Talk:Médecins Sans Frontières

Pronunciation

Whoever spoke the name at the top of the article has a strong foreign accent. A native French speaker should record a new version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.211.9 (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The organization is known, and internationally registered under its french name, complete with accented characters. This means that the correct pronunciation of the name is a french one. As a student of french, I recognize that the accent of the reader speaking the name is quite neutral, and could quite easily have been spoken by a native English speaker with a good grasp of French as a second language. Indeed, pronouncing the name in 'English' would introduce a strong foreign accent, as second language pronunciations of foreign words tend to be heavily coloured by the speaker's own regional inflections. I endorse keeping the spoken pronunciation guide as is. (Muhanned Nuaimy-Barker (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC))

Requested move from Médecins Sans Frontières to Doctors Without Borders

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 16:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Médecins Sans Frontières → Doctors Without Borders – Médecins Sans Frontières is merely the French name for Doctors Without Borders (and indeed, the name is a direct translation); on their English-language website, they call themselves Doctors Without Borders. As this is the name of the organization in English, its Wikipedia article page should reflect its English-language name. The other language Wikis, such as sv:Läkare utan gränser, follow the same practice of localization. Médecins Sans Frontières should be a redirect to Doctors Without Borders in the English language Wiki.– Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Please see the previous rename proposals in the archives; this is the fourth one, the previous three having failed. The English name is actually a translation of the original French name. This organisation originated in France. MSF's English language website is not the one quoted, it is http://www.msf.org/ where it clearly calls itself MSF and not DWB. The US branch that the move proposal refers to is about the only one that uses the url 'doctorswithoutborders.org'. All the other English language countries use 'msf.org.xx' (see the international list at http://www.msf.org.uk/international-msf-offices), and all country websites add a translation into their language when it is not French. The BBC as far as I can see uses MSF to refer to the organisation. Usage presumably is different in the US, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Imc (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Imc: I'm very well aware that the English name is a translation of the French name. That's precisely why it should be renamed to that, because that is precisely what it is called, and that is precisely the name we're supposed to use. Doctors Without Borders is the name of the organization in English, just as es:Estados Unidos is the name of the United States in Spanish, and how Germany is the name of, well, Germany in the English encyclopedia. You will note on the page that you link that they localize their name: they are es:Médicos Sin Fronteras in Argentina and other Spanish and Portugese-speaking countries, Doctors Without Borders in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, Ireland, the UK, and the United States, de:Ärzte ohne Grenzen in Austria and Germany, Læger uden Grænser in Denmark, Γιατροί Χωρίς Σύνορα in Greece, ect. Note that they note that on the page you just linked to. The organization itself localizes and translates its name.

We call them the Russian Armed Forces and not Вооружённые Си́лы Росси́йской Федера́ции for the same reason. This is the English Wikipedia. We translate most names into English, unless the name isn't ordinarily translated. That's why the Ivory Coast is named such. The other language versions of Wikipedia all localize the name. We localize the name of other things which have common English names, as Doctors Without Borders does, which is a translation of their name into English which was done by the organization itself. On the very page that you linked to, they have the "Doctors Without Borders" name on their website. That's the term which they themselves use for their organization in English. They do the same in other countries. Per WP:EN, this is the name which should be used, because it is the name which is most frequently used in English, not only by news sources, but by the organization itself. On the website itself (which you linked to), they use Doctors Without Borders on the various English-language pages, while they use the abbreviation MSF. But they localize the name for all languages.

I was not aware that there had been previous discussion on the thing being moved or I wouldn't have put the request in the way that I did, but it wasn't recent. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon, you say "We translate most names into English, unless the name isn't ordinarily translated." That's the answer then: in the English-speaking country I live in (the original one, as it happens) the name is not ordinarily translated.Saxmund (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ivory Coast is much argued about, since both names are used; the Cyrillic script is a red herring. —innotata 03:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per WP:ENGVAR. Médecins Sans Frontières is the name this organisation is known by in English in much of the English speaking world; North America appears to be the exception. I am not familiar with either the policies of other language Wikis or the organisation's profile in those languages but in English this organisation is commonly known by the MSF name. As for all those place names mentiond this goes both ways. We have "Los Angeles" not "The Angels" and "Wagga Wagga" not "Crowstown". This has been subject to multiple RMs in the past because MSF is not "merely the French name" but is the name which the organisation is known in a large part of the English speaking world. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Timrollpickering: The organization itself uses MSF and Doctors Without Borders on its own webpage; it does not use Mediciens Sans Frontiers inline on its own webpage beyond one use on each page. "Most of the English speaking world" is questionable, given that most native speakers live in, well, the US, where they are called Doctors Without Borders. Moreover, not only is it a translation of their name, it is on their own website and used by the organization itself to refer to itself, along with MSF - this includes on the UK version of their website, as noted above. Per WP:EN, we use the name of the place in English. Los Angeles IS the name of the city in English; that's what everyone calls it. It is only very rarely and esoterically known as the City of Angels, and no one uses that as its primary name. The same is true of most things. I'm not sure where your argument is coming from.
  • They themselves use "Doctors Without Borders" and MSF on their webpage; they don't use Mediciens Sans Frotieres on their English versions of their webpages in inline text, and they have both names listed on top of the page in their logo. They localize it for every country. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose this speedy move request; If the nominator cannot be bothered to place an actual reasoning in the nomination, it should be automatically rejected. Further procedurally, this cannot be done due to prior existing closed move requests on this very issue. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I did, it just didn't show up properly on the page and I don't know why. :\ And this isn't a speedy move anymore. But it should be moved (or I think so, at any rate). Titanium Dragon (talk)
• Oppose UK news sources like the BBC always use Medicines Sans Frontieres - there are two here; two here (although to see one of them, you need to click the "Respirator" link in the "Protective Ebola suit" picture); on here; there are other pages too. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Did you check out their own website, which uses both names? Or look outside of the UK? Because the (much larger) American press uses Doctors Without Borders. Their own webpage calls them Doctors Without Borders or the MSF inline on the English language version of the site. The other language wikis all call them by their localized name. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Is this the English Wiki? Why yes it is. I remember this group being called Doctors Without Borders in news dispatches from Afghanistan thirty years ago.--Froglich (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. It is the English WP and they use both names. If they only used one name, I'd say go with that. And their philosophy is one of inclusion, not exclusion. Also, Titanium Dragon is brave to try this. Well done, you. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Their official English-language website is www.msf.org, which very clearly carries only the name "Médecins Sans Frontières." The www.doctorswithoutborders.org website is merely the website for the US branch. It uses both names. But, since "Doctors Without Borders" is used only in parts of the English-speaking world, and "Médecins Sans Frontières" is used in the entire English-speaking world, I say stick with what we've got. It is the official name of the organisation after all. Also, "MSF" is the only official acronym. Even the www.doctorswithoutborders.org website uses "MSF USA" and not "DWB." In fact, I've never seen "DWB" used at all. -- 120.23.35.240 (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @120.23.35.240: I agree as far as "MSF" goes (they don't use DWB as an abbreviation at all), but if you look at all their country websites, the countries where the English language is spoken all have "Doctors Without Borders" on them in the header/logo. All their other country websites localize the name as well; they seem to localize their name into every language, but they keep the acronym MSF pretty universally. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Titanium Dragon well enunciates the sound rationale in which I fully concur. Unless British people translate "Médecins Sans Frontières" to British English as "Médecins Sans Frontières", their familiarity with French is no excuse for calling it English. We are not exercising sound editorial discretion by alienating a large contingent of our English readership who are not bilingual to squelch English terminology that does not hinder any of our English readers who are bilingual.—John Cline (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Médecins Sans Frontières is certainly not "merely the French name for Doctors Without Borders". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Axl. May I ask: are you commenting as an English speaker, or as a Doctor of Medicine, who would perhaps be familiar with the term as professional jargon?—John Cline (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Axl: It is, though; their name quite literally means "Doctors Without Borders"; it is a direct translation (Mediciens = doctors, sans = without, Frontieres = borders). The organization was originally French, but they are now a multinational organization which localizes its name into at a large number of languages, including English; they use this name on their American website, and even the UK version of their page has "Doctors Without Borders" up on the top; all of their various international versions have their name localized into the local language. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the US and UK websites don't just put "Doctors Without Borders" at the top - immediately above that it says "Medecins Sans Frontieres" - here are the US logo and the UK logo. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

