Talk:DéFI

Untitled

Some added to the article: "In practice, this boils down to massive discrimination of the Flemings in and around Brussels.

I suppose the fact that there is massive discrimination in the periphery by Flemings to French speakers is merely incidental.

Within , they are constantly pressured by FDF and affiliated french-speaking politicians. These favour overloading public services in brussels with unilingual French-speakers. In addition, they constantly try to turn the French-speaking numeric majority into an argument that wouyld justify eroding and abolishing the legally established protection for the Ducth-speaking minority in brussels (Flemings). At the same time however, they insist on maintaining the national, belgian protections and quota for Frech-speaking. These quota, to put things in perspective, result in nearly precisely as much french-speaking public servants for 4,2 million French-speakers, as for the 6 million Flemings, and nearly half as much as for the 1- million Dutchman!

Around Brussels, the FDF militantly defends the privileges for French-speakers who choose to live in Flanders (or whose parents or grandpetents did so). These people living in Flanders should have the right to vote for frendh-speaking candidates from Wallonia and Brussels. At the same time, they refuse even the slightest equivalent rights for Flemings living in Wallonia. Needless to say that such extra-territorial privileges don't exist anywhere else in the European Union, nor in other democratic and multi-ethnic states as Switzerland."

---

I removed this text from the article to discussion. As a Dutchman I sympathise with the text, since Brussels was originally a Flemish city, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place to have these kinds of discussions. Gangulf 09:34, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can agree that detailled partisan elaborations are not appropriate in Wikipedia. However, one should not push this so far as to remove all information on one or more key elements of the nature of an organisation o its ideology. E.g. oe cannot honestly descrbe nazism without referring to its racist ideology, nor to the huge bloosched it caused.

Therefore, I've tried to reformulate things more neutrally, using more objective facts. Feel free to suggest further improvements.--Rudi Dierick 16:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Title

Hi, under the terms of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties), can we move the article back to "Défi" please? —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on a reading of their website, I think the party's name is actually DéFI and that it isn't an acronym for a "real name". "Démocrate Federaliste Indépendant" is not a name as much as a series of words associated with the DéFI brand. I will remove it from the infobox. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. I don't see why the party's acronym, not the real name, should be the article's title. --Checco (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved the article to "Democratic Federalist Independent". --Checco (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I support the article move. The article title should be the party's name, not the acronym/abbreviation.--Autospark (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Checco, are the terms of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties) not clear? Whatever the title, it should be in French as the only language in which the party operates. Personally I think that WP:NCA applies here too - a glance at the website proves, to me at least, that "the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation"... —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• It seems to me too early to know what the common English name will be. We certainly shouldn't be inventing our own. For now the best thing would be to use the official French name. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I support English names (this is en.Wiki!), but "Démocrate Fédéraliste Indépendant" is still better than "DèFI". --Checco (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

