Talk:Union, Progress and Democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spain (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics / Liberalism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Liberalism task force.

On the inclusion of 'Spanish nationalism' in the ideology section[edit]

I asked about this issue at the Teahouse and received this response:

What we wish to do is reflect what is said about the party in reliable sources, which in this case would primarily be news media and political commentators, with priority given to those that are neutral in their perspective. When political parties discuss their ideology, they may not be great reliable sources, as they're trying to maximise their appeal. For example, a party may describe itself as "centre-right", but all foreign media describe it as "far-right"; in that case we would go with the more reliable source.

I feel that my cited reference to Rosa Diez's newspaper article as well as this source, subsequently deleted by BernardaAlba (which I shall now restore), provide sufficient grounds for maintaining the inclusion of this item in the Ideology section. This will help readers more than not including it. I'll also try to create a section in the main article to explain the party's position on nationalism more clearly.

I would also argue that further removal of this item without prior discussion should be considered vandalism because absolutely no attempt has been made to establish consensus against this term. Tomclarke (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


I see how this party has been described as "anti-nationalist" by Wikipedia. I think there is a difference about what a party calls itself, and what it really is. This is actually the strongest nationalist party in Spain, representing Spanish nationalism. I would agree on changing this description: using the word "Spanish nationalist" or simply removing the adjective "anti-nationalist" from its description. --Pa-integral (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected the classification to 'Nationalism'. This is a more accurate classification than 'anti-nationalism'.--Tomclarke (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

An alternative is "centralist" as the party believes in strengthening the central government at the expense of the regions. As The Economist says of the party this week: "Rosa Díez’s Union for Progress and Democracy (UPyD). Ms Díez, a former Socialist, refuses to define herself along the left-right axis, claiming it has become meaningless. But she is firmly positioned on the other axis that runs through Spanish politics, the balance of power between central government and the regions. Ms Díez, a Basque, is militantly centralist. She believes regional governments have too much power and wants to claw back central control over, for example, education. “A lot of Spaniards now feel that the state itself needs defending,” she says." Valenciano (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "anti-separatist" might be a more specifically descriptive term to describe their position about Basque and Catalan nationalism as opposed to Spanish nationalism. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not a Spanish nationalist party.[edit]

Its ideology does not focus on a strong and traditional idea of the Spanish Nation. It focuses on the ineffectiveness of a very descentralized country. Actually Spain is the most politically descentralized country in Europe, and they think that is the cause of so many problems: linguistic problems such as the obligation to study in catalan in Catalonia and Balears Islands, health care problems (having 17 public health care systems instead of one), etc. UPyD politicians never use the Spanish flag for their events. In conslusion, it is more about Spanish constitutionalism than nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

An unsigned change, right on election day. I'm reverting the page to include the reference to Spanish nationalism on the grounds that although nationalism may not be UPyD's most important focus, it is a clear and relevant element of the party's ideology and intent. --Tomclarke (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A nationalist has a strong concept of the nation, based on elements such as traditions, history. UPyD just defends a more centralized political system in order to make it more effective. Actually it support all languages in the country to be official and people can decide which one they want to speak on the contrary nationalists defend, either Spanish nationalists or separatists (Spanish over regional languages, in the first case, and the opposite in the second case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An example of UPyD's Spanish nationalism:

"...quiero empezar por reivindicar la importancia de defender la unidad de la Nación española como el único instrumento capaz de garantizar la igualdad de todos los españoles ante la ley. Y digo esto porque una buena parte de los males que aquejan nuestro país son consecuencia de un proceso de fragmentación del Estado al que nos ha conducido la nefasta política aplicada por su Gobierno, en esta y en la pasada legislatura. Una política que ha convertido al Gobierno de la Nación en un mero coordinador de las Comunidades Autónomas; una política que han tenido como consecuencia el debilitamiento de la cohesión y el incremento de la desigualdad entre españoles. " (my emphasis) - apologies that it's in Spanish.

Taken from the UPyD address during the State of the Nation debate in Madrid. Your argument that UPyD 'supports all languages in the country' is nonsense as the party has stated that its primary aim is to dissolve the Autonomous Communities in Spain, in order to establish a single nation with one official language (Castilian Spanish). Naturally, the party couches its policies in the language of progress and centralism. It does not refer to itself as nationalist. This does not prevent it from being so. --Tomclarke (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Would using the term Federalism or Centralism solve your problems? I think you and the IP at least sort of agree (and, hence, calling it vandalism is unfair, and probably not productive). The IP seems to be using the term "nationalism" referring to the regions as "nations", which is not an uncommon usage. The party is against this kind of nationalism. You're defining the "nation" as the "country" of Spain, and the party is in favor of this kind of nationalism. So maybe the solution is to recognize what the other is saying, and clarify the terminology. The Federalism article says "In Europe, "federalist" is sometimes used to describe those who favor stronger federal government, at a national or supranational level, as is the case of the European Union. The term is also used to describe those who favor weaker provincial governments". Centralism says "In political science, this refers to the concentration of a government's power - both geographically and politically, into a centralised government."
I'd lean towards Centralism, but you both probably know more than me about the details of the party's positions, and would know if Federalism or Centralism would be better. But I think the use of terms that could go either way, like Nationalism and Antinationalism, and the constant reverts, are doing a disservice to our readers. Frankly, if you can't agree on a term, it's probably better not to include either one in the infobox, and the intricacies of the situation can be explained in the article text. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - you're right re: vandalism. I've removed that naughty word. 'Federalist' doesn't hack it because actually, UPyD believes in the opposite of a federal system. The problem here (I think) is that UPyD describe themselves as being 'anti-nationalist' (when referring to Basque and Catalan nationalists), and certainly their supporters consider 'nationalist' to be a pejorative term. It's this feeling that nationalism=bad which clearly worries IP. While I accept that an agreement is needed here, I don't think the issue is intricate enough to justify removing nationalism from the infobox. I'm convinced that if IP and I can agree on the meaning of nationalism, (s)he will agree that it ought to be included. --Tomclarke (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom,
I think I agree about Federalist; it means too many different things to different people. Actually, that's kind of why I like Centralist over Nationalist; "nationalism" can also mean too many different things to different people, as you and the IP editor are discovering. I don't think it's so much a matter of convincing the IP editor that your meaning of "nationalism" is correct, or more common, or anything, it's a matter of gaining as much clarity as possible. If we're going to use one word in an infobox, that word should be as crystal clear as possible, and I don't think "nationalism" does that. Anyway, I've given my 2 cents, so I'll wait to see if anyone else chimes in. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Some details...[edit]