John Cline, I am commenting as a Wikipedia editor. If you are interested in my professional experience, on the occasions when I have discussed the organization with colleagues, we have only ever described it as MSF or Médecins Sans Frontières. Of course, this is anecdotal "original research". Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon, the situation is actually the other way around. "Doctors Without Borders" is merely the English Translation of "Médecins Sans Frontières". Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of this fact, Axl. I don't see why it matters at all; it is the same name, just in a different language. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Doctors without Borders" is clearly shown as a subsidiary name on the website, "Médecins Sans Frontières" is the primary one, the way it is most commonly referred to in the UK, and, I am led to believe through discussions on this page and the Ebola Outbreak talk page how it is commonly referred to in other international varieties of English.Saxmund (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Their common name in English continues to be Médecins Sans Frontières. —innotata 03:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support DWB seems to be the common name in English by quite a margin, judging by searches for "doctors without borders is" vs "medecins sans frontieres is" in Google (555k vs 197k), Google News (700 vs 10), and Google Books (3.5k vs 1k). Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What a strange search! Searching for "medecins sans frontieres" vs "doctors without borders" puts "medecins sans frontieres" well ahead (1,660,000 vs 292,000 in Google and 68,300 vs 37,600 in Google Books). -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I did that search to ensure that the texts were in English. Your search may include non-English texts. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Google Ngrams: U.S. UK Both Art LaPella (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The French name is the common name throughout the world (e.g. the BBC uses it). Very rarely is it referred to anywhere by its English name. Except possibly in the United States, as previous experience in RM debates suggests they're not comfortable with using other languages. The rest of the English-speaking world is more open, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  Dear Mexican, is it true that in the U.S, they're not comfortable with using languages other than English? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  Just commenting on my experiences at RMs, where the frenzied calls to translate everything into English no matter what almost invariably come from Americans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per very good reasons above; MSF is the widely used name in much of the English-speaking world and there is no need to localise to North American English for an international organisation. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as Médecins Sans Frontières or its initials MSF is the WP:common name used in most of the world. For similar reasons, I'd also oppose renaming Fédération Internationale de Philatélie to International Philately Federation, Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile to International Automobile Federation, Union Internationale des Avocats to International Association of Lawyers, Union Cycliste Internationale to International Cycling Union, Fédération Internationale de Roller Sports to International Federation de Sports à Roulettes, ... Qwfp (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC) (replaced with my more serious and evidence-based argument below) Qwfp (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment For all the people saying "Medecins sans Frontieres" is the common name in English, what evidence do you have to support this position? I was neutral coming into this and did some Googling and it appears that "Doctors without Borders" dominates English-language sources. I'd be glad to be persuaded but the opposes so far have cited basically no stats to support their opinions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

An "oppose" comment above notes that searching for "medecins sans frontieres" vs "doctors without borders" puts "medecins sans frontieres" well ahead (1,660,000 vs 292,000 in Google and 68,300 vs 37,600 in Google Books). -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that search is not limited to English-language sources... And the source cited by Number 57 below is only a search for the terms used by the BBC (which is hardly representative of English-language usage generally). Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• See Art LaPella's Google Ngram searches above, remembering to sum the hits for "Médecins Sans Frontières" and "Medecins Sans Frontieres" (MSF). "Doctors without Borders" (DWB) has around 25% more hits than MSF in books published in the US, while MSF has roughly twice as many hits as DWB in books published in Great Britain. I'm not sure how meaningful the third search for books published in English in any country is, as I've been unable to find any information on whether Google's sample is representative of the number of books published in each country (I suspect not), but FWIW, MSF has around 30% more hits than DWB in that.

I also tried some NewsBank#Access World News searches of newspapers and others news sources from various English-speaking countries: Restricting to US sources, DWB has around 6 times as many hits as DWB ; in UK & Ireland, MSF has around 4 times as many as DWB, and in Australia+NZ around 50% more; in India they're neck-and-neck, as they are in South Africa. NewsBank doesn't have great coverage of the rest of Africa, but a combined search of other countries in Africa that have English but not French as one of their official languages (Botswana, Eritrea, Ghana, Kenya, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe) gave DWB about 40% more hits (dominated by sources based in Kenya, Sudan and Uganda for both search terms).

