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. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] 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. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 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
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)
 * 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 M&eacute;decins sans Fronti&egrave;res.  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 &rarr;&bull;&larr; 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 &mdash; 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 M&eacute;decins sans Fronti&egrave;res 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)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

So then, in the UK, Australia and other English-speaking areas, the group is known as M&eacute;decins sans Fronti&egrave;res 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 Wikip&eacute;die. 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 M&eacute;decins Sans Fronti&egrave;res 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. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] 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 and M  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. -- 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: 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)

Well, that's not correct. The figures vary from year to year and I can't be precise but the amount of government funds has been declining and there is even a push internally to stop taking it altogether. Some sections take more than others and some projects more than others. He could very well have been talking about Darfur where there is a substantial amount of British Government money being used, but that is very much an exception. In total, I think MSF received only 5% of it's donations from Governments last year. 59.101.113.213 04:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move redux

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

no consensus (I know I spoke in this discussion, but I was supporting, so there's no conflict of interest). It appears, after some investigation on my part, and of that of others, that this is an American/Brit thing, with the former mostly pointing to Doctors, and the latter, Medecins. Thus, it is unsurprising that some editors are aghast that anyone would consider Medecins as they've never heard this title, and ditto for Doctors. For future reference, apparently the organization has sought to use the native term in all languages, but, due to the fact that they have already been entrenched in Britain, the French name has stuck (indeed, you will notice that this page uses mostly British spellings, indicating a British author). Thus, at this time, the only consensus is no consensus to move, as the article is already at a British title, and should remain, as it was thus created (though I'm not sure I agree with that). Patstuarttalk 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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: . 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. Patstuarttalk 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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. &mdash; coe l acan  t a lk  &mdash; 05:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Apparently I cannot use abbreviations without being misunderstood. &mdash; coe l acan  t a lk  &mdash; 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? &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 05:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Support; my experience is that both names are usually given. Of the two, we should use the English one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Patstuart, Gene Nygaard & Septentrionalis. - Evv 22:09, 13 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. ;) -Patstuarttalk 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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 chilogrammo is "kg". Gene Nygaard 06:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) *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. Patstuarttalk 17:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) *Actually, we do prefer anglicized titles if they exist: WP:NC 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. -Patstuarttalk 17:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) 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. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 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? &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 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". &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 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)
 * 1) 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. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 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. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 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. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 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. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 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. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 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. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * I don't have any problems with you—yet, anyway. I'm merely pointing out an inconsistency in the position you have taken in two different arguments, and that comes nowhere within striking distance of being a personal attack or non-civil.  Gene Nygaard 19:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * I don't see any anti-American PoV here. As far as I see, there's people saying by implication, that Americans should realise that they are not the entire English speaking world. Americans do not constitute all English speakers, and if you think that is anti-American, you're too sensitive. Imc 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that you think that the undisputed fact that "Americans should realise that they are not the entire English speaking world" is somehow a relevant issue here, and even worth mentioning, is evidence of the anti-American POV. That fact is not relevant here.  Nor is the fact that Americans do not consitute all' English speakers relevant here.  What is relevant is that Americans constitute some of all English speakers, and, in this case, enough to establish a common (though perhaps not necessarily the predominant) use of the English term, Doctors without borders.  --Serge 21:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See my note about Tanzania/Kenya below, which have English as an official language but do not use Doctors Without Borders. Ever.59.101.113.213 12:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable" tablealign="center"