Rosa Díez refuses the idea of considering upyd as a nationalist party, in fact, they have said a lot of times that they support a distribution of powers similar to Germany's federal system (the landers). As an user said below, they have said many times that they don't defend the union of the country as a question of feelings, but a question of equality for all the spanish citizens. I would like to say too that this page in wikipedia en español divides the ideologies section in two. One of them talks about how the party defines itself and the other one talks about how different mass media defines this party.Talking about the party's feelings about nationalist parties, it's true that it strongly criticizes an excesive power of nationalist parties in spanish parliament and citizens lives. Finally, I have to to say that in order to mantain this article's neutral point of view, I think we must clarify how the party defines itself and how other parties defines it. --Manuel —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Neo-conservative party?[edit]

The text says that the party is neo-conservative, but it doesn't explain it. The explanations given in the same paragraph only mention the views of UPD on centralisation/federalism issues, but have nothing to do with left/right issues.

Furthermore, the party is self-defined as progressive.

I think the first sentence of the paragraph ("It is a neo-conservative party") should be removed (unless more explanations are given).

More from Rosa Díez on UPyD's platform and raison d'être[edit]

In Rosa Díez's recent editorial in El País, she more concretely positions UPyD as a Spanish nationalist party.

Frente a quienes quieren construir una “patria” pequeña rompiendo la lealtad entre conciudadanos españoles, nosotros defendemos la unidad de la nación española como un instrumento imprescindible para garantizar la igualdad de todos los ciudadanos, unidos por vínculos de solidaridad y propietarios de todo el país. [...] En los seis años de vida de nuestro partido hemos explicado muchas veces que nacimos para defender el Estado, aportando a la vertebración del país el discurso y el compromiso de un partido inequívocamente nacional y laico, nada dogmático ni fundamentalista, que defiende el protagonismo de la ciudadanía en la tarea de regenerar la democracia.[

In my opinion, it would be absurd to persist in identifying UPyD as an 'anti-nationalist' party following this clarification of its aims. It exists 'to defend the [Spanish] State' and is described as being 'unequivocally secular and national'. I propose that the entry be amended to include 'Nationalist' and 'Unionist' under ideology. --Tomclarke (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to recomend you to inquire about Constitutional patriotism concept; everything is not nationalism, white nationalism or black nationalism, there is also grey, and also another colours, even another ways of thinking, not always me against you or you against me... It is your own crusade to consider this party as spanish nationalist. Realize the (correct) Wikipedia's definition of nationalism: is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation. Nationalism involves national identity, by contrast with the related construct of patriotism, which involves the social conditioning and personal behaviors that support a state's decisions and actions, and think about the text you add and this definition.
P.S.: it would be politer traduce the text that you add in order to can be understand by our colleagues: 

"In front of those who want build a small "homeland" broking the loyalty between spanish citizens, we defend the unity of the spanish nation as an indispensable instrument in order to warrant the equality between all the citizens, united by supportive bonds and owners of the whole country. [...] Since the party was founded six years ago, we have explain a lot of times that we were born to defend the State, contributing for the vertebration of the country with a discourse and a comprimise of a party unequivocally national and lay, neither dogmatic nor fundamentalist, with the objetive of the defense of the citizenship prominence in the task of regenerate the democracy.

--Macalla Spain (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Several Mistakes in the article[edit]

Hello, the definition of this political party it is wrong:

-Spanish nationalism :It is incoherent that the party is bieng define has "antinacionalism" and "nationalism" at the same time. This party acts against all kind of nationalism, spanish o basque. When the leaders of this party refer to "spaniard" they just talk about people who is spanish, not who "think that being spanish is better that being from other country" There a quite diference. 

