that's how most of the English world knows it as. I vote move. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 18:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Doctors without borders it should be! -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Article names should reflect the widespread English usage. AlbertR 22:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
4. Support move. Niteowlneils 02:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Second choice is Medecins Sans Frontieres (no diacritics). Niteowlneils 23:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. I don't think I'd even heard the other term before; I'd only know what it meant due to its similarity to Spanish. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
6. Weakly support. It is known by both names in Australia. – AxSkov (☏) 07:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. "Doctors Without Borders" is much more common in media use in my experience. Jonathunder 21:05, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
8. Support English Subtitle 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Might be worth noting that nobody uses the English abbreviation, DWB, only MSF. In the mid-late 1990s MSF-USA started a rebranding effort to try to get everyone to start using their French name, but ran into a brick wall with the American press. Some American publications like the New York Times have a strict policy of translating every foreign word into English. Cyanide987 11:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Speaking from English Canada here, and I'm quite familiar with both versions in English usage. I know several individuals who are involved with this group, and they tend to use the term Médecins sans Frontières. This seems to be reflected in their websites both for English Canada and the UK Canadian MSF site UK MSF site
3. Oppose the move, although not particularly strongly - it's always known as MSF (in the UK), and that's also the primary/original name. This may be the English WP, but that doesn't necessarily make MSF an unsuitable article title. sjorford →•← 12:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose, it's known as MSF, it should stay there. 132.205.3.20 17:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
5. Strongly oppose; always, always known as MSF, except in the States, seemingly. Same should go for RSF, too. James F. (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose — I've heard both names in the Australian media, which as a rule has less appetite for foreign-language phrases than (for instance) the UK, but Médecins sans Frontières does seem to be the official name. -- Perey 12:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
7. Stongly oppose, I am English and have never seen it written in the translated form Op. Deo 07:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose. I agree with sjorford's comments, the UK name is Médecins Sans Frontières, although the accents are sometimes omitted in the UK press. CS Miller 18:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose But I would like the name to be accentless Medecins Sans Frontieres Philip Baird Shearer 21:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose. UK media use Médecins sans Frontières, see comment below. I have never seen "Doctors Without Borders" as the name. Telsa 10:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose. MSF has a redirect from DWB already. There is no confusion about its official name. Ancheta Wis 00:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 14:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

So then, in the UK, Australia and other English-speaking areas, the group is known as Médecins sans Frontières rather than "Doctors Without Borders"? That is the impression being given in this entry. Shouldn't the redirection go the other way in the English-language Wikipedia-- not of course in the Wikipédie. Wetman 12:41, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Pretty much. In the UK media at least the accent marks are omitted -- Medecins Sans Frontieres -- though not by the UK branch of the organisation itself; this may just be a matter of house style at Reuters UK. Thus Médecins Sans Frontières is the primary international and international-English name of MSF and Medecins sans Frontieres and Doctors Without Borders are alternative names used in the UK and USA respectively (and elsewhere in the English speaking world). If MSF were called Doctors Without Borders across the English speaking world then that would be the appropriate title for en-Wikipedia; but it isn't, so it ain't. Stating that Doctors Without Borders is the American English name for MSF should help clear the issue. Acanon

I'm from Australia and I know it as Doctor Without Borders. - Mark 11:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm from Canada and I know it as Doctors Without Borders. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

MSF is known by both Medesins San Frontieres (note: without accents) and Doctors Without Borders in Australia, as indicated in the media and by MSF's website. I would support a move to Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), but that's just a compromise suggestion. I would also support a move to Medecins Sans Frontieres, which doesn't use the accents. – AxSkov (☏) 07:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm from Canada, and it is known as Médecins Sans Frontières and Doctors Without Borders. 132.205.3.20 17:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The predominant use of the name is Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) throughout all its operational centers and partner sections. It's adopted by the MSF International Council in about the early 90s. The US section is the only English-speaking sections that would carry both the name in French and English (Doctors Without Borders) in the press release or publication, and even that, French should come before English. All the other sections, in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and even the UK office sticks to its name – Médecins Sans Frontìères.

