Talk:Reformed Political League

Redirect

The accompanying Redirect was formerly a {{tl:DisambigProject}} pg.

The supposed Dab entry

• GPV, GP or VGP could be the origin of the term Jeep

does not serve to disambiguate, but only to express a theory to obscure to be taken seriously at the article it targets; if GPV deserves no coverage in a WWII context (say an article abt the use of the term, explaining it sufficiently that the potential connection could be grasped, and the reasons for the GPV not being universally accepted presented, then it is too obscure to be used as a means of getting readers to Jeep, who hear the term "GPV" but don't know to look at Jeep without a Dab. --Jerzy•t 08:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• • If that situation should change, it can become a
    "GPV" redirects here. For the military vehicle, see Jeep.
    HatNote Dab at Reformed Political Alliance. --Jerzy•t 08:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was moved. Academic usage does not override the WP:COMMONNAME. Aervanath (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Reformed Political League → GPV — Per WP:ENGLISH#No established usage. The initialism is not ambiguous, the party is known primarily by the initialism, and the English translation of the expanded name is very rarely used (less than a hundred ghits). — Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Against moving C mon (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I oppose moving this page back to GPV:

Reformed Political League is the translation used by prof. R.B. Andeweg and Prof. G.A. Irwin in their handbook on Dutch Politics "Governance and Politics of the Netherlands" (2002:45). A reliable, external, academic source. It think that this suffices for established usage

Your google search may indicate that this term is not used often, but all 99 hits concern this specific Dutch party, so atleast it is not ambiguous. Almost all of these 99 hits are code books of scientific studies or articles in refereed journals.

When initialism where used for Dutch parties in other cases, these were moved to their full party names (see this discussion on the use of PvdA)

The use of the intialism is very strange because the party had a full name which it used (unlike for instance the VARA which abandoned the full name)

C mon (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing whether "Reformed Political League" is the correct translation or not. What I am disputing is that it is the most commonly-used name for the party, which is the the primary factor in naming articles per WP:NAME. The choice between PvdA and "Dutch Labour Party" is considerably less clear due to significant common usage of the translated name. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not claiming that the Reformed Political League is the correct translation, my claim is that it is the term that has been commonly used in the English speaking world when this party was discussed, which is limited to academic studies and code books of scientific studies

But I am willing to compromise: using the initialism goes in against WP:ENGLISH which proposes to use the Dutch term and not an initialism. As a compromise I can accept using the Dutch name "Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond". C mon (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the worst choice out of the three, as it is evidently less frequently used than the initialism. There is no requirement to expand initialisms if the subject is better known by the abbreviated form. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not less used than the initialism. If you read any book on Dutch politics the initialism would only be used after the original name was explained as in this article before it was moved.

Do you have any proof of how the party is referred to in English except for google searches (which, I argue, underscore my point). C mon (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Google hits aren't the be-all and end-all, but unless there's counterevidence they're better than nothing. Of course books on the subject are going to use the expanded form first - that's rather how explaining a subject works. However, in general discussion the initialism seems plenty used, and initialisms in general are not usually treated as foreign-language for the purposes of WP:ENGLISH even if they're abbreviations of foreign terms. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You asked me for proof: I have given you proof: a book authored by two specialists on Dutch politics. Both tenured professors. Second you claim that "not using only initialisms" happens when you explain certain things. But isn't wikipedia about explaining certain things as well? C mon (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Two books do not indicate common usage. Authority has absolutely no bearing on article titles; only popularity. Wikipedia's article titles are not there to teach people things, they're there to help people get to the right articles quickly. That requires them to have the most commonly-used names. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise using the Dutch name then, because anyone who searches for this subject will use the Dutch name. C mon (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• The GPV stands for Dutch "Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move redux

The article should be moved back to Reformed Political Alliance. There are three arguments why it should be moved

1. The use of the initialism is ambiguous. As User:Aervanath has shown here even if you google for the term GPV in conjunction with "Netherlands" and "Politics" you find a lot of hits which do not concern this political party, but other things which can be abbreviated to GPV. WP:NAME specifically states that the name of the article should not be ambiguous.
2. Translations of the party name is preferred according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties). When there are difficulties it states: "In some cases guidance can be taken from websites of a party or organization, or from promotional material of the party in question." In the case of the GPV that would be the site of its successor the ChristianUnion. On its English language website it uses the translation "Reformed Political Alliance".
3. There has never been conclusive proof that the party is primarily known by its initialism in relevant sources (WP:NAME speaks of "international newsmedia"). The google searches of GPV even with additional terms show that there is no established usage.

- C mon (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Note: Please continue discussion of the move request here.