-The party aslo defines its self as Constitutional patriotism ( )Point I.13

-Another mistake in "politic position". The party defines it self in the trasnversalism way, that is in fact a way to aboid any politic position. Here we have the information Point I.13 and a spanis wiki article

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, anon. Please see above, and the article cited by me from El País, written by Rosa Díez. It doesn't matter if UPyD declares itself to be 'anti nationalist' despite a clearly Spanish nationalist platform, just as one could argue that it doesn't matter if the PSOE calls itself a 'Socialist Workers' Party' when it is nothing of the sort! I agree that there is an absurdity in calling the party both anti-nationalist and Spanish nationalist. The item to remove is not Spanish nationalist but anti-nationalist. perhaps it could be rephrased as 'anti-regionalist' or opposition to Basque and Catalan nationalism. one point indivdually:

"This party acts against all kind of nationalism, spanish o basque"

- in what way does the party operate against Spanish nationalism? By asserting the primacy of the nation of Spain above any suggestion of nationhood for the Basque Country or Catalonia, UPyD is adopting a Spanish nationalist position. There is no way around this, I'm afraid. If Díez didn't describe her party as "inequívocamente nacional", there would be perhaps more room for discussion. Throughout this debate, I think it's best not to consider 'nationalist' to be a negative term but rather a neutral, descriptive one. This makes it easier to think clearly about the party's true position. Tomclarke (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Tomclarke, don't use this article to lie to whom doesn't know the spanish reality as we. UPyD is not an nationalist party, neither spanish nationalist nor anti basque or catalonian nationalist. UPyD best definition in this point is postnationalist and Constitutional patriotism, acording Jürgen Habermas concept; the party include this definition in its ideological regulation:

"La asunción de la unidad nacional en los términos ilustrados del "patriotismo constitucional" es una idea adecuada para UPyD, pero la reivindicación o defensa de una nación unida desde la noche de los tiempos, ligada por lazos lingüísticos, étnicos o míticos prepolíticos, no puede serlo."
The acceptance of the national unity in the terms of the "constitutional patriotism" is an appropriate idea for UPyD, but the vindication or defense of an united nation lost in the mists of time, bounded by linguistic, etnic or mythic pre-politics bonds, it cannot be.[1]

In any case, define the UPyD ideology's as Opposition to Basque and Catalan nationalism is an interested libel. It's an exercise of egocentrism by this ideologies to say that, considering that UPyD decline any kind of nationalisms, bigger or smaller as it said. Another gratuitous libel it's consider that UPyD wants to change the electoral law that allegedly favours regionalist parties from Spain's autonomous communities. UPyD wants to change de voting system in order to get a more proportional representation of the votes, not to damage another parties; it's an evidence that with 4.7% of vote UPyD has 5 seats and IU with the 6.9% 9 seats and, for example, Amaiur with 1.4% has 7 seats and CiU with 4.2% 16 seats. Also, when it's said that Instead, it wants to strengthen the central government and the concept of a unitary Spanish nation., that's not really correct. UPyD wants an stronger central (federal) goverment in order to warrant the equality between spaniards, not invoking an mystic or sentimental nationalism unity. [2] I'm going to collect references and then i will change this things.--Macalla Spain (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong article title due to wrong translation of party name![edit]

The official Spanish name of the party is "Unión Progreso y Democracia" (no comma!), which translates to "Progress and Democracy Union" ('union' being used as a synonym for 'political party' or 'alliance'). The party never had a comma in its name, although some sources do in fact incorrectly use the name with a comma. The official name can be found in the party's publications, including the central website, and in Article 1 of the party's statutes. Similarly, official documents (like election ballots) never add a comma to the party name. --Hvd69 (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

UPyD Sede.jpg

:Results in Google:

  • Union(,) Progress and Democracy (66.400)
  • Progress and Democracy Union (26.100)