Although this is an English platform, the page should remain as it is right now – Médecins Sans Frontières.

If there should be any redirection, it should be Doctors Without Borders to Médecins Sans Frontières.

Sorry - Just not too sure how i can add my comment on the discussion area... :P --Pinguis 07:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

To support the parent comment about "even the UK", here are pointers to The Guardian newspaper's style guide for things beginning with D [1] and M [2] as examples of a UK broadsheet usage (it uses Médecins Sans Frontières and does not even mention Doctors Without Borders). The BBC use Médecins Sans Frontières (although often without the accents on the website): a quick search of their website finds multiple mentions of that and a mention of Doctors Without Borders only in an interview with someone from America. Telsa 10:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Just because it's the official name doesn't mean that's the one we use. Wikipedia policy is to use the name that most people in that language would refer to it as. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course because its the official name we use it. We don't list the CIA as "the Agency", or the FBI as "the Bureau" or "Men in Black". Moreover, as mentioend above, the term is used predominantly only in America, as opposed to Australia, Canada, and Great Britain. Theres no reason to make it American-centric. SiberioS 16:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should find precendent in the nomenclature of Côte d'Ivoire, which was formerly known as "Ivory Coast" in the US and, I assume, often translated to the local vernacular around the world. As of 1985 the gov't of Côte d'Ivoire has requested that it not be translated, to mixed international acceptance. Therefore I believe that we should make the title of the article "Médecins Sans Frontières" and then have Doctors Without Borders redirect.JD79 23:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Other talk page stuff

Médecins Sans Frontières was created in 1971 by a small group of French doctors, I'd love to see some names attached to that as I've seen them mentioned around the Internet before - with luck we could even wikilink some names. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the story of the founding: [3] Their names are in there. 01:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little bit concerned by the implication that Cholera vaccination is something that is carried out routinely. The Mozambique vaccinations were a trial, which proved very effective but the organisation has not yet changed it's intervention protocols to include it as standard. chebizarro 24:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Photo editorializing

It seems like there's some editorializing going on here with the photos. For instance Image:Starved_girl.jpg doesn't seem to be directly related to the content of the article. If it showed someone suffering from kwashiorkor being treaded by MSF doctors then it would be more deserving of inclusion. Theshibboleth 12:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does relate to the paragraph it is attached to as it purports to be a photo of a child suffering from severe acute malnutrition during the Biafran civil war, which was the conflict that saw the birth of MSF. --193.133.69.201 11:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Percentage of aid given by governments

I went to a lecture about MSF at King's College (Guy's Campus) a fortnight back where surgeons who worked for MSF had a debate; during this they stated that MSF takes approx 45% of it's aid from governmental sources; not as appears on this wiki.Fishystick 00:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move redux

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support

1. Support English title for an English page. --English Subtitle 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - 1st: the Naming Conventions for English titles was specifically created for this type of circumstance, IMHO. 2nd: the English title is more common: The French gets 860,000 ghits with English only search; the English gets 1,010,000 ghits (the links won't work unless you set up your preferences for English search only) - and even then, the search still picks up some non-English links. 3rd: The English title is the primary USA website: [4]. 4th: you'll notice every single other interwiki link translates the title into its own language. This seems to be a no-brainer: the title is more common in English, it's specified under WP:NC, and there is ample precedent under the other languages. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per nomination and arguments above. —  AjaxSmack  19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