I'd say putting all that together provides good evidence that "no single term is predominant in English", indicating per WP:DIVIDEDUSE to "leave the article name at the latest stable version", i.e. 'Médecins Sans Frontières'. So my conclusion:

Oppose move. Qwfp (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose MSF is the common name in the English language media. For Calliopejen1's benefit, BBC usage is 6,360 for MSF and 1,780 for DWB (and most of the DWB references appear to be translations of MSF rather than actually using it). Number 57 14:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nope, even in Canada we use the proper name. Like the imperial system, we just have the odd straggler. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest list as a perennial proposal. Andrewa (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: despite the pronunciation problems for the English palate, they still refer to themselves (and are referred to) by their French name.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Please note that before the above request, at least a couple of requests to move this article to Doctors Without Borders had already failed, and the several associated discussions can be found in Archive 1. --83.255.55.91 (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Médecins Sans Frontières. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081228162119/http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org:80/publications/reports/2006/top10_2005.html to http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/reports/2006/top10_2005.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081202035659/http://www.msf.org:80/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=751B6F1E-B3D6-11D4-B1FA0060084A6370&method=full_html to http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=751B6F1E-B3D6-11D4-B1FA0060084A6370&method=full_html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked by Pipetricker 07:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

'Charities based in France' ?

Contrary to the article's Categories: tag, MSF's location is listed as Geneva, Switzerland. Beingsshepherd (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 14 external links on Médecins Sans Frontières. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130829060022/http://web.archive.org/web/20070813051310/http%3A//www.seoulpeaceprize.or.kr/english/award_03.html to http://www.seoulpeaceprize.or.kr/english/award_03.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930020457/http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=56A60D4D-F779-4B42-B3AB662CA10C85FF&method=full_html to http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=56A60D4D-F779-4B42-B3AB662CA10C85FF&method=full_html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061210082737/http://www.msf.fr/site/actu.nsf/actus/msfen1994 to http://www.msf.fr/site/actu.nsf/actus/msfen1994
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927222618/http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=B82400AA-3B73-496F-9D84F6A326006642&method=full_html to http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=B82400AA-3B73-496F-9D84F6A326006642&method=full_html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930020359/http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=71282BBA-EC70-11D4-B2010060084A6370&method=full_html to http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=71282BBA-EC70-11D4-B2010060084A6370&method=full_html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060110204222/http://www.unaids.org/wad2004/EPIupdate2004_html_en/Epi04_03_en.htm to http://www.unaids.org/wad2004/EPIupdate2004_html_en/Epi04_03_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060216120244/http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?objectid=7BC39654-E018-0C72-09E7DF9CC8A2E42A&component=toolkit.report&method=full_html to http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?objectid=7BC39654-E018-0C72-09E7DF9CC8A2E42A&component=toolkit.report&method=full_html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060316011210/http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/aboutus/what.cfm to http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/aboutus/what.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930015853/http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=2371723C-A340-45A4-919DDF2685CD9289&method=full_html to http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=2371723C-A340-45A4-919DDF2685CD9289&method=full_html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930020129/http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=6746E5F4-0A5B-4C1E-B9EFCB10C8509248&method=full_html to http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=6746E5F4-0A5B-4C1E-B9EFCB10C8509248&method=full_html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927222333/http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=67AC8E1E-3EF1-4B0C-A7D473B4C8B1B2B2&method=full_html to http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=67AC8E1E-3EF1-4B0C-A7D473B4C8B1B2B2&method=full_html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927222402/http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=C4B3E381-F16B-499D-99550AD3814DE45D&method=full_html to http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=C4B3E381-F16B-499D-99550AD3814DE45D&method=full_html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930015904/http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=0F722DE2-BF6A-11D4-852200902789187E&method=full_html to http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=0F722DE2-BF6A-11D4-852200902789187E&method=full_html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060514040456/http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=762E8B7B-2F5F-448A-8EC26F2039794E54&method=full_html to http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?component=article&objectid=762E8B7B-2F5F-448A-8EC26F2039794E54&method=full_html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Médecins Sans Frontières. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160422061632/http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2015/09/08/premio-lasker-2015-para-medicos-sin-fronteras-8995.html/ to http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2015/09/08/premio-lasker-2015-para-medicos-sin-fronteras-8995.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060104130535/http://www.essentialdrugs.org/ to http://www.essentialdrugs.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050509091516/http://www.observatoire-humanitaire.org/fusion.php?l=FR&id=23 to http://www.observatoire-humanitaire.org/fusion.php?l=FR&id=23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

MSF nurse killed while attacking soldiers; anti-Israel bias

I'll just link a blog post that has links to relevant pages: [1] --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Capitalisation edit-warring

We have a flurry of undiscussed renames going on. This needs to stop. Whatever the appropriate name, we need to decide on that, move to it and then stop edit-warring over it. [2] [3] [4] This is an abuse of WP:RM/TR. It's not a technical request, it's a subjective rename, based on an unsupported assertion. As an undiscussed rename, it should never have been actioned. As a rename in the middle of challenged and reverted renames, it should certainly never have been requested. Given the frequency of such similar bad requests (although not this article or editor) I'd even see this as justifying a request at WP:AN seeking a TBAN against using RM/TR in such a way. For sourcing, https://www.msf.org/who-we-are "We are Médecins Sans Frontières" could hardly be clearer. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

So, what should we use as a title?

• Médecins Sans Frontières Andy Dingley (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Wow, I am shocked that that RM/TR was actioned. I thought the move of the talk page (without moving the article) was a mistake so I moved it back. Why is someone trying to change to a lowercase name? Everything I've read uses capitalized words, including their own website. It's their business name. I looked yesterday for anything about this in the MOS, but I couldn't find anything. "Médecins Sans Frontières" is correct. Natureium (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we get a comment from Anthony Appleyard, who moved the page? Natureium (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I think any admin actioning RM/TR requests should check page history first and I'd be happy to see our policy changed so that RM/TR was only usable after some prior talk: mention of such a move. But he wasn't the one who made the initial request. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I assumed it was required that someone moving a page listed at RM/TR would at least check to see if the requested move was correct. Natureium (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Natureium and Andy Dingley:  Done I have reverted the move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

NPOV issues in lead?