Tienes muy mala memoria para saber 6 idiomas.Javier93h (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, the party NEVER add a comma to the party's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier93h (talkcontribs) 17:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please (re)read what I wrote before resorting to needless insults. As you know full well, your photo does not show the official party name. --Hvd69 (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Another perfectly correct translation of "Unión Progreso y Democracia" is "Union for Progress and Democracy", used for example by The Economist, Press TV, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, The Guardian and others (quite possibly even more frequently used than my previous suggestion "Progress and Democracy Union"). --Hvd69 (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
If the party put a comma in a seat is because the better translation is Union, Progress and Democracy. Union for progress and Democracy is a bad translate. You haven't got any source that confirm your speculative interpretation of the name. The Economist also uses Union, Progress and Democracy. Javier93h (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Simple question: Can you come up with any half-way reasonable explanation why they put the comma in ONLY ONE seat (that we know of) if it was the correct form? And not in ANY of the other ones like Barcelona, Palma de Mallorca and Valdemoro? Adding a comma to the official name (as defined in the party statutes) changes its meaning and therefore should be avoided. There is no room for speculative interpretation. --Hvd69 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Because Rosa Díez also wrote a book in which the name of UPyD is written this way: Unión, Progreso y Democracia. Merece la Pena: Una Vida Dedicada a la Política. UNIÓN, PROGRESO Y DEMOCRACIA. UN NUEVO PARTIDO.Javier93h (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Is that your answer to my question? Seriously? Did you read the question at all? Or is all you do to look for even the most insignificant places where you can find a comma while ignoring the official version that Rosa Díez and the rest of her party are using 99% of the time? What would that one line in this one book have to do with the way the party name is written on the regional party offices, which you brought up in the first place?--Hvd69 (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, the party has used the name with comma in some official documents and in their page webs: "Así pues, el compromiso con la senda establecida de reducción del deficit público, en la situación actual, es una prioridad para Unión, Progreso y Democracia.", [3], "Cristiano Brown Sansevero, Portavoz del Grupo Municipal de Unión, Progreso y Democracia en el Ayuntamiento de Las Rozas de Madrid", "Por todo ello, Unión, Progreso y Democracia (UPyD), por medio de su Diputada, Rosa Díez González, encuadrada dentro del Grupo Parlamentario Mixto, presenta esta enmienda a la totalidad", "Auspiciado por el partido político Unión, Progreso y Democracia (UPyD), fue constituida a principios de 2009",UPyD Gijón, UPyD Castilla-La Mancha, UPyD Alcázar de San Juan,… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier93h (talkcontribs) 18:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And why do you add for in the name when party has never put it? In Foundation "Progress and Democracy" statutes "La Fundación PROGRESO Y DEMOCRACIA, en adelante la Fundación". There isn't any for (para). In UPyD's statutes appear UNIÓN PROGRESO Y DEMOCRACIA, not Unión PROGRESO Y DEMOCRACIA. So there's no for (para). Lastly, it also seems that UPyD are three concepts (Union, Progress and Democracy) and Fundación "Progreso y Democracia" is the name of a foundation that include, besides the word Foundation, 2 concepts: Progress and Democracy. So, in any case is the union of two concepts.Javier93h (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Easy answer: English and Spanish are not one and the same language. I never said there was a "para", did I? Good translation is not always the same as word-by-word translation. If you translate from one language to another, you often tend to use different words which don't appear in the original one. It's not just me who is such a weirdo: the BBC does the same here. As for "Fundación Unión y Progreso", you don't explain why, following your logic, the party officially known as "Unión Progreso y Democracia" would promote three concepts (and the party founders made a stupid mistake by not putting the comma) while the party's foundation would be limited to the promotion of only two of those three concepts. Does that make much sense? --Hvd69 (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I add this [4] and this Artículo de Unión, Progreso y Democracia del mes de mayo: “La mayoría silenciosa”. It's clear that is only a question of styling, the party couldn't make so many mistakes. In addition to this, "Unión: defendemos la unidad de España. Progreso: somos progresistas y Democracia: somos demócratas radicales" (Union: We defend the unity of Spain. Progress: we are progressists. Democracy: we are radical democrats)Javier93h (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I ask this: Why should they not be defending the unity of Spain? Does that logically exclude that they call their organization "unión" (≈party)? No, it certainly does not. And no, the party doesn't make so many mistakes. They get it right 99% of the time. Have an honest look at their publications and at their website, for example. Have you ever seen the party name under the logo with a comma? I have not. But I have seen it a thousand times without. Try for yourself and do a Google Images search looking for "UPyD logo". If you want the party to change its name (and the meaning of that name and, by consequence, its translation into English and other languages) by putting a comma, you will have to convince the party members, not to manipulate Wikipedia by deliberately ignoring the official and most commonly used denomination: Unión Progreso y Democracia. Adios. --Hvd69 (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Union is not equal party, union is equal alliance or coalition, and for it are necessary at least 2 parties.Javier93h (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I am a party member, and I know the truth.Javier93h (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations. I am glad you know the truth. (Including the wisdom that a single political party cannot call itself "unión".) Too bad the rest of the party members are not (yet) as enlightened as you are. --Hvd69 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Carné UPyD.jpg
There's no need to change the statutes to write the name with comma. And I don't want to change them.Javier93h (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
You cannot change the title only with a interpretation.Javier93h (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier93h (talkcontribs) 22:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Summing up, one more time, as concise as possible:

  1. The official name of the party is "Unión Progreso y Democracia" (as clearly defined in Article 1 of the party statutes, see the link in my first post above). Sometimes some people have written it differently. Nobody disputes the fact that the party and its representatives predominantly use the version without the comma, not only on its official logos.
  2. The Spanish name "Unión Progreso y Democracia" (without comma) translates to "Progress and Democracy Union" or "Union for Progress and Democracy" in English (without comma).
  3. "Unión Progreso y Democracia" has a different meaning (and is a different grammatical construction) from "Unión, Progreso y Democracia" -- both in the Spanish original and its translation to other languages. Neither of the two versions (with or without comma) is grammatically incorrect, just different in meaning.
  4. The present article title "Union, Progress and Democracy" is not a correct translation of the party name (but rather a translation of "Unión, Progreso y Democracia" which has a different meaning from "Unión Progreso y Democracia")