   Support per above. --Bob 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Support I never heard of the french version before but Doctors without borders is very well known and this is the english wiki afterall. 205.157.110.11 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Reluctant support as an informed person aware of both names, I would like to keep the current name; but there is a "use English" policy, and for me the fact that all of the other wikis are using their native rather than the French name is decisive. --Groggy Dice T | C 05:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support When the organization itself uses the English version in their website (doctorswithoutborders.org), I think that makes it easily qualify as the most common and arguably official English usage of the name. Per Pat Stuart's entire argument. --Serge 00:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   great point, serge! I think more of the oppose votes should take the website's name into consideration. It is how this organization presents itself to the English speaking world. For the consideration of the English Wikipedia, we should take that into account. 205.157.110.11 03:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   To read the above comment, one would think that http://www.msf.org/ was written in French. It's not. It's in English, and it is the default international site for readers who aren't going to a particular country's MSF Médecins Sans Frontières. Now, go to http://doctorswithoutborders.org/ and what does the title bar of your browser say? "MSF-USA." That is the American website. "Doctors Without Borders" is how they present themselves to America, and that's it. In every other English speaking nation, they are primarily or exclusively "Médecins Sans Frontières". So no, they are not presenting themselves to the English speaking world as DWB. Go to http://www.uk.msf.org/ and find "Doctors Without Borders" somewhere on that page. You won't, because in the United Kingdom they are MSF Médecins Sans Frontières, and MSF Médecins Sans Frontières is how they present themselves to the English speaking world, sans America. — coelacan talk — 05:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Apparently I cannot use abbreviations without being misunderstood. — coelacan talk — 05:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   If the article name were MSF, you might have a point. But the article name is currently not MSF, nor is it an English term, yet there is an appropriate English term for this topic. For crying out loud, there are letters in the current name that aren't even in the English language alphabet. Opposition to a foreign language title for any article in the English Wikipedia when there clearly exists an English term that is commonly used to refer to the article topic (see "google test" in Discussion section below) makes no sense. --Serge 05:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   I was using "MSF" as an abbreviation for my own convenience. On every one of those pages, they do not refer to themselves merely as MSF but as Médecins Sans Frontières. Now, if you're really going to use those arguments, then quit opposing the translation of "Volkswagen" into "People's Car." Isn't English good enough for you? — coelacan talk — 05:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

7. Support, use English when the English variant is available and well known. What's with all the people who think it is perfectly okay for otehr languages to spell people, places, and things in their own language, but will not admit that English names are perfectly logical in an English encyclopedia? Gene Nygaard 04:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - We don't call Champs Elysées Elysian fields. The website URL is msf.org and that's French, their logo is in French as well. Re google hits, i am sure everybody is aware of duplicated entries and mirror sites. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, except, if you look at my URLs, you will notice that I purposefully made sure we didn't have crossovers. ;) -Patstuart^talk|edits 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose per arguments at previous RM. The French version is the official title of the organization, the only version used by the UK media, and (apparently) a common usage in Australia and Canada as well. Tevildo 03:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

   That's irrelevant here. The usage standards of the U.K. media and (apparently) in Australia and Canada are not those of the English Wikipedia, which is to use the English version when one exists that is commonly used to reference the subject of the article. --Serge 04:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose Changing vote to oppose as I feel that this organisation falls into the same category as the Académie française, FIFA, Champs Elysées and the Côte d'Ivoire amongst others in that the French name is so widely used and known so that it comes under the exception clause. --Bob 07:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