Lines such as "[...]To that end, the organisation emphasises "independence and impartiality", and explicitly precludes political, economic, or religious factors in its decision making. For these reasons, it limits the amount of funding received from governments or intergovernmental organisations." in the opening section read like Wikipedia:MISSION. CMP (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Controversies - Hong Kong

There is a controversies (note plural) section but the only thing is about Hong Kong and the controversial thing seems to be that MSF didn't take any action. Is that controversial? I can't tell. There's two citations saying MSF did nothing and the only link that might suggest that is controversial goes to an article about nothing. There is any absence of any sources saying anything was controversial. Should we remove this section? CT55555 (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

OK two months have passed, I'm removing the Hong Kong thing, but actually also adding something in that is controversial, so the section will remain CT55555 (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Whichever of MSF and DWB is most common overall in the English-speaking world does not seem to be determinable, especially since every single source uses the two terms with different frequencies, even those written in the same standard variety of English! (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Médecins Sans Frontières → Doctors Without Borders – The English name for this organization is Doctors Without Borders. Since this site is written in English, and the subject of this article has a common name in English, the article title should also be written in English. This is the English Wikipedia, not the French Wikipedia. In every other Wikipedia this article's title is in the language used by that Wikipedia - why should the English Wikipedia be any different? Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 04:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support - WP:USEENGLISH -- Netoholic @ 06:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and Netoholic. The organization's French name is indeed not its international name. This entry appears in 82 Wikipedias and Danish Wikipedia's main title header is Læger uden Grænser, Dutch Wikipedia's is Artsen zonder Grenzen, Finnish Wikipedia's is Lääkärit ilman rajoja, German Wikipedia's is Ärzte ohne Grenzen, Hungarian Wikipedia's is Orvosok Határok Nélkül, Italian Wikipedia's ie Medici senza frontiere, Polish Wikipedia's is Lekarze bez Granic, Spanish Wikipedia's is Médicos Sin Fronteras, Swedish Wikipedia's is Läkare utan gränser and Turkish Wikipedia's is Sınır Tanımayan Doktorlar, to name but ten. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom, and for reasons listed by others above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Well, I'm British, and I've almost always heard it as Médecins Sans Frontières in this country, the home of English! It's certainly what the British media tends to call it. What it's called on other Wikipedias is utterly irrelevant, as they work to different standards. WP:UE is also utterly irrelevant if it is commonly called by a foreign-language name in English-speaking countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, this is the fourth RM! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  That does not appear to be the case - "Doctors Without Borders" dominates Google Trends for UK over the last 5 years (and the difference is even greater when, as you should, be considering the whole of the English-speaking world). Please stop asserting personal experience and nationalism in move discussions - its better to use independently verifiable methods for determining usage. -- Netoholic @ 15:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  You're actually accusing me of nationalism because as a native English-speaker from England I want to use a French name?!? Excuse me while I chalk that up as one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  And no, I'm not just asserting "personal experience". The BBC mostly seems to use the French name, for a start (compare the English version). As do The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, etc, etc. As for "considering the whole of the English-speaking world", you should know that's not how Wikipedia works, otherwise the whole thing would be written in American English, which is dominant on the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  MSF UK quite clearly favours the French name. So do MSF Australia and New Zealand. Even MSF India does. So, in actual fact, which parts of the English-speaking world are you referring to? The only one that primarily uses the Doctors Without Borders name appears to be the USA (and even there it's usually referred to in abbreviation as MSF, not DWB). Elsewhere it's very much "Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders)", with the English translation being very much secondary if listed at all. Given the organisation has no links to any particular country, we should go with what it is commonly referred to in most areas of the English-speaking world (and the rest of the world too), which is clearly Médecins Sans Frontières. Contrary to popular belief, WP:UE does not mandate translation of every foreign-language name into English, even if an English name is sometimes used. Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand why some editors are determined to pursue this policy. As a native English-speaker who speaks no other languages beyond basic understanding, I am quite able and happy to use foreign-language names and I just cannot understand why others are determined not to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Our WP:TITLES policies don't give a lot of weight to what entities call themselves. We go by prevalence in reliable, secondary sources. And again, it seems you're nationalistically limiting your assertions to UK sources like the BBC/Times/etc. This is not Brit-pedia. I direct you to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) which directly says the title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language. I don't particularly care if the most common name agrees with UK, US, or other usage - we use what is most common. There is no place for someone being anti-American in this discussion. -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Don't be ridiculous. Nobody is being anti-American. But when one English-speaking country almost exclusively uses a term and the Wikipedia article uses that term then that's the name we should keep. We don't move it to another term because another English-speaking country prefers that term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, but we should move it if the term is the most commonly-use done across ALL English usage. You're the only one that seems to be arguing from a nationalistic preference perspective. -- Netoholic @ 14:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  It isn't, as already pointed out. It's only commonest in American usage. So who precisely is arguing from a nationalist point of view? If only Britain used the French term and every other English-speaking country predominantly used the English term then I might agree with you, but that is very clearly not the case and cannot possibly be argued on the evidence provided. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Breaking down usage by nationality is nationalistic. I have consistently advocated the opposite - we should be only going by what is true across -ALL- English language usage. -- Netoholic @ 12:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Which, as pointed out by several editors, is clearly Médecins Sans Frontières! So please stop accusing me of nationalism. It's petty, it's ridiculous and it's completely untrue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Per your vote: Well, I'm British, and I've almost always heard it as Médecins Sans Frontières in this country, the home of English!. Pro Britishism from the outset - your nationalism has drenched every subsequent comment you've make here. Stop WP:GASLIGHTING. -- Netoholic @ 17:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Here, have a tertiary source for relative prevalence of the full names showing slightly less than half of the total for Doctors Without Borders in recent years and another for the acronyms showing at most about 1/6 of the total for DWB, since its creation in 1971. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  That just shows that the English name is about as commonly used as the French name in English (which makes some sense, considering that the organization was founded in France and is headquartered in the French-speaking part of Switzerland). But the acronym is irrelevant. The International Basketball Federation is called FIBA in English, but that doesn't mean it is not called the International Basketball Federation in English. Hence, the French name for FIBA is seldom used in English. Ditto for FIFA, FINA, etc. and to a large extent, MSF. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 17:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  "The rest of the world too". Check out the title of this article in every other language Wikipedia. The title is in the language of that Wikipedia. Only English Wikipedia decides to break this trend and title this article by its French name. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 19:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'll say it once again: this is utterly irrelevant to practice on English Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: watch as yet another RM on this article tries to bulldoze its way through English-language reliable sources, which prefer Médecins Sans Frontières, often abbreviated MSF, as the WP:COMMONNAME. Per WP:TRANSLITERATE, if the common usage in the English language is to borrow the original name, then we have to follow that. MSF refers to itself as Médecins Sans Frontières on its website, and a quick search for the latest pieces in reliable sources that mention them returns Médecins Sans Frontières: The Guardian, BBC, The New York Times, The Age (Australia), etc. We already have a redirect for Doctors Without Borders and it's bolded in the lead, so it's quite enough for me. Pilaz (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable English sources use the term Doctors Without Borders. The sources that use the French name are primarily British sources such as the Guardian and BBC. According to the article French language:

"In English-speaking Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland, French is the first foreign language taught and in number of pupils is far ahead of other languages."