Where do you see any interpretation in these simple statements? Please be precise: which of these points do you not agree with? And on what grounds other than "I know the truth"? (By the way, that in Spanish, a single political party could not possibly have the name "unión" is a totally incorrect statement, and can easily be disproved by the examples of the perfectly correct party names "Unión del Pueblo Navarro", "Unión Democrática de Cataluña" and several more.) --Hvd69 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Union as a synonym of coalition needs at least 2 parties. Union as union, not. Saying that union(,) progress and democracy is an union of "Progress and Democracy" or an union for Progress and Democracy or even an union against progress and democracy are wrong interpretations. The party's official name is Unión(,) Progreso y Democracia with or without comma, Union Progress and Democracy and Union, Progress and Democracy has got the same meaning. The origin of party name is formed by 3 concepts, Irene Lozano in an interview on TV and the party in twitter confirmed it. Rosa Díez uses sometimes the name with comma, even in a book, cause it's right. In a very important libel action the party put its name with comma Querella Bankia. And I as an active member party, who has talked with lots of other party members, told that the use without comma is only a question of styling. The party will never allow that a seat put Unión para el progreso y la democracia/Unión por el progreso y la democracia ("Union for progress and Democracy") or Unión del progreso y la democracia ("Union of Progress and Democracy"/"Progress and Democracy Union"). The beliefs of that Union Progress and Democracy refers to an union of "progress and democracy" or an union for "progress and democracy" are wrong interpretations. Luckily, the name most commonly used in English language is Union, Progress and Democracy.Javier93h (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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. 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: no consensus. The discussion has been contaminated by the use of sockpuppets, and had few other participants. User:Noyster, who emailed the party seeking clarification, has not indicated whether any response was received.
I could relist the discussion again, but in view of the sockpuppetry it seems better to close this discussion and allow editors to make a fresh proposal at some future date. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Union, Progress and DemocracyProgress and Democracy Union – The existing article title is a wrong translation of the party's Spanish name: "Unión Progreso y Democracia". WP:EU: In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader. 1- The party's official denomination is clearly laid down in article 1 of its statutes ("Denominación") as "Unión Progreso y Democracia", not any other version, no comma (source: Estatutos, UPyD website); 2- In Spanish (as in English), the word "unión" has various meanings, one of them being "political party" or "alliance". Several Spanish political parties use "unión" in that sense in their denomination. (Examples: "Unión del Pueblo Navarro", "Unión Independiente de Carreño", "Unión por Leganés" etc; authoritative dictionary definition: DRAE, see point 8); 3- "Unión Progreso y Democracia" translates to "Progress and Democracy Union", an alternative translation (of the same meaning) is "Union for Progress and Democracy". Both are equally correct, both should be stated in the article's introduction. Some quality sources for "Progress and Democracy Union": BBC News, Revista Latina de Comunicación, Global Post, Encyclopedia Britannica, Barcelona Centre for International Studies. Some quality sources for "Union for Progress and Democracy": The Economist, Press TV, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, The Guardian; 4- The variation "Union, Progress and Democracy" (although used by some sources) is obviously a translation of "Unión, Progreso y Democracia" (for which there are also some sources), obviously has a different meaning from "Progress and Democracy Union" and is not compatible with the official name of the party in Spanish as defined and used by the party itself and the vast majority of sources. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC) --Hvd69 (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I emailed their party HQ to ask which version they think correct, and will post here if/when they reply. In the meantime, though both sides make a strong case, it is interesting to note that in the early days of the party in 2007 it was provisionally called "Unidad, Progreso y Democracia (UPD)" (unity, progress and democracy) according to this report in ABC. If the move does go ahead I would prefer "Union for P & D" on the grounds that (a) it is a less radical change to the existing title and (b) at least in Britain, "Something Union" suggests a trade union, ie a labour union. --: Noyster (talk), 11:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive comment. I also emailed the party's Communication Dept. asking for additional clarification about the use of its denomination a few days ago (motivated by the dispute on the Spanish article page) and haven't heard back yet.
Personally, I doubt if preference based on "a less radical change to the existing title" is compatible with any Wikipedia naming rules -- especially if we consider the existing title to be a wrong translation in the first place -- but I agree that "Union for P & D" is the slightly better translation of "Unión P y D" -- and the best translation is what we should strive for.
As for the official denomination in Spanish, it was adopted at the party's constituent assembly that took place on 22 and 29 September 2007. (see point 009/p. 111 of this UPyD document as another confirmation of article 1 of the party statutes.)--Hvd69 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(sock puppet contribution deleted)

In the interest of transparency: Do users Sussie17 and Javier93h have more in common than just their viewpoints and their editing behaviour? Is there anything to be revealed or is it just coincidence?
What do you mean by "personal interpretation"? The translation makes sense, is linguistically accurate, is duly documented and relevant sources are provided. Am I missing something?
In my view, "Union Progress and Democracy" is definitely not an option, simply because it is not compatible with standard English-language usage. (WP:EU: follow English-language usage.) Finding similar examples of "Union XYZ" could be difficult. --Hvd69 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(sock puppet contribution deleted)

Sorry Hvd69, but Javier93h and Sussie17 have reason. If UPyD sometimes writes its name with comma in official documents and even on a seat is difficult that you're on right and if it's add the fact that two party members Mikel Buesa and Irene Lozano have explained which party name is formed by 3 concepts and they've chosen "union" cause they defend the unity of Spain... it's impossible that you're on right. (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As suspected, this discussion has been proven to be manipulated by Javier93h and his sock puppet Sussie17 (possibly including additional IPs). These two user accounts are now blocked indefinitely, and I have deleted the corresponding manipulative posts (WP:SOCK: ″the misuse of multiple accounts constitutes a serious breach of community trust″). I would therefore suggest to start a serious and open exchange of views among legitimate users, backed up with facts and sources and taking into account the points raised so far. Thanks. --Hvd69 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Although Javier93h have used puppets, it doesn’t give you the reason because the arguments that Javier93 and their puppets have put forward are truthful. Mikel Buesa explicó el significado de la denominación del partido, "Unión porque somos un partido contra la disgregación política de la última legislatura y abogamos por la unión de España sin condiciones, Progreso porque somos un partido progresista de raíz liberal y socialdemócrata y, por otra parte, respetamos la libertad individual y de elección y Democracia porque es el sistema que alberga todas las identidades, podemos ser lo que queramos y lo podemos expresar libremente". [5] (In English: Mikel Buesa explained the meaning of the denomination of the party, "Union because we are a party against the political disintegration of the last legislature and plead for the union of Spain without conditions, Progress because we are a progressive party from liberal and social-democratic root and, on the other hand, we respect the individual freedom and of election and Democracy because it’s the system that shelters all the identities, we can be what we want and we can express it freely"). Irene Lozano also said: “Unión: defendemos la unidad de España. Progreso: somos progresistas y Democracia: somos demócratas radicales" (Union: we defend the unity of Spain, Progress: we are a progressive party and Democracy: we’re radical democrats). Unión, Progreso y Democracia has been used by UPyD on a seat and in a few official documents such as the judicial document. It’s very illogical thinking which the party sometimes uses a name that change the meaning of its denomination, overall in these cases. If you reject moving the title to Union Progress and Democracy because isn’t right in English, you will have to accept keeping the present title. Best wishes!Sombragrís80 (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Javier, please stop setting up new user accounts (sock puppets), and please stop disrupting this encyclopedic project. Your point that the party's name is in fact "Unión, Progreso y Democracia" was discussed with lots of patience and respect, but proven incorrect by no shortage of evidence (both here and on the Spanish article page). You have responded only with insults and manipulation. --Hvd69 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not Javier. The party name will never be Progress and Democracy Union because union refers to the unity of Spain. Please, don't deny it. It doesn't mind that the party uses the name without comma many times because we know that union refers to the unity of Spain. So Progress and Democracy Union is a very bad translate.Sombragrís80 (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Javier93h, Sombragrís80 is now blocked as a sock of Javier93h. It's a shame that Javier continues to engage in this disruptive and dishonest activity, since I think he has an argument here. I'm not convinced that Union, Progress and Democracy is wrong, but would have liked to have seen more arguments presented before making my mind up. Valenciano (talk) 15:06, 16 April 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.