   Just because it's FIFA doesn't mean it is not the International Federation of Association Football, just as the International Organization for Standardization is always the ISO, never the IOS. The International System of Units is SI, and in English the pound is "lb" and in Italian the it:chilogrammo is "kg". Gene Nygaard 06:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   • But what about the fact that the native language is used in every other wikilink that exists? (there are a bunch). That's not true for any of the other articles you just gave. Patstuart^talk|edits 17:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose (still); same reasoning as I gave in 2005. We don't use Anglicised titles merely because they exist. The title "DWB" doesn't exist in Europe, AFAICT, but "MSF" definitely is used in the Americas. James F. (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
   • Actually, we do prefer anglicized titles if they exist: WP:NC#Use_English_words says to do so unless the native form is more commonly recognized, which I believe I've shown it's not. At best, it's tied. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. This is the English Wikipedia, but it is not the American Wikipedia, and there are more English speakers outside of America than within. So how do other English speakers refer to the organization? The Guardian (United Kingdom), the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), the Mail & Guardian (South Africa) call it "Médecins Sans Frontières". The Toronto Star (Canada) uses both, with MSF first, so we'll call Canada neutral. The rest of the world outweighs America. I can also show MSF being used in Italy, Greece, and India, all in English newspapers, if that's important to anyone. The point is that International English uses MSF, Canada is on the fence, and only American English favors DWB. If this is the English Wikipedia, then MSF is a clear win. — coelacan talk — 01:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   The guideline is not "the most common term used by English speakers". The guideline is, "the most common English term used". Since "Médecins Sans Frontières" is not English, it shouldn't even be considered for use as an English Wikipedia title (the only exception is when there are no English names used to refer to the article topic, which is not the case here). --Serge 06:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   So, there are no English terms to replace faux pas with? Is that why we keep it? Or do we keep faux pas because "One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article"? Or do we use it because the term has entered English as a loanword, just like "Médecins Sans Frontières" has outside the USA? — coelacan talk — 06:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Correct, there is no English term commonly used with the meaning of faux pas. There is an English term commonly used with the meaning of Médecins Sans Frontières; it is Doctors without borders. This is not a "non-U.S. English" encyclopedia. The English used here is not exclusively U.S., but it includes U.S. usage; it does not exclude it (which your argument does). --Serge 06:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   I doubt that you've never heard anyone use the phrase "one false step". — coelacan talk — 07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   I've heard it. Usually not in a context where I could substitute the English meaning of "faux pas". Which is the point Serge was making. Gene Nygaard 15:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose I generally get irritated at all the foreign language usage on En.wiki. However, I did research for a think tank (American) on Médecins Sans Frontières work in Africa and found that, in general, in the English-speaking world outside of the US, and in the professional world in the US MSF or Médecins Sans Frontières is what is used. This as title would be a courtesy to users who, seeing that Doctors without Borders is the redirect and the article is titled Médecins Sans Frontières, might lead them to do plenty of research in English on the French title. KP Botany 03:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   No one is arguing that Doctors without Borders is the more common usage (at least not outside of the U.S.) even in English-speaking countries. The entire support argument is based on the premise that Doctors without Borders is the English term that is most commonly used to refer to the subject of this article, and that the current title is not English. When there is a way to refer to the subject of an article in English, that's what the name of the English Wikipedia is supposed to be. The current title is not English, it could be, so it should be. --Serge 04:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Go over to Talk:Volkswagen and tell them they need to change the name of that article to "People's Car" so it will be in English. There are English translations of faux pas, chaise longue, corsage, rouge, salon, clique, niche, grotesque, etc. We should not use those English translations, however, because those French words and phrases have entered the English language. As has Médecins Sans Frontières, in most English-speaking countries. I'm starting to wonder if any of the "support" voters hail from outside of the USA. — coelacan talk — 05:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   That's an absurd comparison. Volkswagen is not commonly called the "People's Car" in any English speaking country. Do you really not understand the distinction? --Serge 05:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Watch yourself. I'm not calling you an idiot. The Volkswagen example is a good one, because in the United Kingdom, an English speaking country, there is no Doctors Without Borders, there is only Médecins Sans Frontières. Regardless of the possibility of translation, the phrase is not translated. Just like Volkswagen. — coelacan talk — 06:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   I have given you no reason to call me an idiot (nor have I called you one). This is not the U.S. Wikipedia, true, but neither is it the U.K. Wikipedia existing in a bubble as if the U.S. (and American English usage) did not exist. This is the English Wikipedia, and, worldwide, there is an English language term commonly used, at least in some areas, to refer to the subject of this article. Therefore, no foreign term should be considered, period. That is not the case for Volkswagen. I repeat: do you really not understand the distinction? --Serge 06:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Guidelines are starting points, but they cannot always finish a debate. I was impatient earlier when I said "case closed". Your "period" is just as premature. The guideline is self-contradictory. Common sense must be used to sort it out, and I feel that common sense favors using the name that most people are familiar with. — coelacan talk — 07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose. Médecins Sans Frontières is by far the more notable name. I usually come across that name both in conversations and in media reporting. I have barely ever heard Doctors without borders used. As pointed out above, the Champs Elysées are not known as the Elysian fields. The same logic appears to me to apply here. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)}