So, incidentally, British people seem to be pretty familiar with French. However, the English-speaking world consists of more than just Britain. How is an English speaker, with zero knowledge of foreign languages, supposed to pronounce the name Médecins Sans Frontières? There are also two accents in the name that cannot be typed on an English-language keyboard. Now, if an entity has no common English name, then I can understand having a title in a foreign language. But Médecins Sans Frontières has a common English name: Doctors Without Borders. If there is a common English name then why not use it?

Sure, it is commonly abbreviated MSF in English sources. Similarly, the International Basketball Federation is abbreviated FIBA in English sources. Abbreviations used for entities in English don't always reflect the full English names of those entities. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 18:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Last I checked, the inhabitants of Canada and the Republic of Ireland are not "British people". So far the only empirical analysis that delves into the WP:COMMONNAME debate (which supersedes WP:UE) is from Necrothesp, and it's heavily leaning towards Médecins Sans Frontières. I don't see any fundamental challenge to the arguments from the previous RMs either. Pilaz (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned Canada and the Republic of Ireland as nations where French is widely taught as a foreign language. The fact is, this is the English Wikipedia, and we cannot expect our readers to know French, or any other language. Whenever there is a common English name to describe a subject, we use it.

This organization was founded by French doctors and is headquartered in Geneva, in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. Nevertheless, it is an international organization. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we use the English name. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 23:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

So, incidentally, British people seem to be pretty familiar with French. On the contrary, most British people have no command of French whatsoever. We are (in)famous for our poor command of other languages, whether we are taught them at school or not. I have two O-levels in French, but (to my shame) I couldn't speak it now to save my life. So this is a complete non-argument. It is also completely irrelevant to Wikipedia naming. Just because English-speakers often have a poor command of foreign languages doesn't mean we should translate every foreign name into English even if it's not commonly used. That's pure ignorance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Since this is the English Wikipedia, and there is a policy titled "use English", when there is a common name in English, we use it. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 17:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

And the same policy states the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used because they predominate in English-language reliable sources. So it's a WP:COMMONNAME issue first and foremost. Also, if you're going to repeat the same points over and over, you should consider reading WP:BLUDGEON. As the nominator, I would expect you to stop responding to every single comment you disagree with, and to trust the process a little more. Pilaz (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

That is because Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen do not have well-established English (or anglicized) names, and their native names are the names most commonly used in English to refer to these entities. Calling Søren Kierkegaard an English name would be equivalent to calling someone Charles when his real name is Carlos. Personal names are not translated, except for a few historical figures and the pope.
That is not the case with Médecins Sans Frontières, though. Médecins Sans Frontières has a common English name, Doctors Without Borders, which is a direct translation of the French name. In nearly every English-speaking country except the UK, the English name predominates. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 00:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: per my reply to Netoholic, Médecins Sans Frontières is more common in English usage. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

According to Google Trends, the English term beats the French term in international searches by a large margin. Only in France, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Hong Kong, Lebanon, and Kenya do searches for the French term outnumber those for the English term. Since the English term, Doctors Without Borders, is more commonly used in English than the French term, English Wikipedia should prefer the English term. The French term also has two accented letters that are not used in English and cannot be typed on an English keyboard.
Similarly, we say India rather than Bharat (or भारत), Germany rather than Deutschland, China rather than 中国, Russia rather than Россия, Mount Everest rather than सगरमाथा, and Egypt rather than مِصر. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 17:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. Pilaz (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: Notification has also been posted at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. [EDIT 17:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC), changed to Support per considering further arguments, particularly Google Trends, see my post below. My older argument follows:] [ The Google Ngram is the key point for me, it's 50-50 in just English books and with the French name moving up on the inside track. I'm surprised. And then, in French and Spanish and Italian only the French name is used. Now, it is true that in America the English name has a clear advantage, which is holding. And America is about 2/3 of the Anglosphere. But in Britain the opposite is the case. And the Australians and Canadians etc tend -- tend -- to follow British usage. Taken all together, this comes to 50-50 in the Anglosphere alone, and there you have it.I expected to come here supporting the move on the basis of WP:CONSISTENCY since we have Ivory Coast rather than Cote d'Ivore even tho the latter is more popular world wide. But I think the Ngram overrides that. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The French version of the name is used by MSF in its English-language communications which I receive as a donor, and is the name by which it is known in the UK. PamD 04:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Support: the various arguments have won me over, especially that of Herostratus below comparing number of confused readers either way. There are already an impressive number of incoming redirects to allow for the two languages, various capitalisations, and the presence or absence of accents - some very good work there. PamD 15:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• The Ngram is roughly tied. According to Google Trends, the English term beats the French term in international searches by a large margin. Only in France, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Hong Kong, Lebanon, and Kenya do searches for the French term outnumber those for the English term. France, Switzerland, Belgium, and Lebanon are all at least partly French-speaking countries. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 06:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Here are the article titles in various languages:

Danish: Læger uden Grænser

German: Ärzte ohne Grenzen

Spanish: Médicos Sin Fronteras

French: Mėdecins sans frontières

Korean: 국경없는의사회

Italian: Medici senza frontiere

English: Médecins Sans Frontières (like the French title, but capitalized)

So the Danish Wikipedia uses Danish, German Wikipedia uses German, Spanish Wikipedia uses Spanish, etc. but the English Wikipedia uses French? How is one supposed to pronounce Médecins Sans Frontières in English? I can understand using foreign-language names if there is no commonly used English-language name. But this organization has a common English name, Doctors Without Borders.