With all respect, it's not up to any of us (a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT): we just follow the guidelines and use common sense to interpret them... Here, I think, it is pretty clear unless you can present more evidence to the contrary? —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, there is also WP:Use English and I am for applying it extensively. --Checco (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So am I: "It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage...if this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about." —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said, my preferred article's name is "Democratic Federalist Independent", I can live with "Démocrate Fédéraliste Indépendant" and I strongly oppose "DèFI". As you can see, I am quite open toward a compromise. --Checco (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I too support English names. I disagree that we should only use French. Regardless of what language the party operates in, "use English" means we should use the name that English-speaking journalists and political scientists use to identify this party. But given that the name change has only just happened in French and we have no sources as yet to give a common English name we should be waiting to see what emerges, not trying to create an English name for ourselves (particularly one that only approximates to what the French name is said to stand for). This story (from Le Soir) states: "le nom choisi est « défi » (sans « s »), signifiant Démocrates fédéralistes et indépendants" — the name chosen is "défi" (without an "s"), signifying Federalist and Independent Democrats. This story (from La Libre Belgique) says the new name is "Défi", as does this one (from RTBF, the national broadcasting corporation). Some outlets use DéFI or DEFI. There seems not to be consensus even in French as to the capitalization of the name, and I cannot at present find any English sources for a name other than "FDF". At the same time I do not understand why there should be a strong objection to using the name the party has chosen for itself, which by most accounts is "Défi" (in some form — I would incline to give the agreement of the national broadcaster and La Libre Belgique on that form the most weight). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So why also the fr.Wikipedia's article is named Démocrate Fédéraliste Indépendant rather than DéFI? (Please note that, regardless what some news sources say, the party's symbol clearly reads DéFI and Démocrate Fédéraliste Indépendant as well, thus Défi, DEFI, etc. are clearly wrong). My preferred article's name is still "Democratic Federalist Independent", but I can live with "Démocrate Fédéraliste Indépendant". This said, it would be more important (and I'm sure both Andreas and Autospark agree with me on this) to find a consensus on moving all the articles on Belgian parties to English names (to have Mouvement Réformateur, Parti Socialiste (Belgium), Centre démocrate humaniste, Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams, Open Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten, Socialistische Partij Anders, etc. and New Flemish Alliance is just nonsense). --Checco (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree on both counts, we need to use a full party name rather than an acronym for the article title, whether Democratic Federalist Independent (my preferred choice) or Démocrate Fédéraliste Indépendant. Also, we should be using English language titles for Belgian political party articles on en.wiki, all of them have accepted translations found in scholarly texts, and none of them have 'overlapping' names in their respective native languages.--Autospark (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It makes no difference what the French Wikipedia article is called. That is not a reliable source. All the reputable media I linked to (and a few more I didn't) say "the party's new name is Défi", not "the acronym of the party's new name is Défi". Danny is short for Daniel, but that won't stop it being somebody's common name, and common name is what we use. That the party should put a slogan on their website is neither here nor there. The British Conservative Party puts "Together, we can Secure a Brighter Future" on their website in the same position. That doesn't make it their name. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a certain confusion about what "use English" actually means. It means use the name that reliable sources written in English use, and certainly not "if there's no translation, invent one". If English sources say "Mouvement Réformateur", then we use that, we don't translate it. If we have no English sources (and so far only Reddit seems to have reported on this in English), we stick with the name, not with our approximation of it. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So, do we have a consensus?—Brigade Piron (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I say move it to Defi. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has objected in the past 6 months. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Done :) —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer that this article had not been removed or renamed.---Autospark (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I also oppose the move, on which there is thus no consensus. It should be moved back. --Checco (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I moved the article back to its original name. The fact that "DéFI" is spelled that way and not "Défi" is a clear evidence that it is not the party's name, but just its acronym (see also http://defi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Statuts-de-Defi_27-04-2016.pdf). --Checco (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? As Andreas Philopater remarked, you've had six months to note your opposition to the changes here. As an aside, have a look on defi.eu - I challenge you to find the words "Démocrate Fédéraliste Indépendant" together there, let alone as an alternative "party name". In fact, it seems that they've even deleted the terms from the main logo they seem to be using. I really do not see how anyone could consider this to be their name. As for the capitalisation, there's clearly no concensus about this - they use the "DéFI" version as a backronym - as is clear from this page, but the mainstream Belgian media continues to use "Défi" (example here). Either way, no-one uses the bizarre combination of adjectives currently as a title.—Brigade Piron (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I made my point clear enough in November and I haven't changed my mind. So, no, we didn't have any consus on the move. Most party logos include only acronyms and most news sources use acronyms too, thus I'm not impressed by that. Obviously, I haven't anything against your boldness in moving the article (I'm often bold too): simply, there was no consensus on the move, so I moved the article back. Finally, the party uses "DéFI" not "Défi". --Checco (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is turning into a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'd remind you that I originally moved the article from Democratic Front of Francophones to "Défi" back in November - the day the party was re-named I believe. It was Autospark who unilaterally moved my proposed title to "Independent Federalist Democrats". If we're talking about "no consensus to move", I think my original title would stand... —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no justification for the current name except a misreading of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). It really should be moved. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Naming an article on a party using its acronym is unreasonable, in my view. --Checco (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2016

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: moved.
Those supporting the move offered arguments well-founded in the policy WP:COMMONNAME. The opponents offer no policy basis whatsoever for their arguments, let alone for their premise that an acronym is not a name. However, the opponents of the move offer no policy-based arguments whatsoever in support of their position; they don't even cite a single guideline. Since the policy-based argument are entirely in favour of moving, the closing instructions are clear that the page must be moved, unless a good case has been made to treat this page as an exception. In this case, the opponents make no attempt to justify making an exception; theirs is a general opposition to the policy. So the only possible valid close is "move".
The anti-acronym tag-team of Checco and Autospark are advised to start a centralised discussion on whether the guidelines should be amended to suit their view. (I suggest that a WP:RFC would be suitable). It is long past time for the anti-acronym tag team to desist from abusing individual RM discussions to pursue a policy-change which should be discussed at a central location. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Democratic Federalist Independent → DéFI – Following out extensive discussion above, I thought starting a move discussion would be constructive. As described above, I think it's pretty clear that the party uses the term "Défi" as a backronym of the three adjectives in question, "Défi" meaning "challenge" in French. A quick glance at the party's official website (here) makes it pretty clear that Défi (or "DéFI") are the only names the party trades under.