Fundación Progreso y Democracia[edit]

All political parties foundations have in their names the word foundation (fundación). If a foundation hasn't got any preposition and any adjective, the word foundation will simply indicated that is a foundation and next words are the name of the foundation. For example, Fundación Siglo XXI will be in English Foundation 21st century but never Foundation for 21st century, Foundation of 21st century or 21st century Foundation. This is also the case of Foundation Progress and Democracy, the name of this foundation is Progress and Democracy, the word foundation only marks that it's a political foundation whose name is Progress and Democracy such as Party (partido) in Party Family and Life (Partido Familia y Vida), which only marks that it's a political party whose name is Family and Life.

  • Fundación Siglo XXI (Coalición Canaria)
  • Fundación Catde (Convergencia Democrática de Cataluña)
  • Fundación catalanista y demócrata Trias Fargas (Convergencia Democrática de Cataluña)
  • Fundación Gaspar Torrente (Chunta Aragonesista), Fundación Aragonesista 29 de junio (Chunta Aragonesista)
  • Fundación Josep Irla (Esquerra Republicana)
  • Fundación Alkartasuna Fundazioa (Eusko Alkartasuna)
  • Fundación Nous Horizons (Iniciativa Per Cataluña Verts)
  • Fundación por la Europa de los ciudadanos (Izquierda Unida)
  • Fundación L’alternativa (Esquerra Unida i Alternativa)
  • Fundación Estudios Municipales y Territoriales (Izquierda Unida Madrid)
  • Fundación Catorce de abril (Izquierda Unida Aragón)
  • Fundación Zabaldiak (Izquierda Unida Navarra)
  • Fundación Idi Ezkerra (Erker Batua Berdeak
  • Fundación de investigaciones marxistas (Partido Comunista de España)
  • Fundación Domingo Malagón (Partido Comunista de España)
  • Fundación Horacio Fernandez Iguanzo (Partido Comunista de España)
  • Fundación Rey del Corral de investigaciones marxistas (Partido Comunista de España)
  • Fundación Sabino Arana (Partido Nacionalista Vasco)
  • Fundación para el análisis y estudios sociales (Partido Popular)
  • Fundación Ideas (Partido Socialista Obrero Español)
  • Fundación Rafael Campalans (Partido Socialista de Cataluña)
  • Fundación Institut d’estudis humanistics Miquel Coll y Allentorn (Unio Democratica de Cataluña)
  • Fundación de estudios sociales de Navarra (Unión del Pueblo Navarro)Sussie17 (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that is a long list! But it doesn't help with the translation to English, does it? It only confirms the obvious: In Spanish, the word "fundación" comes first. In English, you typically have either "Foundation for XYZ" (eg "Foundation for Marxist Studies") or "XYZ Foundation" (eg "Rafael Campalans Foundation"). Your example "Fundación siglo XXI" is a good case in point: a "Twenty-First Century Foundation" exists in English, but "Foundation 21st century" would be against the norms of English-language usage. The English equivalent of "Fundación Ford" is NOT "Foundation Ford" but "Ford Foundation". --Hvd69 (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that you said it, it seems that the best translate for Fundación Progreso y Democracia from Spanish to English is Progress and Democracy Foundation. However, the case of Unión Progreso y Democracia is different because the name is formed by three unconnected concepts although it doesn't seem because it's written without comma the vast majority of times. I would keep the current title because it expresses the meaning that UPyD really wants to express and doesn't cause confusion with a union of the other two concepts.Sussie17 (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I've reverted the recent edits adding a note to the lead as they're unnecessary. The article doesn't use those names anywhere, so we don't need to prove a negative here, any more than we need to add a note to the lead of the article sky saying that the sky isn't brown. Furthermore, the appearance of yet another Spain-based account, fixated on "proving" what the party's name is, is strongly suggestive of blocked sockmaster User:Javier93h. I've already advised Javier93h on my talk page that he should stop socking and seek an unblock. Until he is unblocked, users will be justified in reverting any likely socks of his on sight. Valenciano (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2014[edit]