The English Wikipedia using a French title results in an absurd introduction: "Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF; pronounced [medsɛ̃ sɑ̃ fʁɔ̃tjɛʁ] (listen)), or Doctors Without Borders in English..." Well, reading that introduction, if Doctors Without Borders is English, and this is the English Wikipedia, why isn't Doctors Without Borders the article title? Why isn't it listed first in the introduction? Why is the French name being given precedence over the English name? Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 06:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Fair point, but we have Ecole d'Humanité and Ecole de Management Léonard De Vinci other schools given in French. OTOH lots of French names are translated -- it's rather a dog's breakfast. What other language Wikipedias do is an important data point, but not decisive, as we do as we please here. However, the Google trends is interesting.

Worldwide, the English name is searched on more than the French -- about twice as much. In America, the difference is huge. In the UK, it's about even... but, like it or not, the UK is a lot smaller than the USA. Australia is about even, and I suppose Canada etc. are similar.

FWIW, there's been a downward trend in searches generally, dunno why. Focusing on the last five years, you can see a slight downward trend in searches on the English name, while the French name holds steady -- but still well below.

Given the choice, I'd valorize what the average schlub searches rather than what people who write books use. There're a lot more of the former.

So then... are people advocating for the French name engaging in snobbery, even tho they can't say so and may not even know it themselves? I think so. Keep in mind that (unlike Britain I suppose), the average American doesn't know French at all and won't even recognize that Médecins Sans Frontières is French. It looks like gobbletygook. And no, a lot of people can't puzzle out the words even tho they're close enough to English. For you. If you think that they can, get out more.

So consider... maybe 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/10, whatever fraction of our readers of this English Wikipedia, won't recognize the French title as anything other than a meaningless collection of random letters, so the title does them no good at all. On the other hand, few readers of the English Wikipedia will be unable to understand the English title, I would suppose. The only goal here is to serve the reader, the plurality of readers, as best we can figure. Everything about this source or that source is just to serve this goal. The goal is best served by switching to the English title, in my view. I have thus changed my comment summary above from Oppose to Support. Herostratus (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Because it's clearly the commonest name in English-speaking countries, as already stated. I have no idea why you keep pointing out that this is English Wikipedia. We know. So what? Most of the people arguing against this move are probably native English-speakers themselves. That doesn't mean we're incapable of using foreign-language terms. At the end of the day, this is an encyclopaedia. It exists to impart information. It doesn't cater to and isn't written for the ignorant who are incapable of using or understanding "furrin" words or who may not know how to spell or pronounce them. A redirect from the English translation is sufficient. And also, as stated several times, what other Wikipedias do is irrelevant. That is a longstanding pillar of English Wikipedia naming guidelines. Each Wikipedia has its own practices. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not the commonest name according to Google Trends, which shows searches for the English name outnumbering those for the French name 2-1, implying that the English name is far more well-known. Only in a handful of mainly French-speaking countries do searches for the French name outnumber those for the English name. This encyclopedia is not supposed to use "furrin" words - we use English whenever there is a commonly used English name, and assume that English is the only language our readers know. Médecins Sans Frontières does not mean anything in English. Doctors Without Borders does mean something in English. In addition, the latter name is far more commonly used in every English-speaking country except the UK, and even in the UK, searches are roughly even. Doctors Without Borders is also an international organization, and is not specific to the French-speaking world. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 19:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Britain can speak for itself. In Canada it's Doctors Without Borders and abbreviated as MSF (Toronto Star, CBC, Official site) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Floydian, MSF has both the medecinssansfrontieres.ca and doctorswithoutborders.ca registered, and if you click the about page, on the English page both terms are consistently used conjunctly, whereas on the French page only the French term is used. In the terms and conditions of the English page, there's a similar issue where Doctors Without Borders is absent. As for the newspapers, I added a RS analysis of Canadian newspapers which shows a much murkier picture. How do you interpret the results below? Because I can also pick articles where Médecins Sans Frontières is used alone in the same newspapers you brought up. Cheers, Pilaz (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well yeah it makes sense that in a bilingual country, both the english and french version are registered. It also makes sense that the French version would use the French name and not reference the English name. You chart is very helpful and thank you for the work put into it... Unfortunately it only solidifies that both names are common parlance. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Since no RM has ever bothered to do a proper RS frequency analysis, here's a first attempt at one.

Methodology: Searched for exact "Médecins sans Frontières" and "Doctors without Borders" text in Google results (non-case sensitive, non-accent sensitive) based on reliable sources found at WP:RSP, then went to the very last page of Google search results to get an accurate number of articles bearing the query. Caveat: Google will not display more than 30 pages of results, so even for extremely popular terms like "Obama" you will get 300 results maximum, which means that if MSF or DWB both got around 300 results in Google, it means that the popularity in each term cannot be determined through a Google search. However, these undetermined results are a minority, so there is still value in a survey of reliable sources through Google.

Analysis: there are many RS that can be added to this table, but broadly the results will remain the same by adding more sources: Australia and the UK lean towards MSF, whereas the United States and New Zealand lean towards DWB. Canada shows parity in most reliable sources (which is understandable given the bilingualism of the country). In many cases, however, articles will both introduce both the MSF and DWB denominations to the reader. Given that the organization refers to itself as "Médecins Sans Frontières" (but often also as "Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders"), and that it won the Nobel Prize under the "Médecins Sans Frontières" label in 1999, my personal preference is for the first term over the latter. Others can interpret these results differently, but hopefully this advances this discussion somewhat. Pilaz (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Re The Guardian (UK): its style guide is explicit: "Médecins Sans Frontières: international (not French) medical aid charity; no need to translate it" PamD 17:27, 27 August 2022

Herostratus, this might be of additional interest to you beyond Google Trends statistics (which are not RS-exclusive). Pilaz (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank you, Pilaz for this extensive and useful work. Impressive and inspiring!

But... there are 5 American sources here and 15 from other Anglosphere countries plus one Indian, which we'll get to India presently. About 2/3 of native English speakers are Americans -- I was gobsmacked to learn this, but it's true -- so a better guess at what a typical reader would expect should use like 15 American sources and 8 from other Anglosphere countries. Of the Americans, two are strong DWB, two are lean DWB, and one undetermined. Small sample size, but if -- if -- that were to hold, or even hold generally, and we used 15 American sources vs eight others, it would be a very clear indication for DWB.

However... India. India has few native English speakers, but for practical purposes most Indians who access Wikipedia are in he Anglosphere. And even if that's a small percentage, it's still a whole of people. Well, using Google Trends -- if you want to consider that legit, but it's all I've got -- India looks to prefer DWB, altho the numbers are very low, dunno why -- maybe they use a different search engine more or whatever. Small sample size, but it doesn't help the case for using the French title. We could look at say another five top Indian sources to get a better idea.