Even if it is an acronym (which I reject), I also think there's a good WP:COMMONNAME argument for "DéFI". The following newspapers use the abbreviation only: Le Soir, La Libre etc. I can find no English language source that deals with Défi since its change of name, nor any French source that uses the three adjectives as a proper noun, rather than an extrapolation of the adjective. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agree. As stated in the previous discussion, the name we use should be whatever the sources identify as the name. The sources say the name is "Défi" or "DéFI". There is in fact one English-language source that discusses the party, and that is The Brussels Times, which consistently uses DéFI (see here, for example). I'm frankly baffled as to why anyone would invest energy in keeping the article at a name invented for the purpose on Wikipedia, rather than simply apply the relevant policies and guidelines – especially when these agree with WP:COMMON. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• I don't really care much whether it is moved or not. However, I would like to say that as far as I can see, the arguments do not really hold water. The party's statutes/articles begin with the first article "DéFI, Démocrate Fédéraliste Indépendent, est une formation [...]", although it is true "DéFI" appears to be used exclusively throughout the rest of the statutes, but so is the case in statutes and on websites of other parties. It is very common in Belgium (and other countries) to almost exclusively refer to a party by their abbreviation. As such, WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here either (or it would have to apply to titles of other parties' name, e.g. New Flemish Alliance would have to be N-VA or Christian Democratic Union would have to be CDU and so on). DéFI may use their full name even less, but the situation doesn't seem to be that different from other parties. SPQRobin (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't think that's entirely fair. The difference between "DéFI" and N-VA, for example, is that "Défi" is a word in its own right. The adjectives were clearly chosen to create that particular series of letters, hence it is a backronym and thus should not be treated the same way as a "pure" political acronym.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per SPQRobin. The fact that "DéFI" is spelled that way and not "Défi" is a clear evidence that it is not a "word in its own right" and not the party's name, but just its acronym (see also http://defi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Statuts-de-Defi_27-04-2016.pdf). Most party logos include only acronyms and the latter are usually more used than full names by news sources (think of CDU for the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, SPD for the Social Democratic Party of Germany, PS for Socialist Party, PP for People's Party, PSOE for Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, etc.). So what? --Checco (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing the fact that "DéFI" is actually often rendered "Défi" (see the press examples above) - the confusion is obviously deliberate. As we've discussed amply above this is not about making a COMMONNAME claim based on the letters appearing the "party logos" but based on what virtually everything on its official website, publicity material, and newspaper coverage uses. Beyond the constitution (which, in my reading, doesn't really support your argument anyway), the burden is on you to produce any evidence that the current title is actually used by anyone.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

So to prove that the party is not called "DéFI", you send us to a document entitled "STATUTS GÉNÉRAUX DE DÉFI"? Good work that man. Not specious in the least. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons of those cited by SPQRobin and Checco - DéFI is an acronym, not a name as such, and articles on political parties should not really be titled by the acronym.--Autospark (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• I don't much care what a minor party of linguistic bigots call themselves, but it bothers me slightly more that a small bunch of trolls can fixate on specious arguments to bugger up Wikipedia, and stymie any consensus over a period of a year by ignoring sources, rules and common sense in favour of what they would like and what they infer. Since no coverage ever anywhere refers to "Democratic Federalist Independent" as the name of this party, nobody anywhere ever is going to be looking for that headword in an encyclopedia. But yeah, I'm out. I don't care enough to invest time or the energy in these foolish games. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2016 (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.