!Google !!hits
 * "Doctors Without Borders" -Wikipedia site:.ca|| 41,100
 * "Doctors Without Borders" -Wikipedia site:.uk|| 592
 * "Doctors Without Borders" -Wikipedia site:.au|| 12,600
 * "Doctors Without Borders" -Wikipedia site:.org|| 182,000
 * }
 * When the admittedly lousy Google restriction to "English" sites is used, the .ca results are 39,100 for "Doctors Without Borders" and 29,800 for "Médecins Sans Frontières"; with accurate determination of English language usage, the ratio would almost certainly be higher. And North Americans do form the majority native speakers of English, so it is quite logical that they have a significant role in determining English usage.  Gene Nygaard 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Doctors Without Borders" -Wikipedia site:.org|| 182,000
 * }
 * When the admittedly lousy Google restriction to "English" sites is used, the .ca results are 39,100 for "Doctors Without Borders" and 29,800 for "Médecins Sans Frontières"; with accurate determination of English language usage, the ratio would almost certainly be higher. And North Americans do form the majority native speakers of English, so it is quite logical that they have a significant role in determining English usage.  Gene Nygaard 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * }
 * When the admittedly lousy Google restriction to "English" sites is used, the .ca results are 39,100 for "Doctors Without Borders" and 29,800 for "Médecins Sans Frontières"; with accurate determination of English language usage, the ratio would almost certainly be higher. And North Americans do form the majority native speakers of English, so it is quite logical that they have a significant role in determining English usage.  Gene Nygaard 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose MSF is most well-known. Everybody recognises "Médecins Sans Frontières", not everyone recognises "Doctors Without Borders". I confess if I'm typing it, it would not get the accents if I couldn't copy/paste from somewhere as I did here. There's also an argument for using the correct name. The Australian website appears to use "Doctors without borders" as a quick explanation of the purpose of the organisation "Médecins Sans Frontières Australia" (name used on copyright page). The American website copyright page says that organisation is "Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) USA, Inc.". --Scott Davis Talk 12:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh*. As I've explained before, it's probably an American/Brit thing. I've talked to several people I know about this, and all have heard of Doctors, and none of Medecins. Patstuarttalk 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. MSF is well-known in English by that name, and it seems to be the official name too. Just BTW, the numbered list format doesn't work well when there are inline comments, and it's of doubtful value anyway IMO. Either we need to keep discussion mainly in the discussion section, or use the bulleted list form, or (I suggest) both. Andrewa 03:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am an Australian and have been heavily involved with MSF for over 6 years in the field and in many other countries. Please, our name is, first, foremost and always will be Médecins Sans Frontières - Doctors Without Borders is merely a translation that we use in some English speaking countries so that what we do is understood. This is not always the case either, although both Tanzania and Kenya have English as an official language, we are known as Médecins Sans Frontières/Madaktari wasio na mipaka. No mention of Doctors Without Borders anywhere. 59.101.113.213 12:52, 2 April 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
 * I've listed this discussion at Request for comment to generate more imput from ininvolved users. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Why is there even a debate here?