And I mean editors and writers of your sources are fairly highly educated people, and most everyone they know is too. A fair number of readers aren't. The editors of the New York Times or The Economist etc are serving a much narrower audience than we do. I don't know about Europe, but if you travel in the American back country and the slums you are going to find a lot of people who are appallingly semi-literate. They probably use the Wikipedia less than the people you all know, but they probably know it exists and have cell phones and do need to look stuff up sometimes, something they hear on Fox News or whatever. And there's a lot of them. America has like 330 million residents after all.

And I mean, I would never say "Médecins Sans Frontières" in conversation. I don't know how to pronounce it. I don't know what those little marks above the e's are or why the point different ways, and with French I don't know when to stop -- is the "s" at the end of the words pronounced or not? And I'm literate enough to edit here. But I'm an American and I don't know ten words of any other language.

So, anyway your chart as it stands doesn't change my mind. Bearing in mind that of course redirects will take the reader to this page whatever search term is used, my bottom line is this:

• Number of readers who search on "Medecins Sans Frontieres", who are then confused and all at sea and don't know what they're looking at on being taken to an article titled "Doctors Without Borders": basically zero (excluding people who don't speak English at all well and why are they even here and we can't really consider them hardly when we decide things).
• Number of readers who search on "Doctors Without Borders" who are then confused and all at sea and don't know what they're looking at on being taken to an article titled "Medecins Sans Frontieres": Not negligible. Whether many, or several, or some, or a whole honken lot we don't know, but: not negligible.

Serve the reader. Everything else is comes in way second. Herostratus (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment on future of the article: If the decision is to move the article, I suggest that we change to use the bilingual logo seen in both https://msf.org.uk/ and https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/. I hope we will also continue to refer to the organisation as "MSF" throughtout the text - this abbreviation is used in the US "Doctors Without Borders" site, rather than "DWB", so seems to be the accepted abbreviation even for those who use the English full name. PamD 16:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the French name is still used first, still most recognisable outside USA. No need to change, redirect will do. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous RMs and per WP:RETAIN. The organisation is mainly known in English by its original name, the translation seems to have primarily arisen because of the media in one country. Just because a name originates from a different language doesn't stop it being a name that comes into English and even the United States has examples of this such as "Los Angeles" (not "The Angels") or "Santa Clarita" (not "Little St. Clare"). Whatever name is used there will be some readers surprised. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

As previously stated, Doctors Without Borders is far more common in international searches than Médecins Sans Frontières. As Herostratus previously stated, nobody will be astonished if they search for Médecins Sans Frontières and end up on an article titled Doctors Without Borders. But many people ‘’will’’ be astonished if they search Doctors Without Borders and end up on an article titled Médecins Sans Frontières. Doctors Without Borders is by far the most common name in the English-speaking world outside the UK.

Los Angeles and Santa Clarita are the English names for their respective cities. The cities are never, in casual or formal speech, called The Angels or Little St. Clare. But Médecins Sans Frontières is referred to most commonly in casual and formal English speech as Doctors Without Borders. Also, the average English speaker has no idea how to pronounce Médecins Sans Frontières or what the acute and obtuse accents mean.

I recently saw someone wearing a shirt that said "München, Germany". The German name of the city, München, is juxtaposed with the English name for the country, Germany. That does not mean, however, that the English name for Munich is now München. It is still Munich. Ditto for Doctors Without Borders. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 16:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"Médecins Sans Frontières is referred to most commonly in casual and formal English speech as Doctors Without Borders."? No, it is commonly referred to as MSF. I wonder whether "MSF", or perhaps "MSF (humanitarian organisation)", would really be the best title? PamD 05:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Although I voted support for Médecins Sans Frontières → Doctors Without Borders, if consensus can coalesce around the suggestion by PamD — Médecins Sans Frontières → MSF (humanitarian organisation) — I would certainly support such a main title header as an alternative to English Wikipedia's currently-used French-language header. A redirect for American users — MSF (humanitarian organization) — can be also created. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

MSF is the abbreviation. Doctors Without Borders is the (most common) full form. Similar to how the International Basketball Federation is most commonly referred to as FIBA, even in English, but its full French name is almost never used (except in French itself). Ditto for FIFA, FINA, etc. In the end, I would prefer Doctors Without Borders as the article title, although I would also be open to MSF (humanitarian organiz/sation). Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 18:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Crossover1370: stop your WP:BLUDGEONING. Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree. You've already made your point 13 times in this discussion and you're reusing the same examples. Take a step back, please. Hammering down the same points over and over won't do your arguments any justice. Pilaz (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Leaning support While MSF is the preferred acronym of the organization, "Doctors Without Frontiers" is the most common and presumably official English full-form of the organization. English-language media sources that refer MSF as the French name often refer it in parentheses for French. It also comply with WP:ENGLISH. 36.65.39.46 (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Went to their website just now: see this pic of their work in Pakistan. I'd guess that even fewer Pakistanis understand French than Americans, but the flag is clear and monolingual: "MEDICINS SANS FRONTIERES" (OK it's all capitals so no-one need worry about the accents!). Their UK site home page starts with the words "We are Médecins Sans Frontières. We are Doctors Without Borders." PamD 09:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. But I'm sure we will come back here again. There is no need to move the article just because in some areas people tend to use the translated title. In others they don't. If the article were stable at DWB there would probably be equally little reason to move it. But it's not. Andrewa (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the perennial move requests would indicate it's not exactly stable. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing with non-neutral point of view?