Side note for User:BrownHairedGirl: As far as I know, there is no single policy in Wikipedia stating that acronyms should be favored over names as article names. Moreover, 99.9% of the articles on political parties do not use acronyms as article names (think of all the examples Autospark and I cited above). Thus, an exception to the general custom/rule, as this one (which I strenuously opposed and I continue to oppose now) can be considered just as it is—an exception (very bad for constistency-enthusiasts like me, but just a small inconsitency and/or mistake in Wikipedia's general picture). As an exception, it had to be discussed in the individual article talk. To discuss about it was not an abuse—at all. This said, while disagreeing with you on just about everything else and considering your judgment here ill-considered, I thank you for your suggestion about opening a broader discussion. It might be a good idea, but, as long as 99.9% of articles on political parties do not use acronyms as article names, that could also be a worthless exercise. I will think about it. (What does User:Autospark think?). --Checco (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Checco: there is indeed no single policy in Wikipedia stating that acronyms should be favored over names as article names. But that point is a classic straw man, because nobody in this discussion claimed that there is such a policy.

There is also no policy basis for your claim that an acronym is not a name.

The policy at WP:AT permits the use of an acronymn as a title in certain circumstances, and no policy-based argument was made by the opposers that this article falls outside those circumstances. I was surprised that none of those supporting the move pointed in the RM discussion to the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties), but that guideline was cited in the discussion above. It says

"Where acronyms are far more commonly used than full names in international news media, the acronym should be preferred: Fatah instead of Palestinian National Liberation Movement, Golkar instead of Party of the Functional Groups"

So there is no "general rule" against acronyms, and it is tendentious of you and Autospark to repeatedly disrupt RM discussions with the false claim that there is such a rule. I urge you both to open a centralised discussion and to accept its outcome, rather than to continue your campaign of disrupting RM discussions with false claims about existing policy and guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you on everything but the last part of your argument. There is nothing disruptive in my behaviour and my claim that there is a "general custom" not to use acronomys with articles on parties is perfectly true. I will think about opening a discussion, but as 99.9% of the articles on parties favor names over acronyms, it could be a little bit pointless. In fact, despite the sentence you cited ("Where acronyms are far more commonly used than full names in international news media, the acronym should be preferred: Fatah instead of Palestinian National Liberation Movement, Golkar instead of Party of the Functional Groups"), no-one is proposing to adopt article names like SPD, CDU, PSOE, PS (France), etc. (in all those case, acronyms are definitely more commonly used in international news media!) and acronym-titled articles are a small minority among parties. --Checco (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Checco, it is true that most political party articles do not use an acronym as the title. There are two possible explanations for that: a) that few political parties fit the policy on using acronyms as titles; or b) that there is consensus in principle against such usage in the case of political parties.

As already pointed out to you, the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties) is explicitly clear that an acronym may be used as the title of an article on a political party, so option b does not apply.

If you look more closely at SPD, CDU etc you will see they do not fit the guideline at WP:ACRONYMTITLE, which permits acronyms in titles if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. That is not the case for SPD, CDU, etc ... which is why they do not use an acronym. Your attempt to drag those red herrings into RM discussions is part of your tendentious disruptiveness.

The core of the disruption lies in your repeated failure to accept WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ACRONYMTITLE, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties). If you want to change Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties), then feel free to open an RFC to do so. However, unless and until there is a consensus to change that guideline, it applies unless there is good reason to treat a particular article on a party as an exception. In the meantime, your repeated abuse of RM discussions to pursue your desired guideline change amounts to a strategy of attrition, and it has now reached the stage where sanctions should be sought if you persist. (The same applies to Autospark). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of "If you look more closely at SPD, CDU etc you will see they do not fit the guideline at WP:ACRONYMTITLE, which permits acronyms in titles if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. That is not the case for SPD, CDU, etc ... which is why they do not use an acronym." I have taken part to only two RM discussions related to acronyms as article names, so it's very difficult to understand how that "has now reached the stage where sanctions should be sought if you persist". I'm just offering my opinion and I don't see how an opinion could be sanctioned. Wikipedia guidelines might be clear, but, as there are often RM diuscussions on their interpretationa and implementation, that means that guidelines have to be interpreted in individual cases: that is what I do and I would like to continue to do. I'm afraid you are biased and unfit to be an administrator. I have been a decent, constructive and regular contributor of en.Wikipedia for ten years. I usually don't avoid any discussion, but I feel that discussing with you is dangerous. I will respect you and be aware of you. --Checco (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, as an admin I am firmly biased against people who repeatedly disrupt consensus-forming decisions by misrepresenting policy and guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)