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

I just noticed (purely by coincidence) sitting on my desk a promotional world map from the US section of Doctors Without Borders. The top corner features a logo with "MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES/DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS" beside it. At the top of the map is a quote attributed to "Nicolas de Torrenté, Executive Director, Doctors Without Borders." On the reverse of the map is text with the heading "Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)." In the text, "Doctors Without Borders" is mentioned 16 times, "Médecins Sans Frontières" once, and "MSF" once (not including the web address http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/). Certainly this is only one example but it is abundantly clear that the English name is perfectly acceptable and copiously used by the organization itself. Not to be US-centric, it seems this is true at other countries' websites as well. To suspend WP:NC (WP:UE) in this case is ludicrous. I'm waiting for the RM for United Nations to Nations Unies. —   AjaxSmack     20:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not necessarily true at other nations' websites (see http://www.uk.msf.org/ ) nor in other nations' media (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1343542,00.html ). That is why there is a debate. — coe l acan t a lk  — 22:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The debate appears to be because there is an international organisation called Médecins Sans Frontières which happens to be named in French as it was first started by a couple of Frenchmen. This organisation has national branches in about 20 countries, and the one in the USA is called Doctors Without Borders (The one in Australia is Médecins Sans Frontières Australia for example). Some American editors wish to rename the article about the international organisation to the name of the USA branch of it. --Scott Davis Talk 22:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And some American editors want to keep the page at its current, proper name, fwiw. — coe l acan t a lk  — 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Austrialian and Canadian websites feature "Doctors Without Borders" on the logo at the top of the page so it is not only an Americanism and not all people favoring English usage guidelines are Americans. —  AjaxSmack     00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Usage goes way beyond logos and domain names. While most English-language web sites for the organization use a logo bearing Doctors Without Borders, the content on these sites refers to MSF and Médecins Sans Frontières, and almost never to Doctors Without Borders.  Even the US site uses MSF more than Doctors Without Borders and never uses DWB.  It's much more meaningful to discuss what people use or what they expect than what's on the logo.  --Ishu 21:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am just grateful this English Wikipedia and not US Wikipedia :). WJBscribe (WJB talk) 22:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be grateful if it really were English Wikipedia and not French Wikipedia or Let's be elitist and give articles non-English titles when there is a common English name available Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack     00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You can keep your personal attacks to yourself, thank you. The article naming guideline concerning English is that in disputed cases, we should use "what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article." There are more English speakers familiar with "Médecins Sans Frontières" than "Doctors Without Borders", so Médecins Sans Frontières is the least surprising choice, and that's what we go with. — coe l acan t a lk  — 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse of personal attacks. WP:AGF. A personal attack is your mother is a fat hairy bimbo. Patstuarttalk 02:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmm. There are degrees. Accusing other editors of being elitist is something beyond casual conversation. It's certainly not civil. Anyway, Patstuart, what was the reasoning behind closing this discussion and then opening it back up? — coe l acan t a lk  — 02:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I felt guilty because I thought it might not be my place. But, I will reclose it, upon your request, as it was the right decision. Patstuarttalk 04:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that no consensus to move is going to emerge, under the current WP:NAME policy. Might as well not prolong the agony. — coe l acan t a lk  — 06:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, there's a debate here because there is a variety of opinions among Wikipedians as to what is best for Wikipedia. And that's good. Andrewa 23:19, 16 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
 * Is the current title foreign? (yes)
 * 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)
 * I disagree with this, Serge. What if the English translation is used only by a small group in one country and the foreign word is used all over the world?  By your test the unfamiliar would be used to title the article.  In general, I am against using foreign titles for articles and in text--I was reading an article the other day that used a foreign rank with diacritics instead of "lieutenant" in an article, incredibly annoying.  This is an exceptional case, the foreign name is used extensively in the English speaking world, except in the USA.  However, even in the USA, the foreign term is preferred and used extensively in academic settings.  KP Botany 21:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Serge, I assure you I am familiar with WP:UE. In this case I feel the most relevant policy is WP:NAME and would quote for the section there about organisations:
 * "For articles on organizations (like political parties) the general rule applies. That means: Name your pages with the English translation and place the original native name on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form."
 * This clearly supports that the English name must be more commonly used, not just commonly used. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 22:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One argument that's been left out is that, all over the world, the native title is used, not the French title. In fact, only in England and its former colonies is the French title used exclusively: check out the wikilinks, and you will see that ever other link (and there are a bunch) has the title in its own language, not French. -Patstuarttalk 21:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad argument, Patstuart. (At least you're not claiming "anti-American POV".) However, it seems that unlike all the other languages, English somehow got stuck with "Médecins Sans Frontières" (outside of Wikipedia). Why this is the case is a good question, and I suspect it has to do with English becoming the international lingua franca, in the process becoming every other language's "dumping ground" for loanwords (consider the incredible rate at which Japanese transliterations are entering English without being translated). Or we might just blame the Brits rolling over for the French. But however it happened, Médecins Sans Frontières has entered English. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 22:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then how do we decide which is more commonly used? By how many countries use which one?  By the number of people?  And, I assure you, when it comes to medicine and economics there are powerful databases that contain much more information about organizations than google.  Although Wikipedia AfD often seem to be solely based upon Google hits.  KP Botany 22:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's probably because MSF was for a long time, and may still be, dominated by French doctors, who may speak English, but use Médecins Sans Frontières, not Doctors without Borders. English-speaking doctors working with these French doctors return home using the French.  This is not unusual in the sciences, to use the foreign term when speaking in your own language.  When I worked with a Kenyan doctor, she said "Médecins Sans Frontières," however, a google search for this and for "Doctors without Borders" on .ke turns up only 12 for the first, 15 for the second. Obviously Kenya is not the best choice, but I was trying to think of African countries with Brittish connections.  I did research mostly on west African nations, and, now that Coelacan brings this up, I realize outside of the one Kenyan, the others were all native French speakers.  The Kenyan probably was, too.  Well, that's enough for me, this is not a debate but rather a pushing match.  KP Botany 22:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:NAME inspired by this RM
WJBscribe has brought to my attention above a section of WP:NAME on organizations that I had not noticed before: the part where it calls for using the English translation unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. I think this wording contradicts the intent and spirit of the use English policy, in which English and non-English are not given equal consideration. But just going with whichever is most common is treating them equally. Anyway, I've proposed a change to the wording in this section accordingly. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. --Serge 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good idea, IMO, but I don't think it applies in this situation. As I showed above, we get more ghits for "Doctors without Borders" for English articles than um, the French title. And even if you take all webpages into account (e.g., don't do an English only filter on google), then you still get equal amounts either way. I think what's happening is that people in Britain are assuming that no one ever uses the English title, which is just flatly wrong; I, being in America, had assumed quite the opposite. As per the massive discussion above, it appears to be neatly split among these lines. Patstuarttalk 21:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Pat. The problem is that, apparently, the usage within Britain is almost exclusively the French name.  So from their perspective, your argument may seem like (yet another) attempt to dominate with U.S. usage.  I think pointing out that the English translation is to be given priority even when the non-English is more common is more likely to be compelling.  But the current wording in WP:NAME is problematic for that argument.  --Serge 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, there are other countries out there apart from Britain and the USA, for example Australia and, dare I say it, France. English Wikipedia is for all English speakers, not just native speakers. English is a compulsory subject in France. This article is about an international organisation, founded in France and with its headquarters now in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. The local name they have recently assumed in the USA seems of little relevance, frankly. Andrewa 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have responded at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 17:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Google test
I found this Google search interesting, especially in the light of the normal bias of Google (reflecting the bias of the WWW itself) towards US English. Of course he's Australian, but he is also the current MSF president. Andrewa 06:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are pointing out here. — coe l acan t a lk  — 06:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just some more interesting information, based on a little lateral thinking. This guy's the international president, and a native speaker of English, so he probably knows what the organisation is called (in English). Now, these sites aren't under his control, but most of them probably reflect his usage, as the people who do control them have been reading what he writes and listening to what he says (mostly in English). Andrewa 00:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting thought... Doctors Without Borders redirects to the article on MSF. But isn't the primary use of that name the US branch of MSF? Perhaps we should have an article on the US branch instead of the redirect? Just a thought, not a formal proposal. Andrewa 06:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The DWB name is also used in Canada, on approximately equal footing with MSF. In any case we have to try to use the names that are least surprising to the reader. Most Americans realize that the organization is international, so it would be surprising to enter "Doctors Without Borders" and end up at a single nation's branch. If the article ever does get so large that the USA branch needs its own subarticle, a good argument could be made for calling that article Doctors Without Borders, USA. — coe l acan t a lk  — 06:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point about Canada. I wonder which was first to translate the name, and why? Andrewa 00:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The English wiki should use English names. --English Subtitle 15:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is agreed. The whole question is, what is this organisation's name in English? When I call it Médecins Sans Frontières, I'm not speaking French, any more than I'm speaking Italian when I say Leonardo da Vinci. Andrewa 22:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, that's only because you live in Britain. It's the opposite in the US, where many have never heard the French term. This explains the conflict. Patstuarttalk 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A curious argument in two ways. Firstly, I don't live in Britain. Secondly, surely you're not suggesting that Wikipedia should rename a Swiss-based international organisation just because (it is claimed that) many Americans are unaware of its name. Just the opposite: If the claim is true, then it would be good to tell them! (As an aside, I don't notice anyone suggesting that we impose the French name on the American organisation.) Andrewa 12:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is indeed interesting. If we do a search of US government websites for the French term, we actually get 9,360 pages  as opposed to just 730 for the English terms . This is mirrored by the UK government. However, Britannica and Columbia use the English name as opposed to Encarta which uses the French form. The BBC uses both forms, but the French 10X more but this is inversed with cnn.com. Al Jazeera uses both forms equally. Just thought I'd give you some specifics on the usage. --Bob 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cross referencing arguments
There is a similar debate going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Translations. English Subtitle 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot of people who hate the dominance of English speak French. I detect a blatant bias. --English Subtitle 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, I think that's specious at best. I don't speak French, am a native speaker of English and I'm radically opposed to the way our bastard language, propagated by junk consumer culture is wiping out other languages faster than the Amazon is disappearing. Of course, French was the language adopted by the League of Nations as the international language, and is still spoken widely throughout Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Pacific. Attitudes like the ones displayed on this page would be laughed at derisively by anyone outside of the Wikipedia Mom's Basement Bubble and not just with a French accent either. 59.101.113.213 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Another source
They use the English name. --English Subtitle 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The logo proves it.