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. 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: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Union, Progress and DemocracyUnion Progress and Democracy – The official party name in Spanish doesn't include a comma, and therefore the correct translation of the name in English should not include it Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC) --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)  – Sfs90 (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's merely stylization.Lucy1994 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Lucy1994, it would be very useful if you gave some arguments about that. --Sfs90 (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure that is a question of stylization because the name with comma appears in official UPyD documents [6], in its web page and in a headquarters. That shows that UPyD stylizes its name without comma but the grammar right name is with comma. I say this because it's unthinkable that there are party members who unknown how it's the name of their party. It's a merely stylization without significance. From my point of view, writing the name without comma violates the neutral point of view because it isn't grammatically correct. I think that a encyclopedia cannot use the wrong party name only because the party stylizes it this way. Moreover, that a name in Spanish doesn't have a comma, it doesn't mean that this name translated into English can't have it. Lastly, the explanation of Mikel Buesa and Irene Lozano about the party name meaning corroborates that is only stylization.Lucy1994 (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
In the official registry of political parties, the name appears without a comma. You can search at [7]. --Sfs90 (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The comma is clearly good English and there seems little evidence that lack of it is any more than pure stylisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 7 July 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.

Statements from European Parliament's Directorate-General for Translations and from "Fundéu" (EFE/RAE) on party name[edit]

I was trying to verify Javier93h's claim that the version with a comma was “used many times as party's official denomination” (note 1 in article). The first two references he provides concern the European Parliament. I therefore contacted the secretariat of the EP's Directorate-General for Translation (DGTRAD) (responsible for the correct use of official denominations across all documents of the European Parliament) and have received this response (my emphasis added):
“Thank you for your email. According to our knowledge the name of the Spanish party “Unión Progreso y Democracia” should indeed be written without a comma. Thank you for pointing this out. We are currently working on correcting it in our documentation and seeking to ensure a consistent use of the correct form in the future. Kind regards, DG Translation Secretariat”
I also contacted "Fundéu BBVA – Fundación del Español Urgente", run by the Spanish news agency EFE in cooperation with Real Academia Española, the highest Spanish language authority. Fundéu offers a professional consultation service specifically designed to clear up cases of doubt. This was their response (my emphasis added):
“En respuesta a su consulta Unión Progreso y Democracia: El nombre propio completo, según lo emplean ellos mismos en sus comunicaciones, es sin coma. Saludos cordiales.”
In English: “In response to your request 'Unión Progreso y Democracia': The full proper name, according to their own use of it in their communications, is without comma. Kind regards.”
Summing up: No comma! Adding a comma (in Spanish or in English) is a misinterpretation, however frequently found and however forcefully advocated by Javier93h. --Hvd69 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I hope that with this information all users (including Javier93h and the IPs who are undoing some edits) understand that the name doesn't have a comma. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2015[edit]

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: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Union, Progress and DemocracyUnion Progress and Democracy – Per talk page Sfs90 (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. As before. Does the party's name refer to "union progress" and democracy (which seems to make little sense) or union, progress and democracy, as seems much more likely. If the latter, then the lack of a comma appears to be just a marketing tool. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Besides, it's a marketing which is not always respected by UPyD. (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
UPyD Sede.jpg
It's worth saying that Union, Progress and Democracy is a name much more used than Union Progress and Democracy, too.
  • Oppose. "Union Progress and Democracy" is incorrect English and makes no sense at all. The Spanish and English languages don't use the same word order. The correct translation of the name "Unión Progreso y Democracia" is Progress and Democracy Union. Likewise, "Fundación Progreso y Democracia" (UPyD's own foundation) translates to "Progress and Democracy Foundation". BTW, sockpuppetry stinks. --Hvd69 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless "Union Progress" is a single thing on par with "Democracy", it would be a bad title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2015 (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.

Article title[edit]

There was a strong consensus not to move above at #Requested move 25 February 2015 so I've closed it as not moved, but was tempted to relist and ask the contributors to consider WP:AT, the article name policy, which most (not all) of the discussion there and at #Statements from European Parliament's Directorate-General for Translations and from "Fundéu" (EFE/RAE) on party name above it seems to ignore.

Spanish phrasing is irrelevant, this is English Wikipedia. Official translations are almost irrelevant in the same way as official names, they would only win the day if we did not have any reliable English-language sources. Do we have such? We seem to, and nobody has suggested otherwise.

The first English language reference in the article is currently to a web page at and that page uses Union, Progress and Democracy. The page is the online English version of el país and is well written. It appears to be a reliable source in terms of WP:AT, so that's evidence that the current article name is both acceptable and correct.