   The Champs Elysées are not known as the Elysian fields. But the Médecins Sans Frontières are known as the Doctors without Borders. That's the difference. --Serge 04:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   In America. That's the difference. — coelacan talk — 05:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   The fact that the MSF is not commonly known as the Doctors without Borders outside of the U.S. is neither disputed nor relevant. The term Médecins Sans Frontières is not English in any country; that is relevant and is not disputed. That Doctors without Borders is English and is commonly used to refer to this topic, at least in the U.S., is also relevant. What else can use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, per WP:UE, possibly mean? --Serge 05:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Volkswagen is not English in any country. What can WP:UE possibly mean? It could mean, apply this except when it is the name of a company or organization. Or, heck, it could mean exactly what it says it means, when it says: "Borderline cases ... One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article." There are more English speakers on Earth who expect to see Médecins Sans Frontières than Doctors Without Borders, so Médecins Sans Frontières is the least surprising. Case closed. — coelacan talk — 05:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Volkswagen is, in English, a meaningless brand name, like Chevrolet, Starbucks, Coca-Cola, etc. etc. The fact that it is a name that means something in another language is irrelevant. It uses letters from the standard English language alphabet. This is not the case for Médecins Sans Frontières, which is clearly not English. There is no other term used anywhere to refer to "Volkswagen" other than Volkswagen. That is clearly not the case for Médecins Sans Frontières, for which there is a commonly used (at least in some areas) English translation. Your continued insistence that there is no distinction raises questions about the objectivity of your perspective here. As far as the "borderline cases" section at WP:UE and the fact that "There are more English speakers on Earth who expect...", consider this: more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage. Case closed. --Serge 06:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   What letters are you talking about? I see a couple of E's with accent marks. We aren't talking lambda's here. However much of a meaningless brand name Volkswagen might be in English, this doesn't affect the argument one way or the other. So Médecins Sans Frontières is a meaningless brand name in English. Fine. My objectivity is not in question here. Stop making this about me and my comprehension level, which you apparently find wanting. I understand your distinction just fine. I don't think it's a useful distinction. There are plenty of instances in which foreign names are used in other languages for organization names. The possibility of translation does not make this a necessity. I read "least surprising expectations", you read "correctness of translation." The guidline gives contradictory advice. Thus we use our common sense. Your common sene, as an American, is to use "Doctors Without Borders". Mine is not. An impasse. I see no reason to discuss this further, considering that I've indicated that I found your tone insulting and you continued, even insulting me again on my talk page. We are generating more heat than light now, and I am tired. I expect that other readers will be able to come to their own conclusions. I hope you will not question their cognitive capacities when they disagree with you. — coelacan talk — 07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose This argument is trying to twist a rule to rename an article which is at its correct name as used in the majority of the English-speaking world. The rule being cited was to keep, for example, the article on Spain from being titled España, because the English-speaking world commonly refers to it as Spain. It is not saying that an English translation should be used because it exists and some (but not many) people use it. GassyGuy 06:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   I understand your argument, but the google test results below strongly suggest that the premise that "not many" use the English translation is false. If the "Doctors without borders" usage was truly utilized only by "not many", then I would agree with you. But it's not, so I don't. --Serge 06:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   I don't know if this would be "twisting a rule". It seems pretty straight forward-use English. It's not like someone is trying to use the "capitalization" rule to move iPod to Ipod or eBay to Ebay. (Though apparently it is good enough to use to move KISS the band to Kiss. 205.157.110.11 07:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Let's be honest, Gassy. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference for you. In this edit you are opposing the reverting the move of Ushak carpet to a name that almost nobody ever uses outside Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene Nygaard (talk • contribs)