 * Yes, the English translation is placed below the name of the organisation. This is standard in every country in which we work but in no way does it suggest that the organisations name is anything other than Médecins Sans Frontières. I can post letterheads that we used in Afghanistan (in French and Farsi), Tanzania (French and KiSwahili) and Sri Lanka (French, Tamil and Singhalese). Or from Australia (French only). This is a fundraising appeal from the US office and the US office is just one amongst many. 212.19.219.186 14:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 212.19.219.186, from the "we" I take it you are a staff member of MSF/DWB. Is it true that, as the article claims, "Doctors Without Borders [is] its official name in the United States"? Bolivian Unicyclist 15:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Doctors Without Borders is one of its official names in the United States. It is, in fact, legally registered under both names. 84.87.46.134 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oxfam and the Red Cross
I removed the following passage introducing the "creation" section, as I do not see its relevance: "Organizations that supply emergency food and medical aid to populations in need, such as Oxfam, existed long before MSF was created in 1971. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), established in 1863, was the primary source of emergency medical aid for populations of countries affected by war and natural disasters." Codik (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Name of article
Not trying to stir the pot, but my uncle once worked with this organization, so I was looking it up. I was stunned to type in "Doctors Without Borders" and be redirected to an article named "Médecins Sans Frontières." As an English-speaker, on the English Wikipedia, this was curious to me, so I did a Google search. I discovered that searching for DWB returns nearly 700K Ghits, while searching for MSF returns between 100K and 200K Ghits (can't remember for certain). How is it that the one (DWB) redirects to the other (MSF) and not the other way around? In every other language, I could see the rationale. But in the English WP, given the Ghits especially, shouldn't the main article be named according to the English name? And please don't point to "Leonardo da Vinci" as someone did above. It's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and Volvos. Da Vinci is a "brand" known across all languages as such. DWB clearly is not in that category. Bellwether B  C  18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The name should be in English. English Subtitle (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (Third time)