There's been a rash of seemingly non-neutral, unsourced edits made by one user since 11 December 2022 at 14:09. I'm not a smart enough editor to know if this is a serious issue, I'm just someone who needs the information and it felt off, so I thought I would bring it up to the larger group where someone with more understanding than myself could make potentially corrective edits. Thank you. Kinnayrberes (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like a significant amount of low-quality info was added to the lead. I moved it to a separate section for now, but it still needs work to enforce WP:NPOV. TimSmit (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Endtoxicaid: Looks like User:Endtoxicaid is violating WP:COI and WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. Thoughts? TimSmit (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kinnayrberes which part is non-neutral? I've referenced with articles from professional newspapers as citations. What was written before was a very one sides non-neutral version. Read the articles and citations. Endtoxicaid (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Endtoxicaid One of the sentences written into the introduction included the phrases "lessons haven't been learned, apologies haven't been appropriately made". The language suggests lack of neutrality and describes a specific, subjective perspective to MSF. Kinnayrberes (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kinnayrberes an organisation exploits children, their patients, by allowing photographers to sell their photos online for money without consent, they refuse to take then offline, off of sale, refuse to stop doing it and refuse to compensate victims....do you think that sounds like they've "learnt lessons"? Endtoxicaid (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Endtoxicaid What I think of MSF personally is of absolutely no importance, but letting that kind of language stay on the page, especially when it's not a quote or from a source related to the subject, is injecting a personal opinion into something that demands objectivity. Kinnayrberes (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kinnayrberes lol as you like you're deluded Endtoxicaid (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe assertions about someone's mental state count as an ad hominem. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@PauAmma being questioned about having a conflict of interest multiple times is pretty insulting...read the articles and maybe then do some research on this organisation. Their own staff say they're racist, over 1000 of them....is that not neutral to include just because it's negative? I'd suggest having a biased Wikipedia page which is predominantly referencing their own website is the opposite of neutral, therefore including wording in what they do in reality from reputable news sources is actually exactly what Wikipedia is for. So rather than question my bias in an insulting way, maybe consider yours first. Endtoxicaid (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Endtoxicaid: We appreciate your willingness to contribute and help us build a better Wikipedia. After all, we all started as new editors at some point. However, there are a variety of policies, guidelines, and community standards that you should be familiar with. You risk sanctions on your account if you continue to violate policies like the ones I've listed below:

1. WP:NOSHARING: For example, your account's User page states "Who are we? A group of current and ex-aid workers...". However, this Wikipedia policy requires user accounts to represent an individual, not a group. I would recommend deleting your group's account and having everyone in your group review the rest of these policies before creating individual accounts to continue editing.
2. WP:COPYOTHERS: This policy makes it very clear that, as editors of Wikipedia, we must "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others" as you did in this edit as well as two of your previous edits. Your actions create legal liabilities that could seriously hurt Wikipedia. They also require other users such as @Clovermoss: and @Sphilbrick: to spend time reviewing these edits and deleting each revision which includes blatant copyright violations.
3. WP:COI: Conflict of interest (COI) editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. In a nutshell, this policy says "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships". Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. As your user page states, some of your group's goals are to "deliver justice for people abused by the aid sector" and "Undermine [the ability of the aid sector] to fundraise through tackling their lies on social media". In the future, you can adhere to this policy by voluntarily disclosing your COI before making or requesting any edits.
4. WP:NPOV: All editors must be WP:BALANCED and WP:IMPARTIAL, avoiding WP:SYNTHESIS or original research that makes inferences beyond what is supported by reliable sources. Consider these sentences that were added, with no citations to support the conclusions: "[MSF's response] to these scandals has been considered weak, especially as abusive images remain online for sale, lessons haven't been learned, apologies haven't been appropriately made, compensation paid to survivors and senior management, responsible for overseeing these scandals, followed by a weak response, remain in post. Despite apologising for using explosive images of children, MSF continue to do so, allowing photos to remain on sale on sites such as Getty Images." (end of first paragraph)
5. WP:OVERCITE: A good rule of thumb is to include 1-3 inline citations, based on how likely the given material is to be challenged. It is certainly overkill to add groups of as many as 14 citations, especially within the lead section. For example
6. WP:LEAD: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. Many times, visitors do not read beyond the lead section, so we need to be especially careful to adhere to Wikipedia policies here. Consider that even if the content you added had been appropriate on its own, it would still need to be placed within the content of the article, not the lead.
7. WP:PA Editors such as @Kinnayrberes: and @PauAmma: have pointed out that your responses within the discussion could be construed as personal attacks. We need to avoid personal attacks because they make it more difficult us to work together as editors.

These are just some policies that you might find relevant given your recent contributions. Please encourage everyone in your group to review the linked materials and to create their own Wikipedia account before continuing to edit. Thank you. TimSmit (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Endtoxicaid: TimSmit provided a lot of useful advice. I haven't be viewed enough of your edits to know whether I personally support each of the seven points, but I strongly endorse the proposed action in point number 1. Not surprisingly, as one of the volunteers who tries to clean up copyright violations I also support point number 2. Finally, I'd like to provide a brief response to your report about lessons learned. Your response suggests we think it is clear they haven't learned their lessons, and therefore it's acceptable for you to incorporate that opinion into the article. This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. We aren't here to share our opinions, we are trying to write an encyclopedia reflecting the positions of reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source asserting that they haven't learnt their lesson, then, subject to issues of WP:BALANCE, it might be acceptable to incorporate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick the organisation hasn't learnt their lesson because they still allow photographers to take photos of rape victims and children without consent despite saying they wont. they are still for sale on Getty images and elsewhere for money, over 200 days after they were told about it. if I half apologise for doing something, like editting Wikipedia, get told by other people that I shouldn't do in that, and I say ok, then keep doing it regardless....would you say I learnt my lesson? Or like MSF, you'd defend that I had learned my lesson? it's not subjective opinion to state an organisation that keeps doing something immoral, knowingly going against its own stated principles, cited from professional and well known sources is not a conflict of interests. Is called recognising reality. Endtoxicaid (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Endtoxicaid: The thing is, Wikipedia articles are not meant to be about people "learning their lesson". I can agree with you that this situation is terrible but not agree with the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS mentality because it gets in the way of a balanced article. Advocacy is better suited elsewhere. There's a lot of better venues than Wikipedia for what seems to be your organization's intent. Start a website. Do real-world activism. Facebook ads, even. Hold charities accountable that way. But if you continue editing this article the way you have, you'll likely end up blocked. I think everyone in this discussion is aware that you have good intentions and to be fighting for what you believe is right, that's why they've tried to keep pointing you in the right direction. I think TimSmit's advice is really thorough and a good course of action going forward and I highly suggest you follow it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

You really did miss my point. I'm not about to defend what MSF did. Picking up on what Clovermoss says nearby, you think MSF is guilty of horrible actions, I hope you will take a stand. Just not in Wikipedia. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Out-of-date logo

The MSF logo pictured on this page is out-of-date, here is the correct one: https://www.msf.org/themes/custom/msf_theme/ogimage.jpg (note the different font) TheLogoPolice (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)