Any further move proposal should provide similar evidence that the proposed name is both acceptable and in some way superior to the current name, in terms of WP:AT of course. Andrewa (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The obvious problem is that the very same reliable source also uses Progress and Democracy Union: Once you have two conflicting translations — both appearing in reliable sources — the question of which of them is correct suddenly becomes very relevant. --Hvd69 (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree that this is an important observation, and thanks for that link, but disagree that opinions as to which is correct are particularly relevant. It seems that both could be considered correct, so the far more important question is, which is the more commonly used?
I note that the page cited which uses Progress and Democracy Union is an editorial, rather than an article, and that both this and the article previously cited as using Union, Progress and Democracy use the abbreviation UPyD. Andrewa (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I would fully support a move to UPyD. --Hvd69 (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Why? And that question has two answers at least.
Firstly, are there arguments (probably based on WP:AT and related pages) that lead you to believe that such a move is supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines?
Secondly, are there arguments based on improving Wikipedia that lead you to believe that this move should occur even if it is contrary to current policies and guidelines?
The way forward depends on the answers to these questions. Andrewa (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Why would I support a motion to move the article title to UPyD? Because, in line with WP:AT, it is my strong impression that the abbridged party name is at least as commonly used as any of the longer versions "Progress and Democracy Union" (BBC), "Union for Progress and Democracy" (Economist), "Union, Progress and Democracy" (Telegraph), Progress and Democratic Union (European Institute of the Mediterranean) or "UPyD (Progress and Democracy)" (BBC). This seems to be true both for the English-language context, where UPyD would appear to be more often used, over all, than both the Spanish original (Unión Progreso y Democracia) and the more or less correctly translated versions of the party name, as well as for the Spanish-language context, for that matter. It is my impression (I have not counted or weighted examples) that the vast majority of texts would use any long version only once, referring to the party as only UPyD whenever it is mentioned a second or several times. One example would be the only English text I am aware of published by the party itself: European Parliament Elections 2014: Election Manifesto — here, the party is introduced as "Unión Progreso y Democracia" and subsequently referred to twice as "UPyD", without any translation of the party name — you can find the same practice in this academic text. UPyD as a party name can be demonstrated to exist without any "translation" also in the media, for example as "the small, centrist, UPyD party" (Independent). Furthermore, there is so far no clear agreement on the "established usage" of any of the conflicting long versions, and UPyD would avoid or maybe end the discussion of which of the long translations is the correct one or is more widely used than the other. UPyD would also be compatible with WP:AT on the counts of conciseness and avoided ambiguity. Moving the article to the undisputed abbreviation UPyD would definitely mean an improvement, since the disputed current title is (in my analysis) an incorrect translation of a Spanish original name, albeit one that is being used along the correct translations "Progress and Democracy Union" or "Union for Progress and Democracy". Between "UPyD" and "Progress and Democracy Union" I don't have a clear favourite, but would support a move from "Union, Progress and Democracy" to any of those two. --Hvd69 (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I fully support what Hdv69 said. UPyD is a more suitable name (and undisputed) that would end this discussion. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any ambiguity in the current title, and have some doubts as to the recognisability of the abbreviation. Probably more important, your analysis of the the current title as an incorrect translation of a Spanish original name is faulty. It may have been that once, but it has now by English usage become a correct and acceptable English term, and therefore a correct and acceptable translation of the corresponding Spanish term. (This process occurs with all terms, but far more quickly with proper names like this one, leading some linguists to go so far as to propose that all language originates as proper names.) Andrewa (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You are blurring the line between two very different concepts: a widely used English term and a correct translation of the corresponding Spanish term. I agree that "Union, Progress..." is widely used, but so is "Progress and Democracy Union". The corresponding Spanish term is still the official party name "Unión Progreso y Democracia" of which, as a matter of linguistic fact, the version with an added comma has never been and will never be a "correct translation", as the arbitrary comma changes the meaning, resulting in an inaccurate translation. To quote WP:AT Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. The abbreviated name UPyD is undisputed, widely used and unambiguous. Exactly what doubts do you have regarding its recognisability? I cannot imagine a single academic text discussing this party without referring to it as UPyD. Can you? --Hvd69 (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree totally that they are very different concepts, and that it's very important to distinguish them, and obviously I didn't express myself very clearly if you think I am blurring the line between them!
The correct translation of the corresponding Spanish term is very nearly irrelevant in general. It would only be a candidate as an article title if there were no reliable English sources on the subject, and there are, so it's completely irrelevant in this particular case. Is that clear now?
A a widely used English term is however always a candidate as an article title. Frankly I can't see how I appeared to confuse the two, but I hope we can now put that confusion behind us.
The quote from WP:AT needs to be seen in context. The inaccurate names that are avoided are ones that would lead a reader to think that the article was about a different topic. This isn't in that category.
The question of acronyms in titles is dealt with at WP:ACRONYMTITLE, and it's often controversial as is noted there. My feeling is still that it would be better to spell this one out, on grounds of recognisability, but if you think it's a candidate, perhaps another RM is required. Andrewa (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I still think there is more than one way to read inaccurate in WP:AT. The following sentence in the same paragraph also applies: "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." As has been demonstrated, the present article name clearly has problems, namely that it is a disputed (I would strongly argue: inaccurate) translation of a Spanish proper name, resulting in an irreconcilable difference in meaning to the other fairly common names for the same subject (eg "Progress and Democracy Union"). The problem is that there is no single established name in English, but multiple and even conflicting names for the same subject, due to differences in translation! Only the two original Spanish names "Unión Progreso y Democracia" and "UPyD" are undisputed.
A separate, no less relevant section of WP:AT clearly stresses the importance of accuracy in the context of article names that are translations from foreign languages: "If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader." For article names that are translations from foreign languages into English, accuracy in translation is thus a very relevant principle, at the very least providing useful guidance when, as in our case, accurately translated, fairly common names and a commonly used acronym exist alongside more or less common inaccurate translations with a different meaning. If you think the question of correct vs. non-correct translation is "completely irrelevant" to the question if this article needs to be renamed, I couldn't disagree more. Quite the contrary! --Hvd69 (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)