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


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

Support

 * 1) English Subtitle (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. See rationale below. —   AjaxSmack   02:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose for many of the reasons given in the previous debates and !votes, and in particular because the English translation is not commonly used in English-speaking countries besides the United States and Canada. -- Avenue (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't see any new arguments in this proposal, and while consensus can change my arguments are unchanged too, see previous move requests. Andrewa (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose; see below Knepflerle (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose; msf is their official name so we should use it. besides many organisations have their names in french anyway. imagine if they tried to turn fifa into International Federation of Association Football) Binks (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Médecins Sans Frontières is used extensively in many English-speaking countries, and where it is, Doctors without Borders never appears. Where DWB is used (e.g. America), MSF also prominently appears. Chocolatechaos9508 (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think that shuffling all the previous debates off to an archive immediately before requesting this move sends an interesting signal, and does not help the debate. I'll bring back the relevant threads while this discussion is underway. -- Avenue (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You would be wrong. The archived proposals are there for all to see. English Subtitle (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to edit war over it. Here are links to the previous !votes: Talk:M%C3%A9decins_Sans_Fronti%C3%A8res/Archive 1, Talk:M%C3%A9decins_Sans_Fronti%C3%A8res/Archive 1. In both cases, more people opposed the move than supported it, but there was no consensus. -- Avenue (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the archiving is a good idea, and thank you Avenue for the links. Note also that nearly all of the archive is on this topic, not just the two previous WP:RM polls.