Oppose reversal of move. I closed the discussion above based on the arguments presented there; since C mon has challenged it I have become even more convinced that it was the right decision. I have copied our discussion from my talk page below. I do not agree that the name is ambiguous on Wikipedia; there are no other articles named GPV. WP:NAME states that we should use the the most commonly used term for the article; there is no argument that GPV is not commonly used, and there has been no attempt to verify how many of the GPV hits are/are not misleading (I have done this pretty well, I think, but C mon disagrees, see below). C mon conveniently ignores (as I stated below) that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties) has several exceptions, one of which specifically applies to acronyms, and which clearly applies in this case.--Aervanath (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There has never been any conclusive evidence that GPV is most commonly used. The party naming convention article clearly states that translations are preferred and that for guidance in translating the party website can be consulted.

The google searches are completely corrupted for any party you will find more google searches of the acronym than the name, especially if you include more characteristics as Aervanath did. As an example I have included the searches for German CDU:

• 103.000 hits for "Christian Democratic Union"
• 2.190.000 hits for CDU
• 453.000 for CDU + Germany + Politics
• 22.300 for "Christian Democratic Union + Germany + Politics

The exact same pattern for the CDU for the GPV. More hits for the acronym than for the translated name. What does this prove? That google searches will tend to find acronyms more, while these do not necessarily establish common usage. I think it is clear for anybody that the CDU-article should be called CDU, otherwise, this argument necessitates changing the name of every non-English political party article.

For common usage google searches are not advised at all, the party naming convention article refers to international news media and the party's own English communication.

The google searches are corrupt the successor party's website clearly advises a particular translation. I think it we should choose that.

C mon (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just another example: UMP

UMP: 2.230.000

UMP Politics France: 65.900

"Union for a Popular Movement" Politics France: 34.900

"Union for a Popular Movement" 22.800

Again the translations obtain less hits than the acronyms. C mon (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per original move rationale. I don't believe a sufficient case has been put forward that GPV is not the most common name for the party. Appeals to authority such as what the party wishes to be called are irrelevant, as are arguments concerning different articles altogether. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• C mon and Chris, I hope you don't mind that I have moved our comments down here below the "prior discussion" so that the chronology is preserved for incoming editors. To address C mon's most recent points:
  • If anything, the results you obtained above argue for moving the other political parties to their acronyms, instead of the opposite.
  • As I have stated before, I completely agree that Google searches are not the be-all-and-end-all of proof for determining common usage; but in the absence of proof against it, they can be fairly convincing. Could you please show me the google hits from my searches which are NOT in any way related to the political party?--Aervanath (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. 1) GPV is not a particularily common naming used in English. It is not comparable to say ETA, or other cases were the acronyms are far more known than the full name. Counting google stats is not the best way to determine this. 2) When I google for GPV, the first results that comes up are 'General Purpose Vehicles', 'General Practice Victoria', [1] and Gällivare PhotoVoltaic. Amongst the top 50 results, only the Wikipedia page refers to the Dutch political party. 3) I cannot see that any well-established naming in English-language media exists at all for the party. The fact that GPV is used in some press articles is analogous to CDU, PSOE, PP, PCF, etc., but not comparable to say ETA, Hamas, Fatah, etc. In such cases, where there is no particularily strong motivation as to why evade the MOS standard of using English titles, a English translation of the full name is to be used. I think 'Reformed Political League' is an apt translation from Dutch. --Soman (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  I think that's approaching it from the wrong end. The question is not "is the most common use of GPV to refer to the political party"; it is "is GPV the most commonly-used term when referring to the party". So far there's no firm evidence that this isn't the case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The right end to start the argument is: in the case of GPV, are there any particularily strong arguments why not to adhere to the MOS guideline of using English article name? --Soman (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

    • The relevant part of WP:ENGLISH is under WP:ENGLISH#No established usage, which states that we shouldn't use an English translation if there's no evidence that it's widely used. The counterargument is WP:NAME#Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations, but I think it's been shown that "GPV" is used rather more often than "Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond" in English sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • That doesn't trumph this passage at WP:NAME, "For articles on organizations the general rule applies. That means: Name your pages with the English translation and place the original native name on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English media than the English form." Examples like Hamas, Hizbollah and Sinn Fein are cases when foreign names are retained, as they are commonly established in English-language media. For the GPV, there is no such indication. What is the logic of singling out GPV as a test case for using non-english abbreviations instead of full names in English? In Google Hits, PSOE is used more than ten times as often as 'Spanish Socialist Workers' Party' in English pages. Should we move Spanish Socialist Workers' Party to PSOE, Christian Democratic Union (Germany) to CDU, etc. Any shift in established practice should be discussed elsewhere, to build a wider consensus. I suggest the apt place for discussion would the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (political parties). --Soman (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking this to a wider forum does sound like a good idea, yes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Soman. We have to use English full names when there is no evidence in the direction that the native full name is more used. Native names doesn't mean anything to Enlgish readers, most of whom cannot even pronounce the names correctly. Abbreviations are also not very enlightening except for the cases in which they are absolutely the most common name (like ETA for Euskadi Ta Askatasuna). But I also agree with both of you in that we should discuss this issue at an upper level in order to reach a healthy consensus.--Againme (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)