   I'm not sure what this has to do with MSF. However, if it didn't make a difference to me, I wouldn't have bothered to oppose it. I would have abstained. Re: the carpet, I found the argument on the page compelling. I will not protest if the requested move ends up going through, as that would mean there was consensus to move, but I personally concurred with that reasoning. Regardless of my feelings there, I can't quite see why this is part of the MSF discussion. If you have personal issues with me, it seems better to address, well, me, and certainly not to come rather close to violating WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA. GassyGuy 18:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose For the many good reasons given above. I'd also argue whether the name 'Doctors without Borders' is even well known in Britain. Imc 09:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Comment. I often have the feeling that the English Wikipedia does not represent a world view, but rather an ethnocentric American view. This is an excellent example of that. It seems from the discussion I read here, that the USA is the only English speaking country to use "Doctors Without Borders". Yet some here still want the title of the article changed to reflect the American usage, and not the usage in the majority of English speaking countries. Having said that, I went to the organization's website, and checked all of the mirror sites. Some countries used the term Médecins Sans Frontières above the country's translation, and others used only the translation, with no reference to the French name at all. So it seems to me that whichever name is used is appropriate, as long as there is a redirect from one to the other. For the record, though I didn't vote oppose, I placed my comment here since I would choose the French if forced to make a decision. Jeffpw 09:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose. The French name seems to be the usual way to refer to the organisation in most English dialects. -- Avenue 13:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

    In this English wikipedia, per WP:UE, the English translation is supposed to be used regardless of whether the foreign term is the "usual way to refer to the" subject topic "in most English dialects", unless the English translation is confusing or is never used for that purpose (and the usage prevalent in any significant dialect, including the American, is not supposed to be ignored when ascertaining this), which the google test results show is clearly not the case. The anti-American POV expressed in the opposition to this move is a disgrace to Wikipedia. --Serge 18:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

One should probably keep in mind that any resolution concerning this page would probably also affect Médecins du Monde (MDM), also created by Bernard Kouchner as a splinter group from MSF. Lapaz

Google Test results

Results 1 - 20 of about 866,000 English pages for "Médecins Sans Frontières"
Results 1 - 20 of about 1,040,000 English pages for "doctors without borders".

--Serge 00:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

French title

Also Côte d'Ivoire is used instead of Ivory Coast, and at the request of the country, and updated. In addition, please consider that when the name is given both Doctors without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières or Médecins Sans Frontières /Doctors without Borders and abbreviated in professional papers the abbreviation is MSF, not DWB. Still, this appears to be a case where one person or more folks have a heated bias towards a US-centric usage and others towards a non-US centric usage and will be arguing unpleasantly, so I'll leave it to whatever shakes out. I have often had my mind changed during delete discussions, but many other editors seem to come fiercely determined one way or another, and it seems generally without purpose to debate an issue with a party or parties unwilling to discuss or listen because they have already decided one way or another. The guidelines are not clearcut, and there is no reason that US usage should dominate Wikipedia. KP Botany 14:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Similarly, there is no reason non-U.S. usage, if you will, should dominate Wikipedia. In any article title consideration, the worldwide English usage should be considered as if it is a homogenous blend, not as individual pockets. In this case, the claim that the English translation is not a common English way to refer to the topic in question can be made only by ignoring the U.S. usage.

The issue should not be U.S. vs. non-U.S. The issues are

1. Is the current title foreign? (yes)
2. If so, is there an English translation that is commonly (though not necessarily predominately in all or even most dialects) used? (yes)

If the answer to both questions is yes, which it is, then the English translation should be used, regardless of what the dialect differences are. This is not about English dialects. --Serge 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with your two stage test. But in my opinion the second part must be an English translation that is predominantly (not just commonly) used. That is not made out here. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinion. Perhaps you should try to have WP:UE changed to reflect it. In the mean time, it states: more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage. --Serge 19:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)