 * And I would hope that if this poll also closes without consensus to move, it would then not be re-proposed unless there were some new development or argument to discuss. Specifically, the next step in working towards consensus is to broaden the discussion, not just to repeat it. So has there been subsequent, relevant discussion on the talk pages of naming conventions or other members of Category:Wikipedia naming conventions, or at Village pump (policy), or similar? If so, links should be provided to it. If not, then English Subtitle might even consider withdrawing this nomination to allow for this other discussion, in the interests of minimum waste of time. Andrewa (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been extensively discussed before and absolutely no new arguments or evidence has been proposed. Indeed the nominator nominated the move, archived all previous discussion, then placed "retired" tags on their talk and user pages  - it doesn't look like this nomination is going to lead to active discussion (or more importantly any novel discussion).  In this case, I feel we should respect the previous decision until such time new thoughts come to light, rather than lighting the touchpaper to a lengthy and repetitious discussion that will yield nothing new. Knepflerle (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite right, they have indeed retired. In view of that, I think we should just close this nomination. Andrewa (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As there has now been support expressed for the nomination, I now think it should go the full five days. Andrewa (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Support rationale
(Some copied from previous RM) It is abundantly clear that the English name is perfectly acceptable and copiously used by the organisation itself. This is not US-centric as it seems this is true at other countries' websites as well. The US website, located at http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/, uses "Doctors Without Borders." The Australian and Canadian websites feature "Doctors Without Borders" on the logo at the top of the page so it is not only an Americanism. Though English usage may be less common outside the USA, this is no reason to ignore English usage and suspend WP:NC (WP:UE) in this case.

(In the previous RM I cited a promotional world map from the US section of Doctors Without Borders. The top corner features a logo with "MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES/DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS" beside it. At the top of the map is a quote attributed to "Nicolas de Torrenté, Executive Director, Doctors Without Borders." On the reverse of the map is text with the heading "Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)." In the text, "Doctors Without Borders" is mentioned 16 times, "Médecins Sans Frontières" once, and "MSF" once. Certainly this is only one example but it is clear that the English name is acceptable to the organisation itself.)

User:Knepflerle might be correct that "no new arguments or evidence [have] been proposed" but the interpretation of that evidence might have changed if there are more Anglophone and/or fewer Francophile readers of English Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack   02:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It illustrates how little new is to be added here when the above makes a critical error barely six words into your statement. DWB is not the English name at all.  It is an English name, just as MSF is an English name for the organisation because it is used by English-speakers writing in English-language publications.  Nothing is more English than what English-speakers actually use and they also use MSF.  You don't have to be Francophile to use it, it's just English.  Anglophones use it because it is use in English.  And suppositions that Francophilia swayed the vote and that that Francophile demographics of en.wiki have changed are merely baseless suppositions and unlikely ones at that.
 * Let it rest unless evidence of a shift in usage from previous time is clear. The benefit of rehashing months-long arguments every calendar year is only to those who enjoy these discussions and not for the benefit of the article itself; with all the necessary redirects, the practical difference to the reader experience is nigh on zero.  Knepflerle (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your participation is not required so please don't feel too burdened. —  AjaxSmack   01:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In a way that's true, in that I expect that the closing admin will look at the previous debates. It would be ridiculous for this move to succeed unless some new argument is presented, or unless some of those who previously opposed the proposal now support it. Or to put that another way, failure to comment at all when proposals are so close together is best taken as no change of vote. But on the other hand, it makes it easier for the closing admin to have it here explicitly. Andrewa (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All of that rationale seems to be copied from the previous RMs. Andrewa (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Broken link
The first footnote ("[1]" in the article) has a broken link. The footnote says, something like this: << ^ (French) "La création de Médecins Sans Frontières". Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without borders) (2004-October 18). Retrieved on 2007-October 26 >> after recently having had some translation done, from fr [French] to en [English]. The fact that the URL is old, or otherwise broken, applies just as well to the fr [French] Wikipedia article that corresponds to this. I tried to visit the (http://www.msf.fr) web site, in an effort to try to find a new URL that would still work. I was not successful. I also have not been able to find an archived version of the erstwhile web page (assuming that the link did ever work, in the past) by using the "Wayback machine" at http://www.archive.org. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent documentary
Is it worth mentioning a recent documentary, "Living in Emergency: Stories of Doctors Without Borders" in this article? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an excellent idea to mention it, but because there's already the Living in Emergency article about the documentary, it isn't a good idea to have a long summary here in the main article. I see you have restored the summary I deleted earlier today, and so as a half-way house I have reduced the summary down to the minimum facts but added the  template so the reader is very clearly invited to visit the article about the film.  FYI I have also improved the film article by using more of the Reuters review, and I've added links to it from the "See also" sections here and in the Second Congo War and Second Liberian Civil War articles. - Pointillist (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reducing the content in this article, and providing the Main Article link is appropriate. Your additions to the film article are good as well.  I restored most of the segment when I noticed some of the content from this article never made it to the film article (i.e.; a showing at Cinequest where it received a top Documentary catagory honor).  I felt a significant mention in the MSF article was warranted until the film makes its theatrical release, since readers of the MSF article are not likely to know of it otherwise.  The changes you made should work well.  I apologize if my initial edits appeared to conflict with yours, that wasn't my intent. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying and for copying the Cinequest award across. The main thing missing now is an image – ideally PD or GFDL. Do you know any contacts who could release one? - Pointillist (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

English name again
Since this is the English Wikipedia (not French), and the English name "Doctors Without Borders" is what the organization is best known as, I think it should be moved. Anybody feel like making a request?  TJ   Spyke   20:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the ongoing discussion about this which actually points out that Doctors Without Borders is both a) NOT the official name of the organisation in English and b) not the name that it is best known by in English (outside of the USA). This is an old, tired and frankly anglocentric (or worse, francophobic) argument that has no traction whatsoever. 80.57.219.94 (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's more or less a United States centric problem. Looking at the way you spelled organization, I'm guessing this is a problem more with non-US English speakers than with French loving Anglophiles.  In the United States, all I've ever heard is "Doctors without borders."  I also do not believe that many organizations have offical "names" in other languages.  Maybe an offical translation or something, but usually stick with the one name.  I wouldn't expect an article in the French wikipedia on Taco Bell to somehow translate that, and indeed they don't.  Since it started off as a French organization, shouldn't that stand alone as the rationale for keeping the title?  It's a completely non-subjective reason to keep it.  The two reasons you gave seem pretty subjective, or at the least, speculative.  1- AFAIK, there is no such thing as "an offical name of the organisation in English".  That would imply that they have two separate offical names, or that they would consider a translation unoffical. 2- Unless you can somehow poll all English speaking people, you have no way of knowing (and neither does the guy making the original assertation. as such, it shouldn't be used as an argument for one way or the other).  No problem with the end outcome of the discussion, just with the means to which it was accomplished.   Lime in the Coconut   15:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to assist. I worked for MSF (in UK, Canada, Nigeria and Papua New Guinea). The organisation is called Medecins Sans Frontiers. Search long enough and you'll find official documents or websites with all range of variations because what tends to happen is that the local language translation is written under the official version. That might be MSF translated into English, Arabic, Tok Pisin or what ever the local project felt most helpful to local people. But the name is MSF, acknowledged DWB is used in the US and to a much lesser extent in some English speaking countries, just as Arzen Gronder Grendin (sorry for spelling) is used in Germany. Confusing? Hope not. But MSF is the name. Anything else is a translation of the name. 86.150.221.89 (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Governance in MSF
It can be argued that one of the unique things about MSF is it´s complex structure, a non-monolithic organisation. For this reason, it is relevant to have a whole paragraph on governance (rather than the former factually-incorrect single sentence) right at the start of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norbertpayne (talk • contribs) 20:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia uses the organization's Chinese name 無國界醫生 (wu guijie yisheng), not their French name. I would think it more fitting that the organization's English name be used on English Wikipedia. Bubbha (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bubbha, see the locked conversation above. MSF is not their "French" name. It is their name. MSF is sometimes translated into English and other languages, but the name of the organisation is in French. It is not a French version. I am a full time employee of MSF. Chris. New to Wiki, hope I sign this correctly 94.37.169.8 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

C.A.M.E.R.A.
An editor has introduced some criticism of MSF by a pro-Israel group. Have these allegations been covered by reliable secondary sources, or are they even that notable? I haven't been able to find additional information, so I moved this here for now:
 * ''A pro-Israel activist group has accused Doctors Without Borders of an anti-Israel bias, offering as evidence the arrest of one MSF worker for allegedly plotting to kill the Israeli Prime Minister, and a 2001 Vogue Magazine article about MSF's work in the Palestinian Territories.

I did find the actual news story about the MSF worker here. I see that the following information from the news article was left out of the sources used for this content:
 * Duncan McLean, director of Doctors Without Borders in the region, told The Jerusalem Post that Bashir - who had been working as a translator for the organization in Gaza for nearly five years and since last October as a social worker there - had not shown any suspicious behavior. "We are a humanitarian organization, and if we had felt he was a risk, we would not have employed him," said McLean. All the organization's staff undergo a security check, he said, and Bashir himself had a valid permit for travel to Jerusalem. The Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) decides this, McLean said.

Can someone expand this potential content to any extent? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

MSF have 26,000 staff at any one time (in the developing countries the staff turnover will be high) so it seems harsh to judge an entire organisation on the basis of the actions of what 1 former employee is accused of. It would seem that who ever introduced this has an agenda to push and it does not seem relevant the organisation as a whole. I would suggest it be removed. (Chris)

Should this still be an FA?
I'm pretty sure that this article wouldn't pass FA currently. Just looking at the lead, external links, occasional paucity of inline citations, and relatively high reliance on primary sources, I would think this article is a good candidate for FAR. Is anyone currently working on mainaining this article? Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the name
Why no mention that the name Médecins Sans Frontières is directly borrowed from the massively popular Europe-wide TV programme Jeux Sans Frontières? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.167.226 (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Location of current projects
MSF currently work in about 70 countries in Europe, South America, Asia and Africa, but there is only a section on the projects in Africa. It might be hard to keep changing the article every time they enter or leave a country, but there is no reason to only document African projects. (Chris) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.4.178 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

MSF Budget
From article: "Private donors provide about 80% of the organization's funding, while governmental and corporate donations provide the rest, giving MSF an annual budget of approximately US$400 million." MSF Financial Report 2009 (http://www.msf-me.org/en/general/downloadFile/file/1524/dId/1850) Reports an income of 665,395€. -Peter Kagey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.247.45 (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It says 665 million actually, not 665 thousand. (75.119.246.210 (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC))


 * And income was 886 million Euros for 2011. http://www.msf.org/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=64C0CCBA-2E37-44D4-B0E8-DA7A4CBE3F61&siteName=msf (75.119.246.210 (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

Non-English, non-French names
The lead section currently says that "The organization is known in most of the world by its French name or simply as MSF, ...". But looking at Wikipedia's Languages column, I notice that native translations of the French name seems to be in common use. And looking at for example the organisation's German and Dutch (and other) websites, they use mostly the native name throughout. Here in Sweden, the French name is admittedly known (but not so much the abbreviation), but the native name is used much more, on the organisation's website and as reflected in the Wikipedia article (Läkare utan gränser).

I don't know how to quantify "most of the world", and maybe it is generally true, but perhaps it should rather be "in most of the English-speaking world"? --80.217.2.28 (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've marked that as a dubious statement. Localization seems to be the rule, not the exception, in most of the world. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
I donate to MSF regularly, so I have no grudge against them, but a lot of the text of this article sounded very familiar as I had just been reading articles at their website. There were a number of things lifted verbatim. I feel like I just read an infomercial. Carmaskid (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)